Hey Bo,
I personally do not see this as NORMAL business. This is a business
charge which has evolved from the OLD VAR and Vertical software
companies and it clearly showed a backlash.
For me, I have absolutely NO need for a VAR,... yet, I have to pay
them a fee,... WHY? They are ****ING USELESS!!!
Personally I think this is the result of sales people who use to work
for ADe$k, PTC,.. and the ****ING GREEDY DICK WADS are not GETTING
ENOUGH $$$ so, the want to RAPE the system. Hey, they've done it in
the past.... they will do it again.
WE ALL KNOW THESE PEOPLE ARE USELESS OVERHEAD S*** SUCKING AMOEBA So,
why do we continue to pay them and why do companies have them????????
Anyway, I have too ask,.. if one of my customers (who I sup****ted for
4 years) decided to go to another consultant for 2 years,.. and they
came back to me after those 2 years,... do I charge them a
reinstatement fee??? Hmm? There is NO ****ING WAY THAT WILL EVER
HAPPEN!!
=2E.
On May 7, 7:22=A0am, Bo <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:46=A0am, jimsym <jim.z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let's put this in perspective. =A0Even with the policy change,
> > SolidWorks Corp is still better than competitors.
>
> > PTC - you must backpay maintenance to the expiration date AND pay a
> > 25% penalty.
>
> > Autodesk - One release behind, pay a $995 Upgrade Fee AND Subscription
> > Service
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Two releases behind, pay a $1495
Upgr=
ade Fee AND
> > Subscription Service
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Three releases behind, buy a new
lice=
nse.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0NOTE: =A0Subscription Service does
NO=
T include tech
> > sup****t
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I prefer the $500 reinstallation fee, but the
> > weeds are still worse on the other side of the fence.
>
> Jim, glad you noted the differences. =A0I don't review other CAD
> packages.
>
> I am NOT against charging a fee to reinstitute maintenance services
> including customer sup****t. =A0That is, well, normal business that is
> known upfront going in on a "deal". =A0There is one part of the deal
> that is NOT revealed when you buy, though, and not a part of any
> "guarantee" or "warranty of fittness"; =A0specifically that the software
> will be stable and not have any broken features (if they are broken,
> leave them out).
>
> What I would like is a fully functional SP 0 on January 1. =A0I simply
> hate paying on January 1, then not loading the application until
> August or September when it gets to SP 5.
>
> If a company can't get the software right until August-September, then
> it ought to be released as SP0 for the following year.
>
> Bo
|
