Pricing 2

[CALocklin]

RE: Pricing 2

I wasn't quite sure which message to attach this to so I stuck it on the end. Sorry if it doesn't "flow" well.

For those that want to deploy a cheap web app, are you really sure that it is necessary for every customer to have the app on their own server??

Most people who use PayPal have not installed the PayPal application on their own server. In fact, when you click the Pay Now icon for PayPal it takes you to the PAYPAL server. At that point you are actually on a different server than you started from until you finish making a payment and then it sends you back (so to speak) to the original server. Most users aren't even aware that this is happening.

I plan to make an app available to all of my Trak-It SP users (an application designed specifically for companies that install real estate sign posts) that will be hosted on one server but used by anyone who signs up for the service. If they have an existing web site, they can simply add an icon to that site that will take their customers to the Trak-It SP site.

One server, one WAS, many users.

Each user will have their own copy of the app because the data and lookup tables will all be unique. Organizing it so every company's data is stored in one copy of the application might be possible but would be a nightmare to create and to support. (Let's see, I have 50 companies and I need to delete the existing status info for company #5, pack the data, and append their new status. Hmmm, could be some problems here.)

Of course, in this case, as in any other hosted solution, there will be a small monthly charge but that's usually easier for them to swallow than a large initial fee plus the cost and hassle of owning and maintaining their own server. And, by the time I actually do have 50 users, I will probably need to have a second server - gee, there's a problem I can live with.

Let's assume they save only one hour per day (probably more like 4) of data input time at $5/hour by using this service. (Good luck getting $5/hr. help.) That means that even if they pay what I would expect to be a terribly high price of $100/month they would still break even - $5/day times 20 work days in a 4 week period equals $100. On the other hand, if you are deploying an app that doesn't save your customer time or have some other real value, then are sure it's worth doing?

If it's not possible to deploy an app this way, somebody please tell me NOW.

Cal Locklin
www.aimsdc.net

RE: Pricing 2

I thought the point of using Alpha products was to make our lives and the lives of our customers easier. WAS, based upon function, has the ability to do that for almost any of our customers. But, if the license model doesn't allow us to use the product in the best way we see fit for our customer, then it won't sell and Alpha has failed those potential customers.

For example, my customers are the 5-20 user network at a church or other non-profit. They won't be able to justify a $699 increase to my regular app price. Then why not move to an ASP model and host the apps myself? Because I don't think that is best for my customers and I don't think I should be forced into something that I don't think is best for them. And why make it more difficult than it has to be just because of a decision on the licensing.

[DaveM]

RE: Pricing 2

I use IPowerWeb and hope they will get setup for alpha if any is needed. 125 a year is cheap i think and that includes my domain name.

Dave

RE: Pricing 2

Just an FYI and slightly off subject, Alpha no longer lets you purchase an unlimited runtime. It is now a custom runtime and pricing will be calculated upon request.

[Ray]

RE: Pricing 2

Hi Marcel,

Utility computing and ASP (application service providers) is becoming more and more of a reality, design an application for the web and host your self in-house or (COLO) and charge a monthly fee 'best return" to use the Application.

19.95 A month X 35 customers 698.25 a month, the potential for revenue is enormous in the example above
you make the 699.00 back in one month, of course you would have to use different figures to calculate what your monthly service would be.

Just my 2 cents
Ray

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Tom,

As always sharp deduction.

If Alpha can develop and market a product that is better or at least as good as the competitions product AND cheaper, they did a better job then the competition.
(If that is a good summary of your statement).

Yes. That is to the point and correct.

The product can be better then competition, lower priced, and still unavailable to a section of the market.
You can say "Well, not everybody can buy a mercedes either". That's true, but you could also seek for a solution where the technology would become available to that section of the market as well, thus increasing sales possibilities, maybe with some limits implemented.

If competition does not do that, the Alpha product will not only be better and lower priced but also available to the whole market which would improve sales changes above those of the competition. That is in my humble opinion it would.

Of course the decisions are not with me but to be made by the Alpha Board, but I think worries can be ventilated.

Kind regards,

Marcel

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Hi Glen,

Hmm. That is right. I do see the point you are trying to make. And of course there is still the question whether web based functionality would mean something in low-priced of shelf applications.
But that choice now needn't be made anymore because it is already made.

Of course when you create large applications for companies with internet capability they can enroll the $699 easily into their budget. I fully see that.

My worries are not for those clients.
My worries are for those who have a small budget and buy my product of shelf against low cost.

But indeed, you are right, would you use the Webfunctionality there ?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know yet.
Question now is whether it is worth while to seriously do research for the answer to that question if you know upfront that it will be to expensive to implement ?

