Re: Charging customers on security

I think the entire discussion so far can be summed up into a few points

1) some people are gullable and will pay "extra" for security
2) some aren't :)
3) you're probably better off not mentioning it at all and just
assessing the needs then building those costs from the get-go
4) while a 'tiered' pricing setup for security may be completely
feasible, it's not very ethical
5) ethics don't matter to everyone
6) it's very easy to exploit the lack of software/security knowledge
of the general public, but you have to realize you will lose some of
the market (the knowledgable part) when you do


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:56:06 -0700, Michael Wojcik
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Jeroen van Drie [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, 30 September, 2004 10:22
> >
> > You can say we live in a market economy and someone is simply
> > going to slap together a few lines of code and offer a lower price.
> > But how many people bought a Yugo because it was the cheapest car?
> > When buying a car, brand, style and safety are deciding factors too.
> 
> Brand and style are readily apparent to the car buyer.  Security is not
> readily apparent to the software buyer.  In fact, it's very difficult for
> even a knowledgeable person to gauge the security of a commercial software
> package.  It's not impossible, but it requires considerable effort even to
> achieve a reasonable estimate.
> 
> > Safety only became an issue when too many people suffered from the
> > lack of it, and software is arriving at that turning point too.
> 
> I believe that if you surveyed car users and software users, you'd find far
> more of the former are conscious of safety issues, than the latter are of
> security issues.
> 
> Judging the safety of a particular car requires some effort, but car safety
> as an issue is readily apparent to anyone who uses a car for any length of
> time.  That's not the case with software - witness the huge numbers of PC
> owners who don't use virus scanners or firewalls.
> 
> > Now is the time to sell your customers a Saab or Volvo.
> 
> My previous two cars were a Saab and a Volvo, but I'm a knowledgeable,
> discriminating car buyer.  Both brands are pretty uncommon around here - as
> are knowledgeable, discriminating buyers.  In fact, they're relatively
> uncommon everywhere.  And that's one reason why Saab is now owned by GM and
> Volvo by Ford.
> 
> And note that, at least here in the US, most specialty car dealerships are
> either combined with, or operating in conjunction with, common-brand
> dealerships.  Few people stay in business by insisting that customers buy
> top quality or go elsewhere.  Boutique businesses are - by definition -
> niche businesses.
> 
> Principles don't pay the bills.  Sales do.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Wojcik
> Principal Software Systems Developer, Micro Focus
> 



-- 
Brandon Niemczyk
http://bniemczyk.doesntexist.com