Re: Another point about Mathematica 8.0
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg116457] Re: Another point about Mathematica 8.0
- From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:34:24 -0500 (EST)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In article <ijdo86$f6n$1 at smc.vnet.net>, "Benedetto Bongiorno" <bongiob at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > It appears that under your business model, innovation will not include the > rights and rewards of ownership. 1) I didn't propose a business model -- I described Wolfram's, as seen by us users. 2) My view of a good business model is one that includes that most sacrosanct of values (the values so hypocritically endorsed by most Repugnicans): some reasonable level of competition. What level of competition does Mathematica face? And, suppose there were two competing products of any kind, of roughly equal quality and price, one which you buy and own, one which you had to license: which do you think would be more successful? 3) I don't think Wolfram is much interested in what my business model for Mathematica would be (and that might be good judgement on their part!). But if they asked, I'd say that I'd like a tiered or modular (or whatever you want to call it) approach where increasing more capable versions of Mathematica were available at increasing price points -- just like most every other product in the marketplace. Of course, this may be impossible for Mathematica, because of the way in which it is fundamentally "all one big, monster program that does everything, and could never be 'modularized'". Well, if true, that's just one of the serious negative side effects of Mathematica's "all one big monster program" approach.