Mathematica Professional: £2,035
Mathematica Home Edition:   £195
Mathematica for Students:    £23

Note carefully the fact that each price contains a different number of 
digits in it. This is not a typo.

So, if a student can by Mathematica for £23, all the other home users 
are being charged 847% more, and the professionals are being charged 
8,847% more.

Alternatively, the home users get it 90% cheaper, and the students get 
it 98.88% cheaper.

The only plausible conclusion is that these are not the same product. 
There's no way in hell you can charge one group of people almost 90 
times the price that you charge another group of people unless the thing 
you're selling to them is actually different in some way. (And yet, the 
website insists that all three products each contain "all of 
Mathematica's features".)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> The only plausible conclusion is that these are not the same product. 

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html

It burns! IT BURNS!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Mathematica Professional: £2,035
> Mathematica Home Edition:   £195
> Mathematica for Students:    £23
> 
> The only plausible conclusion is that these are not the same product. 
> There's no way in hell you can charge one group of people almost 90 
> times the price that you charge another group of people unless the thing 
> you're selling to them is actually different in some way. (And yet, the 
> website insists that all three products each contain "all of 
> Mathematica's features".)

Think of it this way:  'our software costs x% of your monthly income, 
which is fair, right?'

(though for the student it'd be a negative number in reality, hyuk hyuk)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> So, if a student can by Mathematica for £23, all the other home users 
> are being charged 847% more, and the professionals are being charged 
> 8,847% more.

  I don't see any problem in that kind of business model.

  Many companies use even a more radical business model: Their software is
free for individuals for non-commercial use, while for companies using it
commercially it costs a considerable amount of money.

  This business idea is actually clever: The software is usually so
expensive and so specific that individuals are not going to buy it anyways,
and if anything, they are going to pirate it. So rather than that, let them
just have it for free. This way they will get accustomed to the software,
and if they ever get a related job, or create their own related firm, then
there's a high probability for the firm to buy the software because the
employees have experience using it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I don't see any problem in that kind of business model.
> 
>   Many companies use even a more radical business model: Their software is
> free for individuals for non-commercial use, while for companies using it
> commercially it costs a considerable amount of money.

For example... Oracle.

Last time I checked, to purchase an entry-level Oracle product is £8,000 
or so, and to purchase the "enterprise edition" is more like £80,000. 
But for non-commercial use, it's £0. Just click the link and download 
it. And they give you every product that Oracle makes.

It's just that if you try to make money from using it, theoretically 
Oracle sues you. Which would appear to be impossible, but hey...

>   This business idea is actually clever: Let them
> just have it for free. This way they will get accustomed to the software,
> and if they ever get a related job, or create their own related firm, then
> there's a high probability for the firm to buy the software because the
> employees have experience using it.

Indeed.

So maybe it truly is the case that the only difference between 
Mathematica for Students and Mathematics Professional is the terms of 
the license. (I should maybe point out that £23 is for a 6-month license 
in any case. The software stops working after that. The £2,035 is a 
perpetual license.)

Still, I'm reminded of that incident with BackupExec. We purchased an 
additional product feature. So basically, we handed over £500, and they 
send us an envelope with a piece of card inside it, and the card had a 
code number printed on it. £500 for a code number?! Clearly I'm in the 
wrong line of business. :-P



The thing that's really bugging me now... So, I can get Mathematica for, 
like, £195, so long as I don't use it for commercial purposes. This a 
very simple question: How the HELL do you use something like Mathematica 
"commercially"?!?!!

It solves equations and draws graphs. I can't think of a single domain 
of commercial endevour where such a thing would actually be useful. I 
mean, who the hell does math as part of their day job?

About the closest thing I can think of is engineering; but they aren't 
going to use Mathematica, they're going to use a dedicated CAD system to 
do finite element simulations and so forth.

