Conference 7.286::digital

    But they've got better... a few years ago, it wasn't unusual to get
    just a couple of sheets of paper in a box ~30x30x30 cm� !

    Yea, I have sitting here a VAX Fortran V5.8 UPD DOC (QA-100AA-WZ)
    that came in a box (318 x 241 x 32mm - dimensions written on box)
    that contained:
    
    - Part Listing				(1 sheet A4)
    - Dear Software Dev Professional Letter	(3 sheets A4)
    - Read before installing			(1 sheet A4)
    - SPD					(2 sheets A4)
    - System Support Addendum			(3 sheets A4)
    
    This could have easily fit in a large envelope.
    
    Who do we complain to about this perceived waste?

    ** Who do we complain to about this perceived waste?
    
    	Try DELTA

	Oh gosh, don't go to DELTA ....  In my experience, you'll
	start getting "DELTA Update" mail once or twice a week....not
	about your suggestion, just the usual task-force self-congratulation.

	You'll get mail stating "Your suggestion has been forwarded to...."
	about once a quarter.   Your suggestion will be deferred down to
	the lowest common denominator ( perhaps, in this case, the guy
	who sweeps the loading dock ).

	You will get mail indicating the problem has been resolved about
	1-1/2 to 2 years later.  It will read:

	"We have considered your valuable, thoughtful suggestion.  It's
	highly motivated people like you that make Digital what it is today.

	We appreciate your considered input and hope you will continue to 
	use DELTA.

	Signed,

	<some flunky>

	P.S.  We looked at your idea about software paperwork shipping,
	and decided it needed review.  We're now going to use Federal
	Express Premium Overnight service to ship these boxes."

	Bet me this won't happen......any takers ?

	Steve H

    re: .5
    
    "...it is highly motivated people like you that make Digital what it is
    today."   God, what a frightening thought that motivation brought us to
    our current state.  One has to wonder if lack of motivation would not
    have better served us.
    
    DAR

>	Oh gosh, don't go to DELTA ....  In my experience, you'll
>	start getting "DELTA Update" mail once or twice a week....not
>	about your suggestion, just the usual task-force self-congratulation.

	Oooops, I just sent a letter to delta... 

	-Peter (thinking positive)
 

>	You'll get mail stating "Your suggestion has been forwarded to...."
>	about once a quarter.   Your suggestion will be deferred down to
>	the lowest common denominator ( perhaps, in this case, the guy
>	who sweeps the loading dock ).

	:-)

	I'll keep you informed (if there's a result, sometime.)

    
    While we're at it, could someone explain why we still get the
    RIDICULOUS expensively produced Casettes of marketing BULLSH*T
    out here in the field????
    
    BTW, DELTA is nothing more than some VP's way of getting credit for
    *YOUR* idea!  In the old days they *PROMOTED* you for suggesting an
    improvement.  Now they send you a cookie, pat you on the head and
    say "nice doggie"!
    
    -Ed
    
    
    

Re: .5

>	You will get mail indicating the problem has been resolved about
>	1-1/2 to 2 years later.  It will read:
>	"We have considered your valuable, thoughtful suggestion.  It's
>	highly motivated people like you that make Digital what it is today.

I'm curious to guess if the person get TSFO'ed, then will DELTA mail him/her
a letter enclosed in golden big box with congratulation gesture. :-)

	Signed,

Michael..

You could also contact the product manager for the product in question.

-Jack

    re .10
    
    Absolutely!
    
    SOME Product Managers (at least those who work for me) are acutely
    aware of their products' profit margins and how much effect Transfer
    Cost has on those profits.  Some PMs are even reminded of their
    products' performance at salary review time. :-)
    
    Dave

RE: .10

>You could also contact the product manager for the product in question.

You would think that this could halp...  Unfortunately, as I understand
it, the product manager has no control over this.  The SSB (the H-Kit
Business Group) has complete control over kit contents, cost etc.

The product manager can attempt to solve this problem if they want to
go on a crusade, but they have no "special" interest or power in this
regard.  This is another example of the various stovepipes that we have.

If this isn't true I would be happy to be corrected.

Ken Slattery

    Waste?  I love it when we receive our copies (all 10 of them) of
    "Digital Today" ... via overnight Airborne Express ....
                            --------------------------

    ...like clockwork ... every issue ...

    Bubba

re: .12, Ken

> If this isn't true I would be happy to be corrected.

No, it isn't true. At least not entirely. While the SDC/SSB has some control
over these issues, there is nothing to prevent a product manager or even an
engineering group from specifying packaging which differs from the norm.

I know this to be the case because I've been involved with products where
we've worked with the SSB to handle things differently.

