2 ms·
> If you’re making $25mil in revenue why is it out of the question to pay for licenses? Turn it around: the kind of company that makes $25mil in revenue does s
by belfalas 4y ago
> If you’re making $25mil in revenue why is it out of the question to pay for licenses?
Turn it around: the kind of company that makes $25mil in revenue does so in part by figuring out what expenses it can negate or avoid. If they don't have to pay for licenses, they won't.
Completely hypothetical anecdote certainly not based on personal experience working in the Bay: an Ops director who saved 50% on MSFT server license costs by only paying for the servers in the DC acting as current primary. "They are not taking production traffic so they are not in use, ergo no need to pay."
As an engineer this logic may disgust you but it's the kind of thing that gets you promoted and 'in good' with "the business."
PS. It's a similar principal to your filthy rich relatives who are surly misers and share nothing with everyone. (And they have no sense of humor, too!)
- shkkmo 4y ago> the kind of company that makes $25mil in revenue does so in part by figuring out what expenses it can negate or avoid. Cutting expenses has no direct impact on revenue. For many companies, it is better to have small recurring expenses than to take on certain types of risk.
- xani_ 4y agoThe cost for the license would be more than the cost for the hardware to run it tho. We're talking literally doubling, maybe more, of the costs.