Mathematica is a wonderful toy, but I can't think of a single serious 
"use" for it.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   I don't see any problem in that kind of business model.
>>
>>   Many companies use even a more radical business model: Their 
>> software is
>> free for individuals for non-commercial use, while for companies using it
>> commercially it costs a considerable amount of money.
> 
> For example... Oracle.
> 
> Last time I checked, to purchase an entry-level Oracle product is £8,000 
> or so, and to purchase the "enterprise edition" is more like £80,000. 
> But for non-commercial use, it's £0. Just click the link and download 
> it. And they give you every product that Oracle makes.
> 
> It's just that if you try to make money from using it, theoretically 
> Oracle sues you. Which would appear to be impossible, but hey...
> 
>>   This business idea is actually clever: Let them
>> just have it for free. This way they will get accustomed to the software,
>> and if they ever get a related job, or create their own related firm, 
>> then
>> there's a high probability for the firm to buy the software because the
>> employees have experience using it.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> So maybe it truly is the case that the only difference between 
> Mathematica for Students and Mathematics Professional is the terms of 
> the license. (I should maybe point out that £23 is for a 6-month license 
> in any case. The software stops working after that. The £2,035 is a 
> perpetual license.)
> 
> Still, I'm reminded of that incident with BackupExec. We purchased an 
> additional product feature. So basically, we handed over £500, and they 
> send us an envelope with a piece of card inside it, and the card had a 
> code number printed on it. £500 for a code number?! Clearly I'm in the 
> wrong line of business. :-P
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that's really bugging me now... So, I can get Mathematica for, 
> like, £195, so long as I don't use it for commercial purposes. This a 
> very simple question: How the HELL do you use something like Mathematica 
> "commercially"?!?!!
> 
> It solves equations and draws graphs. I can't think of a single domain 
> of commercial endevour where such a thing would actually be useful. I 
> mean, who the hell does math as part of their day job?

Are you kidding me? In my former position, I was a programmer for 
motion-control systems, much of which was very math heavy. Mathematica 
could have been very useful for some of the things I worked on. I knew 
one developer who would use it regularly to solve some of the problems 
dealing with encoder counts and angular motion on 3 axes plus linear 
motion on one or two axes.. It came in handy for figuring out how many 
counts to send to the motors.

> About the closest thing I can think of is engineering; but they aren't 
> going to use Mathematica, they're going to use a dedicated CAD system to 
> do finite element simulations and so forth.

Yeah, our engineers use some fancy cad program to do a lot of what they 
do, but some even fall back on pocket calculators and such...

> Mathematica is a wonderful toy, but I can't think of a single serious 
> "use" for it.

Nonsense. It's a tool, just like a ruler, or a calculator.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> The thing that's really bugging me now... So, I can get Mathematica 
>> for, like, £195, so long as I don't use it for commercial purposes. 
>> This a very simple question: How the HELL do you use something like 
>> Mathematica "commercially"?!?!!
>>
>> It solves equations and draws graphs. I can't think of a single domain 
>> of commercial endevour where such a thing would actually be useful. I 
>> mean, who the hell does math as part of their day job?
> 
> Are you kidding me? In my former position, I was a programmer for 
> motion-control systems, much of which was very math heavy. Mathematica 
> could have been very useful for some of the things I worked on. I knew 
> one developer who would use it regularly to solve some of the problems 
> dealing with encoder counts and angular motion on 3 axes plus linear 
> motion on one or two axes.. It came in handy for figuring out how many 
> counts to send to the motors.

Surely that's all just arithmetic though? Once you know the mathematical 
formulas involved, it's a simple case of plugging the numbers in and 
getting the answers out. It's not like you're trying to derive an 
approximation to the Gamma function or anything...

>> About the closest thing I can think of is engineering; but they aren't 
>> going to use Mathematica, they're going to use a dedicated CAD system 
>> to do finite element simulations and so forth.
> 
> Yeah, our engineers use some fancy cad program to do a lot of what they 
> do, but some even fall back on pocket calculators and such...

