From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:07:35 GMT

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>The only point you've made is that SCO is competitively priced if all
>you want is an unlimited-user, non-networked server for character-based
>terminals. Add networking, DOS emulation, Xwindows, or a development
>system and the gap widens considerably.

Halleluja. We have reached consensus. I keep talking of exactly that and I 
keep hearing about development systems which our customers simply don't want 
or need. They wouldn't know C from B. 

>>We do want to compare an OS with the same number of users, don't we?

>Why? You haven't been playing fair either, Fred.

>It doesn't seem to matter to you that all the other products besides SCO
>are way cheaper *when including features that aren't important to you*.

WHEN including features that are not wanted, needed or part of the discussion 
except by force of habit. 

I could quote a $16,995 number for Informix on-line for 16+ users. But the 
most I will ever run is 10. Too bad you need to buy the unlimited 256 user 
version. Doesn't make sense, does it? Let's talk about what we need to run an 
application and not bring in the goodies that folks here would like to have. 
It's the only way to compare apples with apples in the real world.

If I need NFS etc etc SCO is more expensive. That is not news. Pricing is 
their business and when they lose marketshare because of price, they will 
surely meet the competition head on. In the meantime they are using their 
headstart and recovering some of the cost of the arrows they had to pluck out 
of their backs. 

>Now I answer your challenge, by mentioning products lacking features that
>you happen to want. What if a user doesn't need an unlimited-user license?
>With other companies, the cost is indeed one-third SCO's.

In that case we buy Xenix and it would no longer be 1/3 of anything else. BTW 
there is a two user SCO license too if you want to get technical on UNIX.

>You've conveniently tailored your criteria to a single subset of needs
>from a UNIX system, which is conveniently the only subset (out of all
>the possible combinations) where SCO is competitively priced.

See above. The 'discussion' started with the 256 user MPX scenario where 
supposedly SCO was way over priced etc etc - I challenged that opinion. I 
mentioned that a 30 user SCO UNIX license for just plain UNIX costs less than 
even 30 individual DOS licenses. That does not seem overpriced to me. We can 
forget the multi-user LAN connectivity cost completely in any price 
competition with SCO. We beat any network anytime by a wide margin.

It is my position that SCO offers value to the marketplace which that 
marketplace has recognized over the last many years and still does. I have no 
argument with the statement that an ODT environment is expensive. I just don't 
see that as a problem for us.  


>>a point. That's not what we're talking about though.

>I'm talking across the board. *You* are the one who wants to limit the
>comparison to one narrow set of desired features.

That is what I was talking about. Others kept bring new and irrelevant other 
product features into the discussion. I kept saying SCO costs $1295 and get 
banged on the head for it because ODT costs more. Screw ODT. If somebody wants 
it, let them pay for it or go to the competition for a cheaper product. It's a 
free world. I just keep asking what that has to do with SCO UNIX and a typical 
30 user system.


>What it boils down to is value and flexibility. Buying a package with
>more options than you need (for the same price or a little higher) allows
>easier expansion or system changes.

If that is the product we are looking for - yes. But if I want a four-door 
sedan I will not shop for a convertible just because some day I may wish to 
lower the roof. That is a different product for people who want that kind of 
flexibility.


>You were talking in another thread about unprofessional ways to hook up
>200 people. One neat way I can think of to hook up that many terminals,
>is by snaking a single Ethernet through the office walls, and put
>departmental terminal servers wherever necessary. The software capability
>to do this is bundled into every base UNIX server except SCO's.

Yes, it would be. And who would pay for this wonderful system that sneaks 
around the place? There is no Santa Claus in every company's DP budget. Some 
people wish to use what they have but simply get a more powerful micro to 
replace a bigger, more expensive Mini. They want to use the savings from the 
maintenance bill to pay for the micro itself. They want to spend less money, 
not more. 

It is the way of the real world to cut back and expect more. We can do that 
nicely with an MPX box and everybody is happy.



>>>The only vendor which unbundles in a manner which makes a real A/B
>>>comparison valid is ESIX, which has an unlimited-user runtime without
>>>networking. ESIX lists that at $784 (60% of SCO).

>>No wonder they went bankrupt!

>You are welcome to state cheap shots and half-truths to make your point,
>but I don't think anyone except other crusaders is falling for it.

Falling for what? That they didn't charge enough. That's been a given at 
Everex for years. The whole division was a terrible mistake and drain on their 
business.  Truth may hurt, cheap shot or not.



>a) ESIX did not go bankrupt, in fact right now its state is healthier
>   than its former parent, Everex.

>b) ESIX's problems are not in its pricing. The new owners have stated an
>   intention to *drop* the package cost in ESIX's next major release.

I hope you saw my note about how they sold this moneymaking division. :-)
Since the new owners were paid to take it off Everex's hands and are on a 
commission basis, they have nothing to lose, do they?

>No question that SCO blazed the trail that the others are following
>here.  But the momentum SCO has by being first one in, is now being
>challenged by others.  Some are smaller, leaner, and more flexible, while
>others are big enough to challenge the dominance through marketing and
>dealer channels.

I suppose this message will be faced by the new board. I just hope that the 
European influence does not do too much damage. Prices over there have 
historically been the breadbasked of profits. The world does turn a little 
different here.


>When was that last time SCO *ever* reduced a price? The day this happens
>will be the day SCO finally recognizes there are other kids on the block.
>And some of these new kids aren't intimdated so easily.

No argument here. On the other hand I still don't think a run-time is 
expensive even now. We would not be able to be more than competitive if it 
weren't. We eat LANs for breakfast. :-)

fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3