Not all product managers are necessarily "incented" to work these issues,
however.

-Jack

    re .14
    
    > there is nothing to prevent a product manager or even an
    >engineering group from specifying packaging which differs from the
    >norm.
    
    True, but realize that any deviation from the norm will likely end up
    costing the product group MORE money, even if the change uses a cheaper
    package.  In my limited experience, the SSB charges a premium for any
    non-standard packaging or procedure.  This group is hardly "Best in
    Class", and if you really want to save money, spend your product
    dollars with outside service groups; you may just end up with better
    service, lower cost, and fewer headaches.  If you have the guts and
    determination to go through the justification cycle that is.
    
    Just a thought.  Your milage may vary, and other opinions are certainly
    available.

>You would think that this could halp...  Unfortunately, as I understand
>it, the product manager has no control over this.  The SSB (the H-Kit
>Business Group) has complete control over kit contents, cost etc.


	I'd love to see a gutsy product manager contract with
	an outside firm for packaging, delivery, kit duplication, etc.

	Care to bet it'd be:

	1) cheaper,
	2) faster,
	3) higher quality

	?

	Steve h

re: 1967.0        Do we still have too much money to waste?
             4 of 8
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              -< Yes! Try DELTA, then post what the results are. >-

Yes, do try DELTA ... DELTA is an excellent program ... one of the
suggestions which DELT has implemented is to reduce the number of copies
of expense vouchers from abou 7 to 3, which would save DEC about some
'significant sum*' of money each year ... *(i don't have the numbers in fron
of me, but I did see it highlighted in "Digital This Week".

Sinc the appearance of that suggestion, some of the users here in MKO generally
print and distribute to each and every person a paper notice if any changes
will be made to the physcial plan (building); events at the healthy baud
center (baud as in phsyical training, not modems) ... and several other
categories. Most of them hit the trash as soon as people see what they are.

Granted, a small percentage of the stuff which gets distributed to every 
persons chair, is about water or power outage .. and this makes at least some
to make people aware of an outage will occur.
But since they use the 'emergency public address klaxon speakers' for
United Way events .. it just seems reaonable they could use this system
for bonafide announcements, a well ?


At home, we call this sort of stuff 'junk mail' .. but least it didn't go
through the US Mail.

It seems real strange in a company with so much investment in electronic 
networks, that the useage of paper  seems to escalate with every major
advance in getting more data to the users screens ...

no one asked .. just my opinion ..
/Bob

    My favorite part of unpacking new equipment with software is to really
    read all the pieces of paper (usually packed in shock-proof containers,
    as mentioned).  There is a BOM in every box that lists literally
    everything.. all the individual pieces of paper (heaven forfend one got
    overlooked), all the individual plastic bags, the bubble wrap (really)
    and my favorite, all the barcode and product stickers on the outside
    and inside of the box.  Oh yes, the BOM is also self-referential - it
    lists itself as part of the contents.  I don't know what I'd do if it
    were missing.  There's considerable CPU and printing time and paper
    waste going on to generate this crap.
    
    And don't get me started on unsolicited glossy flyers, cassettes and
    VHS tapes.
    
    karl
    p.s. DEC 34 3/8, change -1; DJIA 3344.00, change -10.00 at 11:55

Boy, do I agree with those that feel that it would cost more to do the 
right thing. The SSB IMHO does not have as it's main goal to do anything
the cheapest way.

Let me relate an experience with a group that I had when I worked at WMO.
I repeatedly got mail messages from some person requesting that I be sure
to read an article in VTX. In fact, to be sure that I knew what the article said
the mail message almost stated the same thing verbatum.
I replied once to the originator asking that my name be taken off the dist.
list for these messages as I considered them a total waste of time, band width.
I asked "If this is already in VTX, why send, to the entire population of the
plant a mail message that asks us to read the VTX article and also quotes
from it almost entirely"? The response I got was not, to say the least
pleasant. In fact the person complained to their boss (A biggie in personnal).
The response was that the person who published the memo and VTX article(s)
wanted to be sure that everyone read the data, and knowing that not everyone
read VTX the only sure way was to send mail. I stated then that either VTX or 
mail should be used but, not both. To demonstrate what I thought to be a 
ludicrous situation, I then said that it was possible that not everyone read 
mail. So, to be really sure that everyone got the message they should call
everyone on the phone and tell them to be sure to read their mail so that
they could get the message to read VTX. But alas, not everyone answers their
phone, so maybe they should go cube to cube, office to office telling each
employee to be sure and answer their phone when it rings so that they can
get the message to read their mail that asks them to read VTX.
But alas, not everyone will be in their respective cubes either, so in that
case they should leave a handwritten note asking the employee to come to the
persons office, then the message to answer the phone can be given, etc, etc...

