> Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and > proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. There's *really* no > excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right. *eye roll* Really? You wasted 36 words on this?
> And if you've *collected* that $316,472 from the one customer, it's somewhere > between sleazy and skanky to include that $316K in the costs that need to be > amortized over the next N sales of the software. It's neither sleazy nor skanky. It's called profit. I get what you're saying, but it's a silly argument because, while you're not going to bill the same "hours" (as a unit) twice, you sure as hell are going to bill over and over again for the same work...you'd be stupid not to. On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2012 14:13:01 -0700, Mike Hale said: > >> > "But you *may not* tie your >> > price to the hours used to produce it for the first." > > The above was William Herrin's comment (quoting level fixed by me). > > Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and > proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. There's *really* no > excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right. > >> Sure you can. How else do you determine what the software's going to >> cost if you're not going to factor in development? > > You missed the point - having given customer #1 an invoice that included > a line item for 1,432 hours of R&D at $221/hour, you're treading on thin > ice if you present another customer an invoice that includes a line item for > the same 1,432 hours of R&D (absent an agreement between the two > customers to share the costs, etc). > > And if you've *collected* that $316,472 from the one customer, it's somewhere > between sleazy and skanky to include that $316K in the costs that need to be > amortized over the next N sales of the software. > -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