That's just because sometimes a pocket calculator is the fastest way to 
quickly test something. ;-)

>> Mathematica is a wonderful toy, but I can't think of a single serious 
>> "use" for it.
> 
> Nonsense. It's a tool, just like a ruler, or a calculator.

In other news... when's the last time anybody used a ruler in their day job?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Clearly I'm in the wrong line of business. :-P

I say this every time I get involved in a payment processing company that 
goes broke after the people using it to sell porn rake in $50K/month.

> very simple question: How the HELL do you use something like Mathematica 
> "commercially"?!?!!

Predicting the stock market. Engineering.  Theoretical physics.

> who the hell does math as part of their day job?

Why not write to the makers and ask what companies they've sold to near you? 
Then apply for a job.

> About the closest thing I can think of is engineering; but they aren't 
> going to use Mathematica, they're going to use a dedicated CAD system to 
> do finite element simulations and so forth.

Someone has to figure out how those finite element simulations work.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

>> Clearly I'm in the wrong line of business. :-P
> 
> I say this every time I get involved in a payment processing company 
> that goes broke after the people using it to sell porn rake in $50K/month.

...OK...

>> very simple question: How the HELL do you use something like 
>> Mathematica "commercially"?!?!!
> 
> Predicting the stock market. Engineering.  Theoretical physics.

Who the hell does theoretical physics "commercially"?

Engineering seems to involve CAD and material simulations far more than 
any actual "mathematics" as such.

Predicting the stock market I'll give you - although that seems to be 
where everybody wants Python, Smalltalk and other weird languages. 
(Except Haskell.)

>> who the hell does math as part of their day job?
> 
> Why not write to the makers and ask what companies they've sold to near 
> you? Then apply for a job.

Heh. I'd apply to Wolfram themselves if they were in the UK. And, you 
know, if it wasn't patently absurd for a nobody like me to be applying 
to an internationally renound company.

>> About the closest thing I can think of is engineering; but they aren't 
>> going to use Mathematica, they're going to use a dedicated CAD system 
>> to do finite element simulations and so forth.
> 
> Someone has to figure out how those finite element simulations work.

That's a solved problem. (Solved several decades ago too.) You don't 
need Mathematica, you just need a good textbook.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/09 10:03, Invisible wrote:
> Who the hell does theoretical physics "commercially"?

	National labs? Particle accelerator labs?

> Engineering seems to involve CAD and material simulations far more than
> any actual "mathematics" as such.

	Most of it, yes. But places like IBM, Intel, etc have R&D divisions. 
They don't just plug and chuck numbers.

> Predicting the stock market I'll give you - although that seems to be
> where everybody wants Python, Smalltalk and other weird languages.
> (Except Haskell.)

	I know one person who interviewed for a financial firm. He was telling 
me about it, and said something like:

"They asked if I knew any Haskell. I've never heard of it. Have you?"

> Heh. I'd apply to Wolfram themselves if they were in the UK. And, you
> know, if it wasn't patently absurd for a nobody like me to be applying
> to an internationally renound company.

	What part of Oxfordshire is not in the UK?

	What does internationally renowned have to do with it? They have an 
office in the UK. They'll need people to provide support from within the 
UK. They perhaps do consulting for their clients every time they get stuck.

	Just because they're a big company doesn't mean that they don't have 
all kinds of jobs - both big and small.

> That's a solved problem. (Solved several decades ago too.) You don't
> need Mathematica, you just need a good textbook.

	You may want Mathematica to help set some of it up.

-- 
"Smoking helps you lose weight -- one lung at a time!"


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Who the hell does theoretical physics "commercially"?

Well, someone spent a whole s__tload of money building the LHC, and Cern has 
been around for decades. Someone is doing theoretical physics for money.

> Engineering seems to involve CAD and material simulations far more than 
> any actual "mathematics" as such.

Depends, really. If you're trying to come up with the best airplane wing, 
there's a lot of math involved.