Two things happened, 1; At least temporarily the process was changed.
                     2; I think I got labeled as a trouble maker. (-;

    
    Re: .16
    
	>I'd love to see a gutsy product manager contract with
	>an outside firm for packaging, delivery, kit duplication, etc.
    
    It already happens.  There are some number of low volume products
    that do not go through the SSB.
    
    Steve
    

    These notes are being extracted, and will be forwarded to the
    cognizant packaging engineer.  Thanks for the input...mwr

    I don't know what the fuss is about.  Don't you people know that S/W
    must be mailed according to STANDARDS which have been developed by a
    GROUP and cannot be overthrown by some (obviously lesser intellect or
    he would have been on the Committee in the first place) person who
    thinks?
    
    Besides, we take the labels off, then gather (on Fridays) in a clean 
    room to open the "Empty Filler Boxes" and determine their origin 
    through sniffing.  (DECwhine tasting.)  The winner gets to keep the 
    empty box and, if he can pack everything else that came in the giant 
    carton into one or more of the included "Empty Filler Boxes" he gets 
    the next day off.
    

I think a proposal that states facts and doesn't get too emotional will get
listened to by SSB staff more favourably. There are several trends in the
software business for Digital:

- We currently need administratively-tolerant distribution channels to sell
  our sw products. We need to simplify business rules and packaging to help
  the business volumes
- Packaging is currently not sized to take account of shelf space available
  in best-in-class distribution channels or the associated transport to move
  the goods to the ultimate user
- Packaging looks very plain vs most PC/Mac equivalents

I think it'll be fairly easy to build a business case for cheaper distribution,
less inventory space and happier customers without putting our colleagues noses
out of joint. We're in this together!
								- Ian W.

    We used to go outside for kits in the PC hardware business. A year or
    so ago when we were starting up DOS 5 and Windows, SSB was given an 
    opportunity to bid along with several outside companies.  They met
    or beat every other bid we had (A real turn around from a few years 
    back).  They currently produce those kits in PC like (not DEClike) 
    packaging and although I am no longer close to that function, from
    everything I know (I am stillbuilding dependent hardware), they are
    performing satisfactorily.   We have a habit here of continually
    playing "old tapes" so we never see the positive changes that are happening.
    
    -sue
    

re .19:

>But alas, not everyone will be in their respective cubes either, so in that
>case they should leave a handwritten note asking the employee to come to the
>persons office, then the message to answer the phone can be given, etc, etc...

the person in the cubicle could potentionally be illiterate... :-)


re .21:

>   These notes are being extracted, and will be forwarded to the
>   cognizant packaging engineer.  Thanks for the input...mwr

So there's really a chance of change. Thank you!


re .23:

>I think a proposal that states facts and doesn't get too emotional will get
>listened to by SSB staff more favourably.

C'mon, life would be boooooring without of emotions. ;-)
 
>- Packaging looks very plain vs most PC/Mac equivalents

Don't compare with bad examples, look for the _best_ to compare with!
BTW, I never saw a comparable packaging as described in .0 outside of DEC...


re .24:

>    performing satisfactorily.   We have a habit here of continually
>    playing "old tapes" so we never see the positive changes that are happening.

I welcome _any_ positive change. But we (DEC) are spending too much money.
People are tsfo'ed (or however the spelling of the layoffs is). I'm losing
money everyday because of the share price going down and down.

To improve the situation, nobody should hesitate to play "old tapes" as long
as the tunes on those tapes are valid tunes. Even if the sound hurts somebody.

Have a nice weekend,

	-Peter

    Well, i extracted a file that comprised some 539 lines and hacked it
    down the the 72 lines of info the packaging engineer needed to be able
    to investigate an improvement.  What was the comment about filler?  ;^)
    
    And yes, i believe the SSB has gotten a great deal better at doing the
    job.  But remember, most of us don't use the SSB product.  We have
    systems and software engineers who install anything we need to use,
    so we never get to see the thousands of products we build.  Input from
    other notes conferences has already resulted in cost savings.
    
    We are VERY aware that we need to be cost/performance competitive.
    However, we cannot sacrifice quality for a few pennies in product
    cost, or we'll spend it in field support.  When you are facing a
    forecast of SIX MILLION pieces of software media, and i don't know
    how many pieces of paper, manuals and packaging, you have to be
    very cautious that any proposal for a change will not have negative
    side-effects.  I could relate some real horror stories about outside
    replication vendors that didn't know beans about product quality.
    
