Oh, You Wanted "Awesome" Edition

July 1, 2009

We recently upgraded our database server to 48 GB of memory -- because hardware is cheap, and programmers are expensive.

Imagine our surprise, then, when we rebooted the server and saw only 32 GB of memory available in Windows Server 2008. Did we install the memory wrong? No, the BIOS screen reported the full 48 GB of memory. In fact, the system information applet even reports 48 GB of memory:

sodb1-system-summary.png

But there's only 32 GB of usable memory in the system, somehow.

sodb1-taskman-memory.png

Did you feel that? A great disturbance in the Force, as if 17 billion bytes simultaneously cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. It's so profoundly sad.

That's when I began to suspect the real culprit: weasels.

marketing-weasel.jpg

No. Not the cute weasels. I'm referring to angry, evil marketing weasels.

weasels-ripped-my-flesh.jpg

That's more like it. Those marketing weasels are vicious.

We belatedly discovered post-upgrade that we are foolishly using Windows Server 2008 Standard edition. Which has been arbitrarily limited to 32 GB of memory. Why? So the marketing weasels can segment the market.

It's sort of like if you were all set to buy that new merino wool sweater, and you thought it was going to cost $70, which is well worth it, and when you got to Banana Republic it was on sale for only $50! Now you have an extra $20 in found money that you would have been perfectly happy to give to the Banana Republicans!

Yipes!

That bothers good capitalists. Gosh darn it, if you're willing to do without it, well, give it to me! I can put it to good use, buying a SUV or condo or Mooney or yacht one of those other things capitalists buy!

In economist jargon, capitalists want to capture the consumer surplus.

Let's do this. Instead of charging $220, let's ask each of our customers if they are rich or if they are poor. If they say they're rich, we'll charge them $349. If they say they're poor, we'll charge them $220.

Now how much do we make? Back to Excel. Notice the quantities: we're still selling the same 233 copies, but the richest 42 customers, who were all willing to spend $349 or more, are being asked to spend $349. And our profits just went up! from $43K to about $48K! NICE!

Capture me some more of that consumer surplus stuff!

How many versions of WIndows Server 2008 are there? I count at least six. They're capturing some serious consumer surplus, over there in Redmond.

  • Datacenter Edition
  • Enterprise Edition
  • Standard Edition
  • Foundation
  • Web
  • HPC

Already, I'm confused. Which one of these versions allows me to use all 48 GB of my server's memory? There are no less than six individual "compare" pages to slice and dice all the different features each version contains. Just try to make sense of it all. I dare you. No, I double dog dare you! Oh, and by the way, there's zero pricing information on any of these pages. So open another browser window and factor that into your decisionmaking, too.

I don't mean to single out Microsoft here; lots of companies use this segmented pricing trick. Even Web 2.0 darlings 37 Signals.

BaseCamp pricing

Heck, our very own product segments the market.

Stack Exchange pricing

37signals just does it .. prettier, that's all. They're still asking you if you're poor or rich, and charging you more if you're rich.

Eric Sink also advocates the same "rich customer, poor customer" software pricing policy:

In an ideal world, the price would be different for every customer. The "perfect" pricing scheme would charge every customer a different amount, extracting from each one the maximum amount they are willing to pay.
  • The IT guy at Podunk Lutheran College has no money: Gratis.
  • The IT guy at a medium-sized real estate agency has some money: $500.
  • The IT guy at a Fortune 100 company has tons of money: $50,000.

You can never make your pricing "perfect," but you can do much better than simply setting one constant price for all situations. By carefully tuning all these details, you can find ways to charge more money from the people who are willing to pay more.

This sort of pricing seems exploitative, but it can also be an act of public good -- remember that the poorest customers are paying less; with a one-size-fits-all pricing policy, they might not be able to afford the product at all. Drug companies often follow the same pricing model when selling life-saving drugs to third-world countries. First-world countries end up subsidizing the massive costs of drug development, but the whole world benefits.

What I object to isn't the money involved, but the mental overhead. The whole thing runs so contrary to the spirit of Don't Make Me Think. Sure, don't make us customers think. Unless you want us to think about how much we'd like to pay you, that is.

