On Wednesday, May 07, 1997 2:27 PM, Larry Boyd [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote
>Something was said about MS having the
>most profitable beta program; while the rest of the software world
>practically begs for beta sites, MS charges (one was @$1,200).  Should we
>do the same with our betas?  (Tongue firmly in cheek:)

Now bite!  *OUCH*

I think the idea of am HP Developers program, much like MSDN could be very
worthwhile. Consider that for the annual fee, developers receive a copy of
all the operating systems (with restricted user licenses), interface specs
and libraries, manuals, bug lists, heaps of valuable documents and
publications, and, with the higher levels, even languages and applications
(BackOffice).  Support isn't included, but almost all the knowledge base
info is there to solve it yourself and I suspect most of the people that use
these subscriptions have sufficient skill that it isn't really needed as
much.  (You can still call 1-900-BYTE-ME if you're in a real jam)  All this
is published quarterly (about 60 CDs all up at last count). The main MSDN
Library disk is the one CD that is almost always loaded on a public share
point somewhere on our system...I use it whenever I'm doing any PC related
work, be it with Borland tools, Sybase or even Microsoft.

Now if HP could offer a single package that included latest copies of all
operating systems, development tools, documentation and beta-products, I
would certainly consider paying the same as say Microsoft's Enterprise Level
MSDN subscription.  Naturally I would expect HP to qualify their
subscribers.  But remember HP, unlike MS, makes money out of the hardware
sale as well!

Drawbacks:
----------
1) HP could lose support revenue from a number of sites.  Sites with a
single machine might choose a subscription rather than suppport contracts.
This could be mitigated by restricting HP Developer Program (HPDP) to 10(?)
user limited licences.  As well, HPDP wouldn't cover hardware support, nor
Response Center support (though a 5 or 10 service call feature might be
worthwhile). HPDP could be restricted to one machine per company per
region/country.

2) HP could lose sales revenue on language/compiler products.  Since
multi-system companys may only have one development machine, these companys
may choose a subscription rather than buying the software.  Many commercial
developers may have only a single machine, so they would choose subscription
over purchase.  However, the limited license, single subscription per
company and lack of RC support may ameliorate the problem.

Benefits:
---------
1) It introduces a new revenue stream.  While the amount may not be great,
it should be a no brainer.  If some view it as 'buying' the products for a
cheap price, then since it is annually renewable, then it they are buying it
each year, rather than once.

2) It could result in new sales.  If a company with a single big box wanted
the subscription, then they may choose to buy another small 918LX type box
to run the limited license on.

3) It would really encourage independant developers.  A good carpenter
doesn't blame his tools, but I've never heard of a carpenter yet that can
work without tools (well except maybe a certain one from Galilee).  A vital
and active developer fraternity is needed if the HP3000 is to remain a
viable platform.  Providing these tools will help achieve that.  Look at how
many Microsoft products started life developed by some other 3rd party.  So
why couldn't HP, after stirring the pot, look to benefit from buying in
solutions from an healthy developer community?

Cheers.
----
Jim Wowchuk                Vanguard Computer Services
 _--_|\                    Email: [log in to unmask]
/      \                   Post:  PO Box 18, North Ryde, NSW 2113
\_.--._/ <---Sydney NSW    Phone: +61 (2) 9888-9688
      v      Australia     Fax:   +61 (2) 9888-3056