    So, if anyone out there has a problem with any of our software media,
    please let us know.  We'll investigate and fix it.  Currently, our
    return rate for defective software media is less than one piece a day.
    Much of that is no-problem-found or damaged in handling.
    
    Methods we have developed here have become industry standard machine
    calibration techniques, and we're still getting better...mwr

    Has anyone at SSB considered doing away with the shrink wrap on each
    manual? If the production line would behave itself, a paper band around
    loose pages and nothing around a bound manual would send a positive
    environmental message to our customers.  It would also save them time
    in unwrapping the manuals, money in disposing of our garbage, and
    embarassment at having rows of shrink wrapped, unused manuals in their
    libraries.
    
    Gord - Saskatoon

    The shrink wrap is most likely there to keep the manuals clean during
    handling and storage.  Most manuals are mass-produced by outside printers,
    arrive in corrugated boxes, and are handled during picking (for low vol-
    umes) and carousel kitting (for high volumes).  Given the dust generated
    by coorugated packaging, clothing lint from workers (largest contributor
    now that smoking is eliminated), the dust, dirt, lunch grease and skin
    oils associated with human handling, the only way to deliver unsmudged &
    undamaged manuals is to wrap them.  I think the cost of scarp would far
    exceed the costs of shrink wrap.  Any other wrapping i can imagine is
    bulkier to dispose of, is not transparent, and sheds, contributing to the
    dust.  One thing coming up is replacement of plastic clamshells for flop-
    pies with a paste-board type box with a cutout to view the part#.
    Some time back there was an effort to replace the 3-ring binders of
    the VMS manual set with soft-bound and hard-bound textbooks.  Altho
    the idea was lower in cost, it wasn't accepted.  I have a complete hard-
    bound set of VMS V4, and also have a complete softbound set of VMS V5.
    The main objection was that binders lend themselves to update inserts.  mwr

    When are we going to stop being a publishing house that sells computers
    on the side?
    
    James.

    re: 1967.26
    
    >>We are VERY aware that we need to be cost/performance competitive.
    >>However, we cannot sacrifice quality for a few pennies in product
    ....
    >>So, if anyone out there has a problem with any of our software media,
    >>please let us know.  We'll investigate and fix it.  Currently, our
    
    I agree with the previous replies.  I've always wondered why two pieces
    of paper, such as an updated product SPD and of course the BOM,  would 
    be placed in a plastic zip-loc(TM?) bag and then in a cardboard box.
    
    Why couldn't these "updated" SPD's be mailed in business-sized
    envelopes?
    
    This is not a "once-in-a-while" thing.  It's very common.
    
    "jackin' the house", Bob
    
    

    
    Another big issue much larger than the cost of the packaging
    is what we charge for this Software.  The cost of FORTRAN and
    VOLUME SHADOWING for instance, it so high very few people can
    pay the price.  It is a great incentive to force people to
    use PC's where ever possible.   
    
    Jon
    

>        <<< Note 1967.29 by GIDDAY::FERGUSON "Murphy was an optimist" >>>
>
>   When are we going to stop being a publishing house that sells computers
>    on the side?
>    
>    James.


	  Just as an aside, did you realise that Digital is the
	  second largest publishing house in the world?

	  There's a message there somewhere.

	  Cheers,

		Mike.

Re: .31


had a look at the cost of the licenses for our software lately ?

now there's one very good reason not to buy digital software...

RE:   <<< Note 1967.33 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>
                      -< What ever happened to shareware >-
    
� had a look at the cost of the licenses for our software lately ?
    
    It's always intrigued me that when I buy PC software, it doesn't matter
    to the vendor what machine I intend to run it on, whether an 8088XT or
    a 50Mhz 80486, the price is the same. Digital, however, alters the
    price upwards by class of machine, irrespective of the number of users
    (which also costs, understandably). I realise this generates lots of
    lovely revenue, but how long can we afford to fly in the face of the
    market like this?
    
    Laurie.

now there's one very good reason not to buy digital software...

    

    ...and David Stone knows this to be the case too. One day, all this
    will change...

    re .34
    
    OR the fact, that the price of Fortran is different to the price of
    cobol, isa different to the price of C, etc. A Language is a language.
    
    
    q
    

.26>    i extracted {...} info the packaging engineer needed to be able
.26>    to investigate an improvement.  
    
.26>    However, we cannot sacrifice quality for a few pennies in product
.26>    cost, or we'll spend it in field support.  {...}  you have to be
.26>    very cautious that any proposal for a change will not have negative
.26>    side-effects.  
    
    I wonder if the real problem is mindset.  
    
