[246] in magellan
Re: Events Calendar progress report, 7/29/99
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim McGovern)
Thu Jul 29 11:55:20 1999
Message-Id: <v03130304b3c6281773b7@[18.152.1.21]>
In-Reply-To: <v03130302b3c6053aba69@[18.152.1.30]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:53:18 -0400
To: "Deborah A. Levinson" <debby@MIT.EDU>
From: Tim McGovern <tjm@MIT.EDU>
Cc: magellan@MIT.EDU, events-team@MIT.EDU
At 10:40 AM -0400 7/29/99, Deborah A. Levinson wrote:
>- Email is unlikely to be an issue with Amplitude, since their mailer is
>SMTP-compliant. However, their pricing model may be completely unreasonable
>for MIT. They charge per publisher ($200 or so), which could be extremely
>expensive given the posting policy we plan to recommend. (With potentially
>over 1,000 publishers, we could be talking about a $200,000 license, which
>makes TechCalendar even more appealing!)
Sounds like we need to have further conversations about the
definition/granularity of the word "publisher" with the vendor.
We often seem to find such differences moving us to home-grown
solutions, and then we're saddled with aging technology for
years to come, rather than being able to stay on the front of
the wave if we choose a viable vendor and product from the
commercial space. I know that vendors often get stuck on their
definitions and world view, so do we. A vigorous mediation
of the two world views, even going so far as engaging uninvolved
resources, might produce very mutually desirable results--Amplitude
have made a sale, and we would have a service up and running sooner.
Tim
P.s. In any case, even though they charge $200pp, at the volume we're
talking about, we wouldn't be paying retail (1k*$200) anyhow, right?