> Heh. I'd apply to Wolfram themselves if they were in the UK. And, you 
> know, if it wasn't patently absurd for a nobody like me to be applying 
> to an internationally renound company.

Never hurts to apply. And maybe they'll tell you who their customers are 
enough to apply for a job nearby.

>> Someone has to figure out how those finite element simulations work.
> 
> That's a solved problem. (Solved several decades ago too.) You don't 
> need Mathematica, you just need a good textbook.

Someone has to figure out all the other stuff like that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:03:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Heh. I'd apply to Wolfram themselves if they were in the UK. And, you
> know, if it wasn't patently absurd for a nobody like me to be applying
> to an internationally renound company.

Try it and stop running yourself down.  They have an office in Oxford.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Who the hell does theoretical physics "commercially"?
> 
> Well, someone spent a whole s__tload of money building the LHC, and Cern 
> has been around for decades. Someone is doing theoretical physics for 
> money.

Yeah, about that... I forget how much it cost to build the LHC, but I do 
wonder where the *hell* they got the money, considering that they're 
just a bunch of scientists. Last time I checked, nobody pays money for 
finding out how the universe works.

>> Engineering seems to involve CAD and material simulations far more 
>> than any actual "mathematics" as such.
> 
> Depends, really. If you're trying to come up with the best airplane 
> wing, there's a lot of math involved.

Really? I assumed it was just a question of running different designs 
through the simulator and seeing which ones have the best properties.

>> That's a solved problem. (Solved several decades ago too.) You don't 
>> need Mathematica, you just need a good textbook.
> 
> Someone has to figure out all the other stuff like that.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are problems that are unsolved?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Last time I checked, nobody pays money for 
> finding out how the universe works.

  You checked that? How? When? Sources?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Surely that's all just arithmetic though? Once you know the mathematical 
> formulas involved, it's a simple case of plugging the numbers in and 
> getting the answers out. It's not like you're trying to derive an 
> approximation to the Gamma function or anything...
> 

Yes, but you have to find the formulas first. Suppose you need to 
account for a non-linearity in the system you're controlling to get 
precise positioning. Say, for the sake of example there's no way to get 
around the non-linearity. Also, for arguments sake, lets say the 
designer doesn't have a fancy cad application available, so can't just 
give you a formula.

> 
> That's just because sometimes a pocket calculator is the fastest way to 
> quickly test something. ;-)
> 

Actually, because it's readily available in the field.

>>> Mathematica is a wonderful toy, but I can't think of a single serious 
>>> "use" for it.
>>
>> Nonsense. It's a tool, just like a ruler, or a calculator.
> 
> In other news... when's the last time anybody used a ruler in their day 
> job?

I've used a tape measure on numerous occasions. I've also used a small 
ruler clamped to a bar of a known length to find scaling factors for a 
machine.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely that's all just arithmetic though? Once you know the 
>> mathematical formulas involved, it's a simple case of plugging the 
>> numbers in and getting the answers out. It's not like you're trying to 
>> derive an approximation to the Gamma function or anything...
> 
> Yes, but you have to find the formulas first. Suppose you need to 
> account for a non-linearity in the system you're controlling to get 
> precise positioning. Say, for the sake of example there's no way to get 
> around the non-linearity. Also, for arguments sake, lets say the 
> designer doesn't have a fancy cad application available, so can't just 
> give you a formula.

The chances of not having "fancy CAD software" available and yet having 
a sophisticated and highly niche product like Mathematica seem rather 
tiny...

>> In other news... when's the last time anybody used a ruler in their 
>> day job?
> 
> I've used a tape measure on numerous occasions. I've also used a small 
> ruler clamped to a bar of a known length to find scaling factors for a 
> machine.

A ruler for measuring things I can believe. But for drawing straight 
lines...? I doubt it. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Last time I checked, nobody pays money for 
> finding out how the universe works.

All that money they used to build the thing? They spent it on people 
working, rather than welfare.

