We're in the exact same boat you are, and if we need to buy more licenses,
it will hut us slightly (15%). But gas prices go up too, and my car never
seems to go any further when I pay more for the gas, so I guess we'll all
just have to suck it up.
I can actually see Autodesk's point, but I disagree with them. The way I
see it is that they should at least try to find a happy medium that offsets
their lost revenue, while still offering me a benefit. At a 15% surcarge,
the network license needs to allow me to save one license for every 6 users
(ie, there's a negligible cost difference between buying 7 licenses, or
buying 6 network licenses). Unfortunately, that is not the case. We're in
an odd position at the moment, since we have shrunk, and actually have 8
license for seven drafters. But I think that this is short term. Based on
data from our busiest period, I think we license management doesn't really
allow us to omit a license until our tenth or 11th drafter. In that case, a
7 or 8% surcharge is closer to a break even point for us.
A better idea, I think, is that Autodesk could use ADLM and FlexLM to
encourage license compliance for small firms. From anectdotal comments, it
seems to me that firms that need four or five licenses are very prone to
having an extra copy or two. Autodesk and the BSA have some pretty good
sticks that they use to go after firms that do this. And really, no one
should need a reward for obeying the law. But, it would b a nice thing if
Autodesk worked to make it a little easier for small and medium size firms
to be able to afford 100% license compliance. Microsoft, for comparison,
actually offers price breaks beginnig at 5 licenses (not big price breaks,
but every little bit helps).
Why not offer a small discount for the networked version, as a means of
encouraging compliance (the carrot that goes along with the litigation
stick) Give a 5% or 10% discount to firms that adopt FlexLM? Has anyone
ever done the study to see if that sort of token discount would cause people
to buy the licenses they need, rather than illegally copy the software?
"Newsgroups acct" wrote in message
news:B8D5E920.E00%imark.REMOVE@sbcglobal.net...
> Yes, when I said small firms will not get any benefit I meant compared to
> the benefit they get from the current network license. We already use
> network licensing instead of standalone licenses in order to reduce the
> number of licenses we must own, just as in your example. But if the new
> policy is for real, our costs will go up without any increase in benefit.
> Mark Nienberg
>
> in article 90715C26904369A65AD65FBB0365A545@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb, Kevin
Nehls
> at kevinn at safeworks dot com wrote on 4/4/2002 4:52 PM:
>
> > Actually small firms can still benifit even if they are not in multiple
> > timezones.
> >
> > For instance, you have just 20 users, but only need 15 lics. We'll use
the
> > price of $3000/seat.
> >
> > If you got standalone lics (before or after this goes into effect),
you'd
> > have to pay $60,000 (plus tax) for all your acad lics.
> >
> > If you got network lics before this goes into effect, and you only
purchased
> > 15 lics to float around, that's $45,000. You just saved $15,000.
> >
> > If you got network lics after this goes into effect, and you still only
> > purchase 15 lics to float around, that's $45,000 + (15 * (3000 * 0.15))
=
> > $51,750. So you've still saved $8250. But, now you've also had to pay
an
> > extra 15% just for the network lics. Of course there is a break away
point
> > where it would be cheaper to purchase all standalone seats instead of
> > network based seats.
> >
> > Just to set the record straight. I'm not trying to justify what might
> > Autodesk do, info came from Tenlinks so I question it's validity. I'm
just
> > trying to show that even small firms can benifit from using network
based
> > lics instead of standalone lics.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin the Rogue
> >
> >
> > "Mark Nienberg" wrote in message
> > news:B52A679111037D22203D08F18986784F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >> If I understand it correctly, large firms with multiple locations can
> >> benefit by putting all their licenses in the same pool, perhaps
reducing
> > the
> >> number of licenses they own. Firms with locations in different time
zones
> >> will benefit the most. Of course, small businesses without multiple
> >> locations will not get any benefit but will pay more for the licenses
> >> anyway. Is that it?
> >> Mark Nienberg
> >
> >
>