    For one thing, it's not clear from the discussion in .26 whether the
    proper problem definition is going to be passed to the packaging
    engineer.  Being cautious about the consequences of a localized change
    may indicate the need for a more global review.  For example, if there
    was concern that the existing packaging was required in case there was
    software media included along with papyrus in the package, perhaps the
    real problem is that the BOM explosion/order merge facility is not
    sufficiently intelligent (to accomodate packaging variations based on
    the presence/absence of machine-readable media).
    
    On an even higher level of abstraction, there may be a problem in the
    priority definitions.  Granted that quality is important, and that
    compromises for cost in one area may have greater negative impact on
    other costs, there is still a need to be price sensitive.  
    
    Reading the recent Wall Street Journal story on Compaq's revolutionary
    price cuts, I noticed an anecdote about the effect of priorities on
    price.  Seems that Compaq's engineers discovered they could get better
    pricing on identical parts from the same suppliers posing as a
    garage-shop startup house than Compaq was getting.  Investigation found
    that their corporate purchasing department had "PRICE" ranked as number
    eight on their list of priorities.  Redefining it to a higher priority
    led to better prices from the same vendors on the same parts, for some
    strange reason.
    
    Question is, do we condition our mindset to accept needless price
    penalties when we prioritize price below other items (eg, quality) on
    our scale of values?
    
    --bruce

Re: .33, .34, .35

All you UK people ought to know better ;-) ... well over half of Digital's
software products are available on per user licences, which cost the same
no matter how meaty that hardware is underneath.

If you feel that software is too expensive, talk to me. In the final analysis,
I tweak the software prices for the UK sub...
								- Ian W.

    
    Re: .34 (license fees based on machine size)
    
    Yeah, but PC software is *ALWAYS* single user software.  I can understand
    the rationale of pricing based on machine class because the bigger machines
    support more users.  Seem like a decent comprimise between per-user and
    site licensing.  
    
    BTW, *PLENTY* of software vendors do this.  Oracle does, Informix does
    almost every multiuser database seller does.
    
    -Ed
    

    If you buy Borland's Paradox, they don't care how many PC's you network
    to the host.  Not only that but it's a pretty highly ranked relational
    database for something like $600.
    
    DAR

    
    Well - I never look in here, but got pointed to this particular note...
    
    I am painfully aware that the pricing of VMS Volume Shadowing is less
    than perfect. For historical reasons it is exclusively VAX CPU tiered
    (with no mechanism for per-storage tiering), this can result in unfair
    pricing for some VAXcluster configurations.
    
    I am also aware that this is costing us sales in terms of "number of
    licenses sold". Whether it's costing us revenue is not so easy to tell
    - VMS Volume Shadowing is currently the #2 or #3 S/W revenue generator
    in the Corporation. It makes a very handsome PROFIT - the revenue per
    engineer head comfortably exceeds $10M (admittedly that's hardly a
    valid metric, but it sounds good).
    
    Nevertheless, plans to alter the pricing strategy to make it fairer are
    well under way. This is not as easy as it seems at first glance (can
    you believe it? :-). And, as Ian mentioned in an earlier reply, the
    Areas are free to uplift the price as much as they think the local
    market will bear - European uplifts are not uncommonly over 100% (even
    in the case of Shadowing, so I'm told!).
    
    Nick (VMS Volume Shadowing Product Manager)
    

Re: .41

Indeed, I currently have all the SIPS at 70%+ uplifts ($=pound) in the UK.
If we could get more volume by dropping the price, we'd do it tomorrow;
however, every time we've moved the prices up or down, the volume hasn't
moved... some more fundamental tests of elasticity would be needed ;-)

However, when the business is tight, it's easy to err on the side of making
money on the volume products rather than experimenting too much. Q1 is a
better time to try things...
								- Ian W.

Re: .40

If you buy Borland's Paradox as a single-user version, only one user is
allowed to use it on any one PC at any one time.

If you buy a network/multiuser version, I do believe they still charge
by the number of users (but e.g. a 5-user kit is cheaper than 5 singles).
And in this case you usually install it on a file server on the network.

That's the typical way of doing it in the PC world.

...petri

From:	WMOIS::NOWLAND      "SSB PKG ENG 241-3911"  6-JUL-1992 11:39:24.02
To:	RAINVILLE
Subj:	COMMENTS ON SSB PACKAGING

	MIKE,
		In reply to the memos from:

		COL01::LELIE

		AND

		DANGER::FORTMILLER

	1. We do not use bubble wrap here in WMO and we have not used it
	   for more than a year now, and I do not think we are talking
	   about packages that old.

	2. We do ship this type of package in an envelope, known as
	   Jiffy Rigi Bag.    It may not always happen but I am trying 
	   to make it happen as often as it meets the needs.

