CyberStretch - "It is a well proven fact that volume sales at reduced prices will effectively preserve a profit margin. (Hence the existence of volume pricing for corporations, academia, government offices, etc.) Generally, businesses "overprice" their products with this very thought in mind."

It is also well known that under pricing a product too much causes problems in some markets. For instance, there is no way Poser would be taken seriously in the professional 3D world if they were say, $69... and the hobbyist market may not be large enough to take up the slack.

If it WASN'T complex then companies would simply price all software at $5 over cost of unit production and sell a copy to everyone in the world.

Obviously there are other factors beside price that effect unit sales. That means that the lowest price possible is not always going to translate into larger sales.

CyberStretch - "In my experience, companies are very much entrenched in their own needs and necessities far before any recent college graduate is offered a job; unless the company is a relatively new startup. Therefore, although this population may recommend products, unless it fits into the companys' business model/projections, the recommendations will fall upon deaf ears and are thereby ineffective."

In some areas? Sure. In others... not so much. I work with several development houses that will allow a graduate to use almost any tool they want as long as the job gets done and the final work can be saved in a common format (PSD, EPS, PDF, OBJ, 3DS etc).

So those students who learned 3DS max in school due to educational pricing DO sometimes translate into sales at the back end.

Obviously the software need to meet business needs - but there is often more than one solution that will meet those needs.

CyberStretch - "Unless the world is different from where I stand, I do not see "Corporate America" bending over backwards to accommodate the recent college graduates' choice for software vs well established business necessities. The companies I have worked for all have their own internal methods of determining what best fits their business needs, and this is generally powered by the company's vision of the future and their current portfolio of products and services. These decisions are usually made on a level that the recent college graduate would hardly know exists, nevermind influence."

Your point does not conflict with mine :)

When a company is determining what "fits their needs" one of the questions asked is how much training will be needed? Can we find skilled users? IS this standard... can we get support and consultants if need be?

A educational program that results in a large pool of skilled users of an application means that the answers to some of those questions is usually favorable :)

CyberStretch - "In addition, hiring managers are given specific information on what to look for in potential employees. Unless the recent college graduate has the desired skills for the available positions (aka they were trained, to an extent, for the job in college), chances are negligible that they would be able to infiltrate a company and influence their buying habits."

You misunderstood my point. When a company is developing those guidelines, or as they implement them they will realize that many applicants are already skilled in using "X" as opposed to "Y". All other things being equal, they will then use "X" to lower their total cost per employee on training and/or salaries will be lower do to competitive pressure among candidates.

CyberStretch - "Perhaps, then, it is time for a change. It only stands to reason that the more people you get accustomed to Product X, the more likely that Product X will be chosen as the de facto product to use."

Please use that in answer to your own question on educational pricing :)

Again, since customer pools are clearly NOT infinite, a company must offer discounts where they will do the most good (large companies, students) for their market share and have higher prices for average users.

That's life. And it is fair even if it isn't equal :)

Jack D. Kammerer - "Yes. It is a definate fact that Poser is often times hacked/warezed. However, as someone else pointed out in another thread (I think it was Ironbear), those individuals would've never bought the software in the first place...

[snip]

...So hacked copies of a software package doesn't really count as a "Loss" since 9/10's or more of the people who steal it would never pay for it in the first place."

A few thoughts. The first is that WindowsXP has proven to me (and others) from personal, eye-witness experience that a good copy protection scheme will result in pirates purchasing legal copies.

Now, if you'd like, you may be able to make a case that an OS is an exception... but I don't think so. I know of 3 licenses for 3DS Max that were purchased because the "hacked" versions would not operate after an update from discreet was installed. The management was simply tired of dealing with the hassle and made a call... purchasing 3 legal copies.

The point is, that even if 9/10 would not buy the software... that last 1/10 will. And the revenue from them only need to offset any development cost and customer problem support cost to be worth while.

And then there is another important issue:

It is not immoral to attempt to make it harder for people to steal from you. it does not make you "evil" or "greedy" to dislike being ripped off and to try and prevent it.

Piracy hurts sales. I am not sure why there are folks who want to try and pretend this isn't true, but it is.

Jack D. Kammerer - "Rather than making the customer jump through flaming hoops of Activation Codes, convoluted EULA's that are questionable, would it not make more sense to adopt a practice that Retail Chains have adopted and seems to work. Granted, most software totals more than $100, so the 10x's principle would have to be adjusted, say $500. I think many warez distributors would think twice before possibly getting caught distribution something that could cost them a fine of $5,000.00 and/or jail time."

The penalties are already much more severe than that you know. Federal jail time, federal criminal records and the potential for huge fines. This deterrent may be stopping some pirates but it sure isn't stopping many.

We live in a time when people seem to feel that piracy is their moral right. That any attempt to prevent it is evil and wrong. Look at the screaming hordes trying to manufacture a moral defense for trading MP3's and warez on Napster and like systems.

troberg - "For instance, I would not feel guilt for using a copy of (for example) lightwave, since I's probable only play with it for a while a couple of times each year, and there is no way I's be preparared to pay their high price for that."

Like stealing the neighbors car - it's not wrong if you only do it every now and then? The problem with piracy is the moral grey area many people convince themselves they live in. If we ever wondered if the average human would steal if they wouldn't get caught... now we know. The answer is yes.

Piracy is stealing. If you are going to steal, fine... I can't stop you. But at least admit up front that you are stealing. At least face it. At least be proud :)

This "yeah, of course I stole it! Hey, if they don't want me to steal it they should bribe me into buying it (lower price)." thing is bizarre to me.