[Asterisk-Users] Prices of g729 codec

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 12:01 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 11:03, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> > > Again, 10k channels you'll have a half dozen MaxTNT boxes terminating
> > > DS3s. Your fixed costs will already be significantly higher and that
> > > little $10 license fee is included in that.
> >
> > Its not $10, which also goes along with something else I mentioned
> > elsewhere.  Digium charges $10 but the max cost for a g729 license is
> > about $1.25.  It goes down to about $0.10/license in quantity.  As such
> > it doesnt add a whole lot to the cost of the device once the initial
> > code is in place (as that development does have cost since the license
> > fee doesnt cover any implementation, only the right to sell that
> > implementation).
> 
> Stop the presses: quantity purchases get price breaks!  High enough quantities 
> let you deal with the "manufacturer" directly!
> 
> This is news how?
> 
again you are either intentionally ignoring what is said or unable to
read, I dont know or care.  You cant despite your claims go directly to
sipro.com (the only authorized agent from the g729 consortium for
licensing) if you are an end user.  No matter what quantity you want to
get.  So your whole tirade misses the point.  Again.


> What's my point?  If you're willing to deal in real volumes, the $10/transcode 
> license fee doesn't apply.  You can either go directly to AudioCodes and 
> negotiate a better fee ($1.25 is the number you're stating) or you have 
> already paid the fee in fixed costs of the hardware you've got in order to be 
> able to terminate that kind of call volume.
> 

audiocodes doesnt sell the licenses, Sipro lan telecom inc does.  I
wonder if that is where you went for your proof earlier that digium cant
(despite kevins statement that digium does) change the licenses more
than once.


> ... So we're arguing the same point?
> 
I dont know what you are trying to say, you keep commenting on stuff I
am not saying.  


> Your example was invalid, because no sane person running a business with that 
> many concurrent calls will be transcoding them on PCs; they'll be terminating 

its invalid becuase everyone that runs a business of any size is sane?
I disagree, but will let that go.  Of course if the opening statement is
invalid what does that say about the counter argument?

You further are STILL ignoring what the context was that the original
post was in reply to, and the reply to attempt to correct your bad
information and in some cases even flat out wrong information (as
disputed by digium employees).  But hey you are entitled to your own
delusions.  You seem bent on proving me wrong even if that means
misquoting, lying, making stuff up, or just being delusional.  So I will
let you have that victory, after all if you are willing to fight this
hard to be right you must not be able to be right that often.

You win I am wrong, digium is wrong and the g729 authorized agent (the
only one) is wrong.  

I will even concede to the fact that the context I originally intended
when I replied was wrong and that it was the undisclosed one that you
brought up later.

you win, let it go

-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
Belfast IE +44 28 9099 6461    DE +49 801 777 555 3402
Utrecht NL +31 306 553058      US WA +1 360 207 0479
US NY +1 516 687 5200          FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.trxtel.com we pay you to terminate calls with us!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060605/8745c635/attachment.pgp