"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Q6OdnS7eOqM6E_7enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> > "Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> > news:q3u6m11fu38h979efvi13s59vl76aa1ot4@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:36 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> >> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the
> > factory
> >> >is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
> >>
> >> Of course the difference is that the Ferrari cost money to make
> >> wheras copies of software involve no cost to the manufacturer.
> >
> > Yes and no to that one: you recoup your development cost from your
> > expected sales. Until you make that back, you're down (I'm utterly sure
> > that you well understand this, but I'm trying to make it crystal clear
to
> > everyone..)
> >
> > In other words, if you invest $1m developing something and expect to
sell
> > exactly two, a price of less than $500k is going to leave you in
trouble.
> >
> > Expect to sell 100k of 'em, and you can start the bidding at $10 plus
your
> > profit, cost of capital, etc. If, OTOH, you expect 90% of the 100k users
> > to be using pirated copies, you set the price a bar higher, at $100. So
> > that the 10% of legitimate users end up footing the entire development
> > bill.
>
> Here in the United States the insurance companies used the same claim that
> "bad" drivers were jacking up the costs for "good" drivers. The started a
> points system and behold, people started getting in less accidents and
> making less general driving infractions (speeding, etc). Now, they want to
> change the points system to a system based on your credit (even though
your
> credit has nothing to do with your driving skill). So, what is the point?
> The point is that companies will use any excuse they can to justify
> increasing their profits (including bold faced lies)

Firstly, apologies for letting that post sit on the screen for a while
(didn't see your reply)

Funnily enough, this system - known as the No-Claims Bonus - has been in
operation for a fair few decades (longer than I've been driving, which makes
it more than 20 years old). The latter system - variously tried, but only
really properly implemented during our current regime - is used for driving
fines: the severity of a sentence depends upon the ability to pay, rather
than the actual crime.

As Jim says: politics, rather than a comment on pricing.

I still stand by my comments, though - software piracy /can/ push up costs
for honest users, and can also be used as excuses for profiteers.

Just to add a twist to this: excessive piracy /could/ (stress "could") also
have a major impact on professionally-written Open Source software and
freeware.

Put it this way, if the Industry starts to implode at a greater rate, then
I've got the choice of coding to eat, or of changing careers to make ends
meet. Can't see much scope in that for giving up spare time to generate
software that I'll simply give away... same with many other people in the
Industry.

H1K