And what are we paying for? The privilege of flipping the magic bits in the software that say "I am blah edition!" It's all so.. anticlimactic. All that effort, all that poring over complex feature charts and stressing out about pricing plans, and for what? Just to get the one simple, stupid thing I care about -- using all the memory in my server.

Perhaps these complaints, then, point to one unsung advantage of open source software:

Open source software only comes in one edition: awesome.

The money is irrelevant; the expensive resource here is my brain. If I choose open source, I don't have to think about licensing, feature matrices, or recurring billing. I know, I know, we don't use software that costs money here, but I'd almost be willing to pay for the privilege of not having to think about that stuff ever again.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm having trouble deciding between Windows 7 Smoky Bacon Edition and Windows 7 Kenny Loggins Edition. Bacon is delicious, but I also love that Footloose song..

Posted by Jeff Atwood
226 Comments

Oh the irony.

Did you employ the same weasels to segment the StackExchange market?

http://www.stackexchange.com/

;)

Martin on July 9, 2009 9:16 AM

Hi Jeff,

You couldn’t be more wrong on this one. In fact, your observation resembles that of the misguided developer in "Code: It’s Trivial" who sees only one aspect of the situation. You’re overlooking the economics of selling bits.

The marginal cost of selling 1’s and 0’s is next to nothing. Pricing isn’t based so much on the cost of goods sold – it’s based on what a customer would be willing to pay. In other words, how much value does it give them. Of course, the software maker needs charge enough to recoup the cost to build the software along with a some profit – or they won’t be making software for very long (this is true whether it’s web-based or an installed product).

So the software maker has to guess at a price low enough so that customers will be willing to pay it but high enough to provide a positive return on the cost of development. This isn’t easy. Since the software will not deliver the same amount of value to every customer, they try to differentiate the product at various price points to match the amount of value delivered.

Market segmentation is as core a principal to marketing and economics as code reviews, testing, etc. are to software development. Anybody reading this who gets a paycheck should know that it is being funded by a sale of some *thing* to some customer – a customer who has been segmented and targeted and marketed-to. To write it off as exploitive is misguided. After all, if there’s one thing every software engineer should know is how to market. You said so yourself. :)

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001177.html

Matt on July 10, 2009 2:26 AM

Linux. Or Solaris. Seriously.

Kalle on July 10, 2009 2:51 AM

Hilarious! Enjoyed this one

Ted on July 10, 2009 6:09 AM

There are also the brain-dead captains of industry who never buy anything if it costs too little, because only something with a big price tag must be worth having. That's how IBM and EDS and others sold products for years. Make CEO's feel like they're buying NASA and that only scientists could make a product and that's why it has to be soooo expensive because it's soooo good.

David Robbins on July 13, 2009 4:21 AM

here's where it hurts:


The cheaper Windows Vista Business would have allowed you to use 128 GB of RAM.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

fred on July 13, 2009 10:36 AM

I wonder what Eric Sink means by "ideal world" regarding prices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
"In a theoretical market with perfect information, no transaction costs or prohibition on secondary exchange (or re-selling) to prevent arbitrage, price discrimination can only be a feature of monopoly and oligopoly markets[1], where market power can be exercised."

That would be my perfect world. :)

Jani on July 14, 2009 7:02 AM

Let's see, you have a 48 gig of RAM server running an application with 100's - 1000's of users and you thought it was a good idea to buy the cheaper Standard version instead of the appropriately named Enterprise version and wonder why some things don't work.

Jeff on July 20, 2009 2:54 AM

@ Chris on July 8, 2009 1:02 AM
>@ all FOSS MSFT bashers
>The day that a linux distro is on the majority of computers in the >world is the day that you can tell me it's better.

Not sure this computes but never mind.

>Oh yea, I also want to be able to pick my hardware, not be limited to >1 platform (Apple) or have to browse eosteric sites to find a driver >for a part (linux).
All my hardware worked out of the box.

>One of the things that made MSFT is it's acceptance of the rubbish. >It would render all websites regardless of standards comformance (IE >up to 6)
Isn't it rather that a lot of site were built to be IE "compliant"?

