<-- On Soapbox -->

Just to add my .02 cents worth.

I'll agree with tiered pricing up to a point for support software such as
backup,
database, and other 'system management' utilities.  But when it comes to
software that has been purchased and per 'seats' can easily be counted for,
such as editors, development environments, accounting, and other user
oriented software. Then it should be based on the number of concurrent
'seats'.  Pricing based on tier for this type of software doesn't work for
me.

I was in a situation where the company I worked for had to upgrade based,
not on the number of users running the software, but on the performance of
the software.  When we upgraded, we had to pay the tier increase.  I have
been working on HP3000 computers for 15 years or so, an saw more users on a
Series III running a college (both academic and administrative), than were
on the Series 58 running their business.  I realize that the comparison
might not be equal.  We had to upgrade to a 950, just to get reasonable
response times.  We didn't increase users, or disk space, but because the
vendor only used tiered pricing we had to pay the upgrade fees.  Vendors
aren't encouraged to develop 'efficient' code because users can always give
them more money for the exact same software when they upgrade the hardware.

<-- End Soapbox -->

Rick Feldmann
[log in to unmask]