[p4] Multiple clients - single user

[Jeff A. Bowles]

Completely true. One hopes  that, eventually, thesecond-generation effect
takes over:
The folks who were using Perforce at company A move to
company B, which buys Perforce for them. Eventually, the
piper gets paid.

The lack of hassle for "different platform" binaries is
a strong point, also.  There are some fine products on the
market (I'm thinking Purify in the 90's as an example) that
were expensive for the first license and expensive for that
second license to run it another platform. (Really expensive.)
Perforce did not play that game.

That's been a consistent selling point.

  -Jeff Bowles

On 6/15/07, paul goffin <paul.goffin at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > But...  Not every "company" in the world takes software theft
> > seriously - and it just seemed to me that it's a strange decision to
> > make the license based on per-user rather than per-client when sharing
> > a user technically is possible and presents no problems from a
> > functional point of view - hence my question.
>
> The absence of "per client" licensing is a significant part of the
> marketing model of Perforce.
>
> Many of their competitors (and certainly their biggest historical
> competitors) charge per seat and then extra for each additional
> OS supported, additional servers, proxies and so on.  That's a
> nightmare to manage (trust me!).
>
> Perforce's model is simpler - each human being must have a license.
>
> That simplicity means they can be defrauded, but obviously the
> level of fraud is sufficiently low that Perforce can still make
> a living.
>
> And many people consider it's not the product you're paying for with
> Perforce anyway (you can get something nearly as good for free) but
> it's the quality of the support.
>
> Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
>



-- 
---
Jeff Bowles - jeff.a.bowles at gmail.com