Well, I held off getting into this debate as long as I could.  There is one
aspect to this discussion that hasn't been covered yet, that is near and
dear to my heart.  Perhaps the easiest way to describe is by example.

Let's say I have a 957 that is running my business applications.  For sake
of simplicity, let's say that is MANMAN with the following modules,
manufacturing, order processing, general ledger and accounts payable.  I now
decide to add field service and project tracking.  Because of adding these
two new modules, I am "forced" to upgrade my CPU to a 967.  I am suddenly
faced with paying an upgrade fee on the original four modules of the MANMAN
package.

WHY?
I have not added any users to the group that use these modules.  I am not
getting any more "value" from the use of these modules.  I have purchased
more software from the vendor, made a larger committment to them, and now
must pay even more for that priviledge.  Does something seem strange about
this to you?

Granted this is specific example, but I bet that every IS manager can think
of somewhere in his/her world that follows this model.  I understand and
appreciate the point of view of the vendors  who use Tier based pricing as a
way of making their product affordable to smaller shops, but there are some
real problems when the model is applied with no room for discretion.

Terry W. Simpkins
Lucas Control Systems Products
(804) 766-4278        [log in to unmask]
***************************************************************
**  The "UK" in my mail address does NOT mean I have moved.  **
**  It just means I am cheap, and use the gateway at another **
**  Lucas site instead of putting up one of my own.          **
**  Opinions here are mine only, not my employers            **
***************************************************************