>and would run old hardware with dodgy drivers (XP).
I like my XP box :)

>The main reasons people are leaving MSFT is because IE7 and 8 start >showing error messages when they come across dodgy coding
don't know about that
>and Vista required a reasonably new machine to run instead of a piece >of junk that's been sitting in the garage for years.
Must agree with that, I do try and grab my old pieces of junk before they gather dust though.

Thing to consider is:
if you take any segment of population, you will have a fairly constant percentage of idiots, be they MS/Linux/Macistosh fanboys (applies to any other arbitrarily chosen segment based on any criteria too)

PS: I like the recaptcha: groups humor
:)

Anonymous on August 5, 2009 2:22 AM

I have to disagree with this a little. There are many areas of life where this is true, it is not the product itself but the use that the product is put too that ultimately defines it's value. A lot of software is sold on a per-seat basis, so the more users, the more you pay. Now the software isn't different, it doesnt have a special add-on to make it work with more people, you're just paying more because you're getting more use out of it.

If I rent a movie and watch it at home with a couple of friends, it costs me £7'ish. If a cinema or pub wished to show the same movie, they would pay a fee based on the size of the establishment. The movie is not special because it is in a cinema or pub(Although the cinema copy costs more to produce, this is still far below the extra they pay). You might say, "Well yes you moron, it could potentially earn the establishment more profit", but then apply that to servers, charging for the amount of profit they produce, and it all of a sudden makes no sense.

Similairly with the extra charge for more memory(And that is not the only difference, which you failed to mention), you are no doubt now using the server for more than you were before, so now you are paying more. There are probably quite a few more examples, I'll leave it up to you to think of some.

Tony Cheetham on August 18, 2009 12:18 PM

I have to disagree with this a little. There are many areas of life where this is true, it is not the product itself but the use that the product is put too that ultimately defines it's value. A lot of software is sold on a per-seat basis, so the more users, the more you pay. Now the software isn't different, it doesnt have a special add-on to make it work with more people, you're just paying more because you're getting more use out of it.

If I rent a movie and watch it at home with a couple of friends, it costs me £7'ish. If a cinema or pub wished to show the same movie, they would pay a fee based on the size of the establishment. The movie is not special because it is in a cinema or pub(Although the cinema copy costs more to produce, this is still far below the extra they pay). You might say, "Well yes you moron, it could potentially earn the establishment more profit", but then apply that to servers, charging for the amount of profit they produce, and it all of a sudden makes no sense.

Similairly with the extra charge for more memory(And that is not the only difference, which you failed to mention), you are no doubt now using the server for more than you were before, so now you are paying more. There are probably quite a few more examples, I'll leave it up to you to think of some.

Tony Cheetham on August 18, 2009 12:19 PM

Your problem is letting WINDOWS run your server. Windows is probably the single worst choice for servers. Get Linux or BSD on there, you'll be glad you did. You know, operating systems actually designed for servers.

If you run a server with Windows, you deserve all the bullshit that is likely to happen on that server. I promise you. That server's likely been cracked and infected more times than a cheap hooker because you're running it with Windows Server, not to mention Windows is too slow and unstable to be effective at it.

Anonymous on September 26, 2009 1:25 PM

If you want to run a server, DO IT RIGHT. Doing it right involves actually taking time, to all you idiots who keep saying it's time consuming to set up Linux or BSD on a server. The difference between those two and Windows is that THOSE TWO don't suck at running servers. In fact, they're the two best choices!

Anything worth doing takes time. If you're too lazy to take the time to set up a server or maintain it correctly, don't get into server administration. You run a server on Windows and something happens, I'll laugh at you instead of helping you, then I'll say "You should have put a real server OS on that server, not a desktop OS that pretends to be a server OS."

It's not a programming/hardware issue, its an OS issue. Windows, even the so-called "server" editions, are NOT truly designed to run servers. For Windows to actually be meant to run servers would entail an actual complete redesign from what it actually is. It retains way too much of its desktop mentality even in the server editions to ever run a server nearly as well as Linux or BSD.

