4 ms·
You are right that pricing on costs is not how it should work. A better pricing would be based on the value created. In this case however the value created corr
by sly010 10y ago
You are right that pricing on costs is not how it should work. A better pricing would be based on the value created. In this case however the value created correlates to the man hours saved (vs. e.g. managing instances manually without the tool). And since manually managing a large instance is not more work than managing a smaller one, there is no additional value created, so the pricing logic is unreasonable.
- crpatino 10y agoValue created has its own sets of problems. Customers with very basic use cases are not entitled to preferential pricing - i.e. Microsoft is not interested in offering big discounts to people who use the Office Suite as a "TV typewritters". Rather they should select a tool that better matches their needs. On the other side of the spectrum, "value added" can be used as an excuse to charge more money to wealtier customers. Using the same example above, Microsoft should not be able to charge a million dollars for an Excell license that is used by financial wizards to make billion-dollar decisions. The potential is there in the tool, but most of the value added comes from the expertise of the user.