	3. Both of the above mentioned memos appear to have come from
	   Europe as the paper sizes in both memos are listed as "A4".
	   We do not use "A4" paper. That is the European size paper.
	   Perhaps the packages were produced in Galway.

	If I can be of any farther help, please ask me.

	Regards,
		 Joe Nowland

re .44

	Nice to learn that at least _somewhere_ something has improved.

>	3. Both of the above mentioned memos appear to have come from
>	   Europe as the paper sizes in both memos are listed as "A4".
>	   We do not use "A4" paper. That is the European size paper.
>	   Perhaps the packages were produced in Galway.

	Yes, you're right, the bill of material says, "European Software
	Distribution Centre (Mervue, Galway)". Sorry, I should've mentioned
	that in .0.

	Galway, are you listening?!

    Thanks for this input.  Yes, Galway are listening.  
    Packaging Engineering at ESSB will examine issues raised
    and reply.
    
                                                         Rgds. DONAL
    

Re: .41
>    
>    Areas are free to uplift the price as much as they think the local
>    market will bear - European uplifts are not uncommonly over 100% (even
>    in the case of Shadowing, so I'm told!).

This sort of thing in the Mac and PC markets leads to:

  1. resentment on the part of those being hit, once they realise they are
     being "gouged" 

  2. so-called grey imports 

  3. software piracy.

I'm not sure how much Digital is affected by this nowadays but I do remember
OEMs in the UK sourcing directly from the US because of the price difference.
They then passed this on to their customers and UK sales lost out, even though
Digital as a whole still got some revenue.

Once the uplift is removed, sales can go up significantly. HP discovered this
with their DeskWriter inkjet printers. In France, they originally sold for
FF11K or so. Sales weren't exactly zipping along. They cut their US price and
set the French price to match, at FF3.5K. They had difficulty keeping up with
demand. According to one rep I talked to last year, if they had realised
earlier, they would have set a lower price from the start. 

It's an interesting dilemma.

Gavin

     Just a few words in repsonse to the remarks on SSB's packaging
    practices... My name is Chip Girouard and I own the Packaging
    Engineering strategies and efforts in WMO (Quality Eng. Mgr.). 
    
     Shrink-wrap, seemingly a waste, is, in fact the most cost effective
    packaging that we know of today to protect single paper sheets, un-
    coverered and covered manuals, etc... It is widely used in the in-
    dustry. Some earlier recognized the fact that dust, dirt, smudges,
    scratches, etc... are the damages we're trying to prevent. They
    are also the most common complaints from our customers.
    
     A quick science fact... Plastics actually take less energy to recycle
    and produce less waste than paperboard/paper products. 
    
     We are pursuing a strategy (Corp. Policy) to move away from plastics
    and pursue paperboard alternatives. Paperboard recyclers are readily
    available.
    
     We have two full time engineers working packaging issue within the
    SSB. For FY92, their efforts returned $1.4 million in savings due to
    efforts in packaging material alternatives (all environmentally
    friendly) and practices (manufacturing). We really do recognize the
    fact that there is a great distance yet to travel, but we're "dancing
    as fast as we can" using prioritization methods, e.g. customer inputs
    and cost reduction opportunities.
    
     All inputs are welcomed and studied. We appreciate folks taking the
    time to provide them. For formal responses and managing inputs, we
    prefer the utilization of the DELTA Program, however. This program
    has prompted us to implement several changes.
    
     One more note with respect to benchmarking the SSB with smaller shops.
    While smaller shops can, at times, provide a more cost effective
    product, they cannot match the service or flexibility that the SSB
    currently provides. These print shops are highly specialized and are
    set up for volume lot production. The SSB demand print manufacturing
    element can provide small and large lot sizes, quick turnaround, and
    at a very economical price.
    
     There is so much more I could add around the efforts that we are
    aggressively engaged in to provide the highest quality and fastest
    turnarounds possible while trying to remain competitive. 
    
     Again, we appreciate any/all inputs. The customers are why we do
    the things we do.
    
       Regards,
    
                Chip

OK VAX DEC/CMS

a fairly basic library management system

The software costs �391

licences range from �1,573 to �101,200


just a bit OTT ?


cut out the cost of the licence and you have a reasonably costed bit of
software with it, I can't see how anyone would consider buying it !

OK, you can argue that only people developing software might use CMS, what
about DECplan ? now that's an end-user tool...

The software costs �553

licences range from �2,970 to �190,900

    Re .44:
    >both memos are listed as "A4"
    
    Mine should have said 8.5"x11" instead of A4.