So what if it takes time? If you wanna run a server with good uptime that doesn't get compromised and can actually WITHSTAND a heavy process load, you'll stay as far away from Windows as possible as it just simply can't do it, and you'll use your brain and realize a good server will take time to set up and maintain. It's not a god-damn desktop, people.

Anonymous on September 26, 2009 1:36 PM

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

Wow gold on September 29, 2009 12:46 PM

@Brizian:

> OS X also only comes in awesome.

...Are you serious? Quicktime won't even let you play fullscreen video unless you pay Apple an extra $30 right off the bat! Not to mention the whole let's-make-upgraders-pay-an-extra-$80-for-basic-photo-organisation-capabilities thing.

Simon on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

I will pay WHAT THEY ASK, just give me Windows 7 : the Danger Zone edition!

nagnatron on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

Jeff it sounds to me like you're shuffling towards the open source epiphany.

I too used to be a very hard core Microsoft guy - a total believer in Bill Gates and the "Microsoft Way".

The epiphany came years ago when I was bashing my heag against Windows NT's networking and a friend turned up with Linux **on a CD on the front of a magazine** and installed a powerful internet gateway onto a spare machine at home. I looked at the blue screen of death, looked back to linux, looked at the price tag and a big switch flipped in my head.

anon on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

If they want more money out of you, they should at least be smart about it!

Imagine if, on boot it said: "Your machine has more memory than this edition supports, click here to upgrade to the next cheapest alternative."

Computers are *really* good at answering those sorts of questions automatically. Why labour the human operator with trying to work out where they fit on that matrix? Just do the calculation for them and recommend an upgrade!

Simon Johnson on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

@Jeff

> Do you *really* believe those extra 10 GB and 65
> projects cost 37signals $50 a month to deliver
> to you?
> Similarly, do you *really* believe that the cost
> of supporting 48 GB of memory versus 32 GB cost
> Microsoft $1000 per customer to build?

There's a difference between 37signals artificially crippling 37signal's service and Microsoft artificially crippling /your/ memory; if you can't see that Jeff, you're blind.

But in the end your only recourse is to vote with your dollars. Spend the money if you think it's worth it.

Simon Wright on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

This sort of thing pushes people toward illegal software sharing as well. For some software, the _only_ simple way to get the awesome edition is to download a cracked torrent. The awesome edition, unlike any of the versions that are for sale,

- doesn't require the CD in the drive (e.g. lots of games),
- doesn't refuse to operate when your net connection is down just because it can't check with a licensing server (ditto),
- runs on all the different language versions of your OS (e.g. lots of Microsoft stuff),
- doesn't require you to manage separate licenses for each tiny little plugin (e.g. Wolfram stuff)
- doesn't get confused, sometimes counting installation on multiple OSes on a single machine as multiple machines, sometimes not (Wolfram again)

Tom the Baker's Son on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

@Alex

You completely missed my point.

Simon Wright on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2008

This is the Server 2008 memory analysis, you should Ideally be running Entrprise edition, as for the cost well if you email microsoft

callback@microsoft.com

They'll ne anle to tell you how to purchase a server expansion which is basically an upgrade disk that patches your standard edition to Enterprise edition.

Anton on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM

a prime example of prime discrimination. which is legal!

Danny Juarez on April 14, 2010 6:44 PM

My idea how you can live with both Windows and Linux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVhesowJHi4

Easybow on July 24, 2010 7:44 AM

@ Brooks M.

1. The difference between "source code" and "binaries" is irrevelant. They all end up working the same way, after all.

2. Nobody in their right mind (except package managers / noobs) would download a binary to a Linux program.

3. "Something that just works" is subjective bullcrap put out by OS vendors I shall not name. For me, Slackware "just works". I don't know nor care about what "just works" for you.

4. And "without using your brain" is becoming a thing of the past with autoconf and automake and...

Adam Marchetti on July 26, 2010 6:00 AM

Thanks for your comment, you've inspired me.
keep posting comments.

Spruce Squad on October 23, 2010 1:30 AM

«Back

The comments to this entry are closed.