There are more points of view to this then mine only though, don't think I don't realize that.

Still, it is a good discussion.

Regards,

Marcel

[Tom Cone Jr]

RE: Pricing 2

Glen,

Your last point resonates with me.

What's missing from these 'pricing' threads is any discussion of the cost to deploy equivalent functionality with other vendor's products. Instead of focusing on the cost to deploy an internet based database solution with WAS, why isn't anyone considering the savings that WAS seems to offer? Isn't this what will drive the pricing in the marketplace in the end? If the equivalent functionality is available through other products at lower cost won't that be reflected in reduced sales at Alpha?

I don't consider myself knowledgeable in the web app development business, but it seems to me that if the pricing structure is lower (significantly lower?) than the cost of competitive products (singly, or in combination) then why shouldn't Alpha derive a return on its investment? If the cost to deploy is more than the benefits to be derived from deployment no one needs to purchase, right? If the cost to deploy is significantly below the current marketplace offerings, why would anyone think Alpha would be interested in lowering it further?

-- tom

[glenschild]

RE: Pricing 2

Marcel

I suppose another question would be, just who would benefit from having an application internet based as opposed to extranet based? An instant reaction would be the larger corporate client who arguably would treat a $699 additional investment as acceptable for the size of the project.

But, I then consider my own scenario where I do not market a product to sell off the shelf but use the system for the work that I do for clients. In my situation I can see a desired route towards going internet based but this would only be for one client initially and the only way this would work would be if I hosted the WAS myself. That would then give me the ability to add other clients to the same server, ultimately cutting the cost but in the first instance I would have to pass on the cost to this client and before doing so would have to convince them that the investment would be worth it.

This whole area provides a massive expansion in potential revenue streams and I guess as with any "new" initiatives will take time to comprehend.

One thing I do know is that one client I work with created a web based service for it's clients which was database driven. That service cost them a serious amount of money to create. The backend database functionality costings were built into the overall spend and a cost of �699 would have easily been incorporated into that!

Regards

Glen

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Hi Glen,

Yes, that is true. It is a different ballgame.
Though I do see similarities with the Runtime issue.

With the Runtime strategy, one could develop an application which costs $10.000 development costs.
Lets assume there are $2.000 license costs involved totalling it to $12.000. You can earn that back by selling 10 products for $1200 each or you can choose to sell 1000 for $12 each. That's all fine.

Now the WAS comes. Suppose you would like to upgrade your standard software with internet capabilities.
You would need a WAS for every server, thus every customer, thus every product (in this example).
The product priced at $1200 would be raised to $1899 (which is 158%) and the product priced at $12 would be raised to $711 (which is a humble 5925%).

Needless to say you can not implement the new features in the $12 product. You can in the $1200 product, if the customer will accept 158% price raise which you could be able to communicate having then internet capabilities.
But that will not be possible for the $12 product.
Of course the price of $12 is ridiculous, I know that, but I made at black and white to show the difference.
And it is not only a price issue either.

When I sell of shelf in a store, I could not create a ready-to-use product because the customer would still need a license for the was.

So there is more then one issue here that worries me.

Greetings,

Marcel

RE: Pricing 2

Thanks Glen because that is what I intend for the customers who wish to access their data online.

[glenschild]

RE: Pricing 2

Chris

That is correct, the license is per server.

Regards

Glen

RE: Pricing 2

I have been reading all the "pricing" threads and am now more confused than before! If I have a WAS licence (which I do!) and install that licence on my server with A5V6, I can run mulitiple applications e.g. I have 5 customers all with their applications hosted on my server, I only need one WAS and one licence to run this?

[glenschild]

RE: Pricing 2

Marcel,

I sort of get your argument but with some added comments.

With the current unlimited runtime options available, this enables the developer to deploy an application across a network allowing access to the app for anyone on that network. I can see the correlation for a company to use it's intranet and WAS thus enabling anyone within the intranet access for a web interface.

However, that same WAS could then be used on the web giving access to anyone with an internet connection. Is that not a totally different ball game?

Maybe I am totally off base here but I see it as 2 totally different scenarios, the first of which correlates to an unlimited runtime (without the overhead of installing the software on each workstation) and the second being a whole different ball game.

Does this make sense? It does to me but then again I am no expert?

Just my thoughts from across the water, the English Channel that is :-)

Regards

Glen

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Hi Donald,

I think your situation deserves support.

But there is also a marketing side to it.
If Alpha would be able to get the WAS license into the Runtime fee they would be able to draw the complete market to them. That could also be a consideration for them to do it.

Regards,

Marcel