    .49  re software costs.

    i don't think the cost of engineering and sustaining is included in
    your cost figures and one needs to take those into account when
    figuring the cost of software.  While the actual production cost to
    produce a shrinkwrapped software package may seem low it is not
    uncommon for software to cost more than the revenue it produces.  There
    are not a lot of companies making money from software, even on PCs,
    unless one also includes the service revenue into the analysis.  I
    think that on close inspection one might find that the most profitable
    area associated with PCs is in the service area.  With software piracy
    being as high as it is i can't imagine many firms actually making money
    on selling software.

RE:  <<< Note 1967.51 by SOLVIT::ALLEN_R "there's no tellin where the $ went" >>>

�    There
�    are not a lot of companies making money from software, even on PCs,
�    unless one also includes the service revenue into the analysis.  I
    
    Someone had better ring Microsoft and Borland, and Lotus, and
    WordPerfect, and Micropro, and Micrografx, and Digital Research, and
    Central Point, and Norton, and..., and tell then they're wasting their
    time then.
    
    Laurie.

    well, i figured someone would have to reply with that.  and what
    percent of the total software market do those companies represent?  And
    how many companies that were around at the first Softcon are still in
    business today?  I know that we had so many PC vendors going out of
    business in the mid 80s we had trouble keeping up with retiring their
    software in the old software group.  And why do you think companies
    want to buy their 3rd party PC software (and hardware) through DEC? 
    Could it be that they too have experienced so many developers
    disappearing that they want someone around for more than a year or two
    for support?

Well, writing from the land of Microsoft, I can tell you that not only is
it still around, their revenues recently surpassed Boeing!!!

You can't write that sort of success off.
Maybe it isn't 100% applicable to Digital, but it is demonstrably not 100%
trash either.

Kevin

    
    Regarding software companies: sure there are a lot of little ones
    going out of business and coming into business, but the big ones
    are big and many are quite solid financially. Borland and Microsoft
    are not going to disappear. 
    
    Following article summarizes the top ten software companies. 
    
    
    
WESTBOROUGH, Mass.--(17-JUN-92 BUSINESS WIRE)--Though economic conditions 
remained weak throughout 1991, the Top 100 software companies 
reported software revenues of nearly $14 billion, marking an 
impressive 22% gain over 1990. 

This was reported in the annual Top 100 Independent Software 
Vendor Study published today in Software Magazine's June ``extra'' 
issue. 

Microsoft, with its flagship product, Windows, posted a 58% gain 
over last year, positioning it in the Number 1 spot with $1.8 billion
in software revenue.  Computer Associates ranked second garnering 
$1.4 billion and Lotus rounded off the top three with $828 million in
annual software revenue. 

Software sales also contributed significantly to IBM's and 
Digital Equipment Corporation's total bottom line revenues.  Software
accounted for 16% and 20%, respectively, of their 1991 worldwide 
revenues. 

As the number of jobs nationwide continues to decline, employment
in the software industry is up 12%.  The software industry's 100 
largest independent companies employed 132,305 in 1991, up from 
118,517 in 1990. 

International software revenue growth parallels the figures here 
at home.  Total non-U.S. revenue for the Top 100 reached $6.5 
billion in 1991, up 28% from 1990.  Twenty of the Top 100 U.S.-based 
firms derived more than 50% of their total 1991 software revenues 
from international operations.  Western Europe was cited by 84 of the
Top 100 companies as the most important non-U.S. market. 

Software Magazine is published monthly, with the additional 
Special Top 100 issue produced in June.  It is a product of Sentry 
Publishing Company, Inc., Westborough, MA, which also publishes 
Client/Server Computing and is the parent company of Sentry Market 
Research. 

Top 10 from Software Magazine's June ``extra'' issue of the Top 
100 independent software companies: 


                    PACKAGED SOFTWARE REVENUES
                          ($ Millions)

Rank    Company               Worldwide   Worldwide   U.S.
1991                                       % Growth   1991

1       Microsoft             $1,801.0       58%      $723.0
2       Computer Associates    1,437.8       10        790.8
3       Lotus Development Corp.  828.9       20        406.2
4       Oracle Corporation       661.0       -6        251.0
5       WordPerfect Corp.-(a)    602.5       25        403.7
6       Novell, Inc.             571.0       48        320.0
7       Dun & Bradstreet SW      549.0        2        384.0
8       Borland Intn'l, Inc.-(b) 501.6       20        311.0
9       SAP AG (SAP America)     375.0       42         41.0
10      The Ask Companies-(c)    315.1       63        189.1

Footnotes:
(a)-Privately held company
(b)-Restated revenues include Ashton-Tate acquisition
(c)-Restated revenues include Ingres acquisition

RE:  <<< Note 1967.53 by SOLVIT::ALLEN_R "there's no tellin where the $ went" >>>

�    well, i figured someone would have to reply with that.  and what
�    percent of the total software market do those companies represent?  And
    
    Pray tell, what relevance does that have to the point in question? You
    made the following assertion:
    
    "There are not a lot of companies making money from software, even on
    PCs, unless one also includes the service revenue into the analysis."
    
