I did not state that the OSS software was not useful or cost effective for a larger firm. Where did you get that from my post? I was simply stating how it affects small firms like mine who have 5 - 25 employees--I want to use OSS, but it is not (always) a responsible financial move, imho, for smaller firms.
Instead of Zimbra, I would use Scalix free edition. Scalix has done the licensing right--get the smaller firms to use your product and become familiar with the featureset and benefits without charging for its use (charge for support) for firms with less than 25 users. Scalix is affordable for smaller firms, Zimbra is not.
My only comment was to state how I thought Zimbra was leaving something on the table. However, I should have thrown in the Scalix example in the first post.
Again, I didn't say that enterprise-class businesses would not be better served using OSS...
I don't think the question stated OSS 'companies' do not have to pay anyone. The question was simply why is the cost so high.
For instance?
1. Zimba - Professional Edition
"The Zimbra Collaboration Suite Network, Professional Edition pricing starts at $35/user/year with a minimum of 25 users. Additional users are $28 per user per year and can be purchased in 25 user blocks. The Professional Edition includes the Zimbra Connector for Microsoft Outlook and includes updates and software subscription."
Why are they not selling to small firms that do not require 25 seats? If the software is stable and does not require much overhead, then the cost is in setting up the system for each firm, and the monthly fees after that are 'gravy.' I feel, and I admit to wanting to use this type of software and finding it not economical for me or my firm, that these firms would have a broader user base (one or two very large clients leaving will not affect the bottom line) than if they concentrate solely on large firms (25+ seats).
2. Exchange Hosting Solutions - Exchange Server hosting (no minimum seats but discounts for 50+ seats)
Microsoft Exchange 2003 $12.95 per mailbox per month with 100MB disk space included.
"Microsoft Exchange 2003 Hosting Accounts include all of the features to unleash the power of your Outlook client software. Including Powerful Anti-Virus Protection and serious investments in Spam protection and control. We will provide you a brand new copy of Outlook 2003 client software with License to install and use on every computer that connects to HostLabs hosted Exchange 2003 Server."
Even if I paid for 1GB additional storage at $49.95 USD at Exchange, my cost is:
>br/>
Exchange $629.00 USD.
I would think Zimbra could sell smaller firms their product with less seats being required so long as the rate per box is met. If not, Zimbra may not be competative in the market.
Mr. Lantos:
Are you actually saying China is like Nazi Germany? The record I have seen states you did not vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status. However, the United States of America Congress DID vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status rather than reject that Status and add tarifs to Chinese products? Why don't you argue that the United States of America Congress is like Nazi Germany? Or is it?
Counsel
This story was news on October 7, 2005.
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
:P
I did not state that the OSS software was not useful or cost effective for a larger firm. Where did you get that from my post? I was simply stating how it affects small firms like mine who have 5 - 25 employees--I want to use OSS, but it is not (always) a responsible financial move, imho, for smaller firms.
Instead of Zimbra, I would use Scalix free edition. Scalix has done the licensing right--get the smaller firms to use your product and become familiar with the featureset and benefits without charging for its use (charge for support) for firms with less than 25 users. Scalix is affordable for smaller firms, Zimbra is not.
My only comment was to state how I thought Zimbra was leaving something on the table. However, I should have thrown in the Scalix example in the first post.
Again, I didn't say that enterprise-class businesses would not be better served using OSS...
Counsel
I don't think the question stated OSS 'companies' do not have to pay anyone. The question was simply why is the cost so high.
/>
For instance?
1. Zimba - Professional Edition
"The Zimbra Collaboration Suite Network, Professional Edition pricing starts at $35/user/year with a minimum of 25 users. Additional users are $28 per user per year and can be purchased in 25 user blocks. The Professional Edition includes the Zimbra Connector for Microsoft Outlook and includes updates and software subscription."
Why are they not selling to small firms that do not require 25 seats? If the software is stable and does not require much overhead, then the cost is in setting up the system for each firm, and the monthly fees after that are 'gravy.' I feel, and I admit to wanting to use this type of software and finding it not economical for me or my firm, that these firms would have a broader user base (one or two very large clients leaving will not affect the bottom line) than if they concentrate solely on large firms (25+ seats).
2. Exchange Hosting Solutions - Exchange Server hosting (no minimum seats but discounts for 50+ seats)
Microsoft Exchange 2003 $12.95 per mailbox per month with 100MB disk space included.
"Microsoft Exchange 2003 Hosting Accounts include all of the features to unleash the power of your Outlook client software. Including Powerful Anti-Virus Protection and serious investments in Spam protection and control. We will provide you a brand new copy of Outlook 2003 client software with License to install and use on every computer that connects to HostLabs hosted Exchange 2003 Server."
Let me, a firm with 10 seats, compare:
Zimbra [35 * 28 =] $980.00 USD
Exchange [10 * 12.95 =] $129.50 USD
Even if I paid for 1GB additional storage at $49.95 USD at Exchange, my cost is: >br
Exchange $629.00 USD.
I would think Zimbra could sell smaller firms their product with less seats being required so long as the rate per box is met. If not, Zimbra may not be competative in the market.
Mr. Lantos: Are you actually saying China is like Nazi Germany? The record I have seen states you did not vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status. However, the United States of America Congress DID vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status rather than reject that Status and add tarifs to Chinese products? Why don't you argue that the United States of America Congress is like Nazi Germany? Or is it? Counsel
While interesting, the story was orignially posted on October 7, 2005. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/atampttoliveonaft ermerger;_ylt=Avf4IFty2dopj_e3AxOV_GEjtBAF;_ylu=X3 oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl