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.Kletnieks@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