    Whatever their market share, the companies I named are, demonstrably,
    making money, and lots of it.
    
    With respect to your comments about software companies from the 80s.
    Well, as Digital is discovering to its cost, the whole market,
    especially in the area of PCs, has changed, even in the last 6 months.
    Whilst undeniably true, I don't see that as relevant to your assertion
    at all. The PC market was very immature in the 80s, and lacked the
    technology to really be of use..
    
�    And why do you think companies
�    want to buy their 3rd party PC software (and hardware) through DEC? 
�    Could it be that they too have experienced so many developers
�    disappearing that they want someone around for more than a year or two
�    for support?

    Do you *really* believe that? Do you *really* believe Digital is even
    capable of supporting third-party PC software? I don't, most of the
    comapany still thinks PCs are "toys", and if more of the company saw
    the quality of software out there, especially in the User Interface,
    then VMS software would be very, very different to the stuff we see
    today. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of price.
    
    Laurie.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I think we can support third party
    PC software and do an effective job of it in most cases.
    
    Chuck

    My experience with getting support from PC third party software and hardware
    manufacturers is that often, in the end, I end up with a high phone
    bill and more knowledge of the product than they have.  I usually end
    up solving the problem myself.  In some cases, it is fairly obvious to
    me that the support person doesn't really know the product, but has
    some sort of on-line symptom-solution or information tree that they
    search and provide "scripted" answers.  I have also experienced some
    very knowledgable support people.  My major complaint is not being
    provided with a toll free number and then spending an excessive amount
    of time waiting for a support person or leaving voice mail and not
    getting a return call.
    
    I know that DEC can provide at least this level of service and easily
    exceed it!
    
    

    re: .58
    
    I've bought third party software through Digital; however, I never even
    thought to call DEC if I had a question.  I just looked up the tech
    support number in the documentation and called the software
    manufacturer.  They've always been able to answer my questions. 
    Additionally if there is something that you would like to see the
    software do that it doesn't do some of them actually make a note of the
    suggestion and pass that on to the software development guys to
    consider as an option in the next revision.  I've used mainly Borland
    software and don't know about Lotus, Microsoft, etc. but I would
    imagine they pretty much know how to answer questions too.
    
    Dave

Re: .49

>OK VAX DEC/CMS
>
>a fairly basic library management system
>
>The software costs �391
>
>licences range from �1,573 to �101,200
>
>just a bit OTT ?
>
>cut out the cost of the licence and you have a reasonably costed bit of
>software with it, I can't see how anyone would consider buying it !

Why do they then? Customers aren't stupid. The cost of two programmers changing
the same code at the same time, or maintaining multiple versions of the same
source library, etc, etc will often outweigh the cost of the licence plus
media kit by quite a margin. And if other software producers think they can
price underneath us and make a living, i'm sure they would!

As it is, we booked �585,000 worth of DEC/CMS in FY92 in the UK sub ($723,271
at MLP) ... albeit to 77 different customer accounts. If you have a proposal
that says we could make more profit by lowering the price, i'm all ears!

>OK, you can argue that only people developing software might use CMS, what
>about DECplan ? now that's an end-user tool...
>
>The software costs �553
>
>licences range from �2,970 to �190,900

Same rule applies. It's a free market!
								- Ian W.

    Re: .55 - nice stuff.  Interesting numbers.  Thanks.
    
    Re: .49 or so: DECplan is an end-user tool?  Really?  I must be using a
    different DECplan. ;-)
    
    tim
    

>    Re: .49 or so: DECplan is an end-user tool?  Really?  I must be using a
>    different DECplan. ;-)
    
Yeah, managers use it, so it must be an "end-user tool" :-)    

    Re: DECplan

    My project started using DECplan a couple of weeks ago. It did finally
    give us what we needed, but it was extremely difficult to use.  I will
    recommend it to my worst enemies.

RE. -1
What we need to do, is to give feedback on what is not right with
a product, and what would make it easier, to learn how to use the
product and be more productive. Give this feedback to engineering
in N.H.

That is where the people are to fix the problem. If we do not sit down
and write what is wrong, how are we going to fix it for the customer.
This is where it really counts.

My .2 cents.
Dave