Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > >CD vendors shunning Debian CDs as a difficult product to make a profit on
> > >is not what I would call "not making a difference in the long run".
> > Them buying too much of *ANY* stock is their problem. They should order
> > less. You're translating that, incorrectly, to "order none."
> When a minimum run (at a profitable price break) is 5000, and that leaves
> me holding 2500, when the next release occurs, my only choice is to not
> buy any. The other choice is to buy 2500, at twice the price and still
> make no profit. Neither of these options makes money, so if I'm smart (at
> you keep demanding) I will not distribute Debian.
Ok. I didn't know what the break point was.
> If we want $1.99 Debian CDs available to the masses, we will have to give
> the vendor the ability to vend.
As posted elsewhere, is $8 for a gold 2-disk set v $2 for silver going
to put the price point beyond a significant market share? (The only
other arguments are for silver disks in books. Noone has meantioned
that part this time around...)
> In most cases I would agree with Steve that we should not be involved in
> the marketing aspects of this product, as that isn't our goal. Let others
> do this for us, like the CD vendors. In this case, however, I see benefit
> to users with no lying or misrepresentation, and no reduction in
> information about which edition of the release is being sold/purchased.
The real question is "Are vendors _really_ telling the consumer?" Is it
on the outside of the packaging, or on their web site? If so, I have no
problem with it. The problem is when I go 'shopping' and cann't readily
determine the version because the 'forgot' or 'didn't think it was
"significant" enough' to print.
Just curious -- Greg.
What do you want to spend today?
Debian GNU/Linux (Free for an UNLIMITED time)
Greg Vence KH2EA/4