From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:39:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.143653.25862@compu.com>
	fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:

>>Univel Personal Edition:	$450 (2 user, X, Motif, Merge, Netware)

>Reality? A two user licence versus unlimited is reality?

Fine. Then feel free to compare it to ODT, which comes two user.

>>Univel Applications Server	$2,500 (same + unlimited + TCP/NFS)
>
>Double the cost with TCP/NFS is reality? Even if I don't give a hoot about 
>either?

As a standalone, yeah, overpriced. As a network server, its prices next
to SCO aren't that bad 'cause all SCO's network software is unbundled.

>>Consensys Desktop Platform	$400 (2 user, X, Motif, TCP&NFS)
>>Consensys Unlimited Platform	$1,000 (same + unlimited users)
>>Consensys Complete 		$1,525 (same + devsys)

>Are any of these 1/3 the cost of SCO? Where is reality?

The cost of ODT is >$1200. The cost of Consensys (and many others) for
a workstation platform is ~$400. There is reality.

>I still don't see even one unlimited anything at one third the cost of SCO. 

I never said one third for the servers -- I'll leave the exagerations to
Larry :-). But the only company that's more expensive than SCO on base
server systems is Univel.

>That was the point of my post.

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.

>>So, Fred, it appears that most of the R4 vendors offer products for
>>less than your $431 rhetorical price. Even Univel has a low-end product
>>that ain't far from it.
>
>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*.
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.

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.

>>Granted, apples-and-apples comparisons are difficult because of the
>>different combinations. The low-end R4 systems are two users and include
>>X, which would make better comparisons with ODT (more that $1295).

>OK, the next time someone wants to buy a two use system running X you may have 
>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.

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.

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.

>>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.

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.

>Is that the plan for SCO to follow? Just for 
>once turn on the thinking cap and compare the situation. How many people did 
>Everex have for support and development?  How many does SCO have?  Who should
>pay for these people so that their kids can eat?

While the R4 vendors were getting their entire O/S base from USL, SCO was
shopping around to get its file systems from Acer, X servers from Locus,
compilers from Microsoft, TCP/IP from Lachman, C2 from SecureWare, etcetera.

The cost of re-inventing all these wheels, and then integrating them
into the O/S (not to mention each other), has got to be far more than
the cost of maintaining a single source base. That's a philosophical
decision SCO made when it first came out with 3.2, and now the company is
reaping the benefits of --- and paying the price for --- this decision.

The end user doesn't care.

>Since I've never purchased an ESIX OS, I don't know what the reseller paid but
>we are not giving away big secrets here when we say that the ESIX price is
>pretty darn close to SCO's typical dealer price.

The dealer break on SCO is comparible to that on ESIX and Consensys.
Univel's dealer discount is *higher* than SCO's.

The VAR discoount for Dell UNIX is a whopping 4% (and you have to commit
to sales volumes to get it).

Don't know about the others.

I put list prices down to compare apples to apples. If you want to
compare dealer costs, we can play that game, too. Believe me, the
result will be similar.

>SCO has always realized that
>for anyone to sell its products they must have an interest in doing so.  A
>result of that has been a good discount structure to those who carry the
>product.  It seems to have worked rather well in any comparison.

So? Some UNIX vendors have chosen to go the reseller channel, like SCO,
ESIX and Univel. Others, like Dell and MST, go direct to the end-user.
Some, like Consensys and UHC, can't make up their minds ;-).

>>The gap widens between SCO and the others when tacking on TCP, NFS, Merge,
>>and Xsight. Even Univel's server, which on the surface looks incredibly
>>more expensive, costs less than SCO + TCP + Merge, let alone IPX or NFS
>>or Xsight.

>OK. No argument here. Perhaps the first guy on the block can charge a premium? 

As long as he can get away with it. Perhaps that time has passed.

>Surely SCO is not totally stupid and will react to market influence when 
>the need arises.

I hope, for the good of the entire industry, that you are right. But it
will take a major attitude shift by SCO, which has *only* ever acted as
if it owns the entire market.

>In the meantime they still own the block

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.

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.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
What's with all this multimedia stuff? Most vendors can't get *one* done right.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3