And yes, what do you think the Hubble is all about, if not figuring out how 
the universe works?

> Really? I assumed it was just a question of running different designs 
> through the simulator and seeing which ones have the best properties.

How do you know what the simulation is supposed to do?  You want to simulate 
(say) a rocket launch? How are you going to do that if you don't know the 
formulae for a rocket launch?

> Are you seriously suggesting that there are problems that are unsolved?

Yes?  Lots, even?  Even lots that have been unsolved for a long time?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

>> Last time I checked, nobody pays money for finding out how the 
>> universe works.
> 
> All that money they used to build the thing? They spent it on people 
> working, rather than welfare.
> 
> And yes, what do you think the Hubble is all about, if not figuring out 
> how the universe works?

I must admit, I've often wondered where the hell they got the money to 
build Hubble, given that once it's built it generates no income...

>> Really? I assumed it was just a question of running different designs 
>> through the simulator and seeing which ones have the best properties.
> 
> How do you know what the simulation is supposed to do?  You want to 
> simulate (say) a rocket launch? How are you going to do that if you 
> don't know the formulae for a rocket launch?

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

>> Are you seriously suggesting that there are problems that are unsolved?
> 
> Yes?  Lots, even?  Even lots that have been unsolved for a long time?

I'm aware that there are lots of problems in science and mathematics 
which are unsolved, but I was under the impression that things as 
mundane as figuring out what shape a wing needs to be are not amoung them.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I must admit, I've often wondered where the hell they got the money to 
> build Hubble, given that once it's built it generates no income...

It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the cost of anything else. There's only one 
Hubble, so it can get pretty expensive before you have to worry about it 
becoming anywhere near "expensive" in government terms.

> I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

I'm saying, how do you build a simulator and be sure the simulation is 
correct enough?

> I'm aware that there are lots of problems in science and mathematics 
> which are unsolved, but I was under the impression that things as 
> mundane as figuring out what shape a wing needs to be are not amoung them.

Figuring out how far away the detectors in the LHC have to be from the 
collision? Figuring out a good antenna shape for an 802.11x 397MBps wireless 
router? Figuring out the right shape for the wing of an orbital ship that's 
going to be coming back into the atmosphere at 35x the speed of sound?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

>> I must admit, I've often wondered where the hell they got the money to 
>> build Hubble, given that once it's built it generates no income...
> 
> It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the cost of anything else. There's only 
> one Hubble, so it can get pretty expensive before you have to worry 
> about it becoming anywhere near "expensive" in government terms.

Are you saying Hubble is government-funded?

Why would they d-- oh, wait, they're a government. Silly me...

>> I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
> 
> I'm saying, how do you build a simulator and be sure the simulation is 
> correct enough?

Compare it to one of the seventy-eight billion other simulators that 
already exist?

>> I'm aware that there are lots of problems in science and mathematics 
>> which are unsolved, but I was under the impression that things as 
>> mundane as figuring out what shape a wing needs to be are not amoung 
>> them.
> 
> Figuring out how far away the detectors in the LHC have to be from the 
> collision? Figuring out a good antenna shape for an 802.11x 397MBps 
> wireless router? Figuring out the right shape for the wing of an orbital 
> ship that's going to be coming back into the atmosphere at 35x the speed 
> of sound?

Indeed. I would have expected these to all be solved problems.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Are you saying Hubble is government-funded?

I'm not sure, but I thought it was part of NASA, which is.

>> I'm saying, how do you build a simulator and be sure the simulation is 
>> correct enough?
> 
> Compare it to one of the seventy-eight billion other simulators that 
> already exist?

You're assuming that how to do the simulation is already well known.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Indeed. I would have expected these to all be solved problems.

I think people know how to find the solutions. I don't think they're solved 
in the absolute sense because I don't think any of the examples are of real 
things people are *actually* working on yet. :-)

If you know how to find the solution but don't know what the solution is, 
Mathematica would seem a good start.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message