But my point is that doing that analysis is pointless, because the dollar amount is so low. The difference in price will never be more than a rounding error in a company's expenses, so it's not worth worrying about.
If someone at the company wants it, price point shouldn't be what's keeping the company from using it.
In the sense that it is a number that is taken to represent how much money someone would have to spend to buy it, but is only loosely correlated to the amount of money you would have to spend if you actually tried to buy it, yes.
I disagree. Such a measurement method has several significant flaws (which work to the advantage of whoever is doing the measurement):
1. How do you decide which price to count? Do you count initial costs, or all recurring fees? Do you count additional services by third party vendors? Do you count training materials and so on?
2. It ignores products that have no price, and emphasises inflated pricing of products. This is obviously massively incorrect as a measurement when it comes to services that can be done by gratis software (which includes a large amount of free software).
This isn't sufficient to represent prices which often include fractional amounts of cents in non-retail scenarios. Think of AWS server prices per hour.
Prices seem to be in $ instead of purchasing power. So not really meaningful, except insofar as it indicates where someone buying with $ would find the cheapest.
The marketplace disagrees strongly. Otherwise the cost of an angled measuring cup would approximate the cost of a nurse, which it does not -- the difference is at least 4 [decimal] orders of magnitude.
reply