Subject: Re: Motivating support contracts
From: "William C. Cheng" <william@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:47:26 -0400

Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com> wrote:
 | > If the producer spent $1K on something he/she can only sell to 10
 | > people and the product is only worth $10 to them, the producer
 | > deserves to go out of business.
 | 
 | If you're one of the purchasers, you'll be irritated if you were
 | counting on the company to make a future for your product.  Sometimes
 | you want the vendor to be profitable.

The ``worth'' of the product should take all these into consideration,
although it may be difficult for a purchaser to figure this out exactly.
After one has taken all these into consideration, there's really no
reason one should spend $100 on something that only worth $10, unless
one is in a charitable mood.

 | > If it turns out that the producer sells 1000 copies, should he/she
 | > send a $9 refund to each of the purchasers?
 | 
 | Why not?  Financial transactions at web-hit prices open up a whole new
 | world of possible arrangements between buyer and seller.

It's difficult and costly to continuously refund/recharge customers.
The web-hit example doesn't really fit because it's not doing
refund/recharge.  A company doesn't have to (and shouldn't) go out of
its way to be fair to all the customers it has ever dealt with.
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@acm.org <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>