[Asterisk-biz] Asterisk for small businesses.

[Jim Van Meggelen]

asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com wrote:
> OK, I see we agree completely :)

LOL! I'm glad you said that, because to be honest, I was starting to
confuse myself!

Jim.


--
Jim Van Meggelen
jim at vanmeggelen.ca


> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> Jim Van Meggelen
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:35 PM
> To: 'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk for small businesses.
> 
> asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Van Meggelen
>>> asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com wrote:
>>>> Jim,
>>>> 
>>>> Is "tool kit" a product? Is "raw material" a product? I think so,
>>>> and they all need to look for a place in market to fit, this is
>>>> called market positioning, this is a process of productization, and
>>>> that is my point.
>>> 
>>> I understand your point, I just don't think Asterisk itself is a
>>> product. You can use it to build products, but in and of itself, it
>>> just doesn't fit that model. 
>>> 
>>> If it is a product, it is in the same way that any other software
>>> toolkit is. Microsoft Visual Studio is a product, because you have
>>> to pay for it. Perl, C++ and such are also used by developers, but
>>> they are not sold. Can't see how they are products.
>> 
>> So if someone starts charging for Asterisk, then it magically turns
>> into a product?
> 
> Not much magic to it. If you download and compile the source
> code, I, myself, personally, my opionion only, wouldn't see
> that as a product. Depending on your point of view, and the
> dictionary you use, it is also arguable that it *is* a product.
> 
> I'm finding that Asterisk solutions share a lot with website
> development. It's my opinion only, but I say the "product" is
> the website, not the HTML editor the designer used to code
> it, nor the CGI language used to present it. The website is
> what was produced.
> 
>> Perl, C++ aren't products? GCC is a
>> product. The C++ specification is a product. Emacs is a product.
>> 
>> MS sends me MSDN Universal for free. Does that mean it's not a
>> product?
> 
> Myself, I would think of those as tools, since they are not
> sold to the customer, but rather used to create solutions.
> I'm not telling you you're wrong, merely that in a business
> context I don't see the term "product" applying to those things.
> 
>> Money doesn't have anything to do with the definition of products.
> 
> I agree. I'd say it all depends on the context in which the
> term is used. I think at this point it's more a matter of semantics.
> 
> Let me run this one by you:
> 
> If a business sells, say tires, I should say they consider
> tires to be their product. If they hand out a brochure at a
> car show, I doubt they would consider the brochure to be a
> product. If you were to start a debate with them on the
> topic, I suspect thay would be adamant that that brochure was
> not a product.
> 
> Now *is* that brochure a product? Well, how about we ask the
> company that printed it? They'll tell you quite proudly that
> "of course it's a product". "What about the ink or the
> paper?" "Naw, those are just raw materials".
> 
> OK, so you ask the paper supplier - they'll tell you "Sure,
> paper is a product - it's our business!".
> 
> Is a tree a product? It's usually not considered that until
> you cut it down and make something with it.
> 
> OK, so back to Asterisk. The impression I've been getting is
> that people who look at Asterisk as a product tend to find it
> very limited, complicated and expensive. People who look at
> it as a toolkit are in heaven. I don't know if this is an
> absolute fact, but those are the conclusions I have drawn
> from the evidence I've seen.
> 
>> Now, if you mean to say Asterisk isn't a boxed retail SKU type of
>> product that a business manager might grab while at Walmart to
>> install at his office on Monday, I think everyone would agree with
>> you. 
> 
> In the context of this thread, that's exactly what I felt was
> being meant by the use of the term product. The term
> "productization" was specifially used, which, while not yet a
> dictionary term (at least not on m-w) is generally considered
> to mean the process of taking a technology, invention, idea
> or whatever, and turning it into an item that can be sold.
> 
> As for the Wal-Mart thing, somebody will build such a thing
> with Asterisk in short order, I've no doubt.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005