generate report in excel formate

Discussion in 'Java' started by surajtheesun@gmail.com, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. Guest

    hi frns,
    i just want how to generate report in excel formate,
    actually i am taking data from database mysql and i ahve to generate
    report in excel formate.
    regards
    suraj
     
    , Jul 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rossum Guest

    On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:34:48 -0000, ""
    <> wrote:

    >hi frns,
    >i just want how to generate report in excel formate,
    >actually i am taking data from database mysql and i ahve to generate
    >report in excel formate.
    >regards
    >suraj

    I am not sure, but I think that Excel can read comma separated
    variable (CSV) files. You might want to do a quick test to see if it
    can, because CSV files are very easy to create.

    rossum
     
    rossum, Jul 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rossum wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:34:48 -0000, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> hi frns,
    >> i just want how to generate report in excel formate,
    >> actually i am taking data from database mysql and i ahve to generate
    >> report in excel formate.
    >> regards
    >> suraj

    > I am not sure, but I think that Excel can read comma separated
    > variable (CSV) files. You might want to do a quick test to see if it
    > can, because CSV files are very easy to create.
    >
    > rossum
    >

    Excel can read CSV files easily enough - but unless you can control the
    locale CSV is not recommended. Different locales encode the decimal
    point in numerics using different characters - the English-speaking
    world generally uses a point '.' character, but some non-English
    speaking locales use a ',' character. There also problems with thousands
    markers.

    From Java there are a number of options for writing XLS files directly.
    The Apache POI project, the JExcelAPI library, Groovy and no doubt
    plenty of others offer ways to do this.

    HTH

    Pan
    --
    TechBookReport Java http://www.techbookreport.com/JavaIndex.html
     
    TechBookReport, Jul 17, 2007
    #3
  4. You can use the library available from www.andykhan.com. It's pretty
    easy to use too.
     
    Cerveza Mas Fina, Jul 17, 2007
    #4
  5. hh Guest

    hh, Jul 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Twisted Guest

    On Jul 17, 9:51 pm, hh <> wrote:
    > For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net


    ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.
     
    Twisted, Jul 19, 2007
    #6
  7. Roedy Green Guest

    On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:45 +0100, rossum <>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >I am not sure, but I think that Excel can read comma separated
    >variable (CSV) files. You might want to do a quick test to see if it
    >can, because CSV files are very easy to create.


    see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/csv.html
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 19, 2007
    #7
  8. Roedy Green Guest

    Roedy Green, Jul 19, 2007
    #8
  9. Roedy Green Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:20:22 -0000, Twisted <>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >> For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net

    >
    >ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    >thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    >in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    >alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.


    It is $300 US. The site has a PURCHASE button which makes it clear
    the program is not free.

    I don't know where you get his idea that people who develop software
    don't need money for rent.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 19, 2007
    #9
  10. Twisted Guest

    On Jul 19, 6:42 am, Roedy Green <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:20:22 -0000, Twisted <>
    > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
    >
    > >> For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net

    >
    > >ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    > >thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    > >in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    > >alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.

    >
    > It is $300 US.


    Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank --
    every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.

    > The site has a PURCHASE button which makes it clear the program is not free.


    However, the posting here by hh did not say anything at all to warn
    the OP that their link would be worthless at best and a dangerous
    trap* at worst for people without a spare $300 to blow on their
    programming hobby.

    > I don't know where you get his idea that people who develop software
    > don't need money for rent.


    I've never claimed anything of the sort.

    * The OP might have not looked at the navigation buttons and just gone
    straight for the download link. This is a link to a binary, not to
    another Web page, so they'd just think they had the software and go to
    use it. And then one day, bang -- it just tells them to pony up and
    drops dead, leaving them in the lurch. They may have grown dependent
    on it -- or worse, locked in to some proprietary data format it uses
    for something -- and it's therefore too late for them to choose
    something else, say something FOSS. Now they're forced to pay $300, or
    suffer catastrophic data loss that might well be just as costly to
    them if not worse.

    Links to unfree stuff of any kind should be
    a) Avoided. Not only are they less useful than links to free
    alternatives, they are also potential traps (see above) and call one's
    motives into question (are you getting a commission on every sale by
    any chance, hh?)
    b) If you really must, make sure to state up front in clear English
    that people with spare money they're willing to blow need not apply.

    This applies also to links to information behind paywalls, as well as
    timebombed software. Stuff behind non-pay registerwalls too -- paying
    in being deluged with spam or telling them where you live and your
    favorite sexual position or whatever else their marketing dept. wants
    is still paying, and it's jumping through hoops and wasting your time
    to boot. (Gordon Beaton, who earlier and in another thread suggested
    that I post something to a "newsgroup" that turned out to be a Web
    forum requiring I sign up before I could post, take note. Even if I
    didn't have to sign up, it would be a hassle having to regularly go to
    an additional web site every few hours to look for replies instead of
    just checking in my newsreader via the read-only nntp server I use for
    reading news since GG has gotten so shoddy of late. I like having all
    the replies in one place, my Thunderbird, and not scattered across a
    zillion different Web pages, and I also like only having to hand out
    private info to a) my ISP and b) Google and not c) a zillion
    additional forum operators. It's bad enough that I have no news
    posting ability that lets me mung my email. This gmail account gets a
    thousand spams a week already as it is, which means anything that
    mistakenly gets classified as spam gets deleted unread as I don't have
    time to review 1000 messages a week for false positives.)
     
    Twisted, Jul 19, 2007
    #10
  11. Lew Guest

    Twisted wrote:
    > On Jul 19, 6:42 am, Roedy Green <>
    > wrote:
    >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:20:22 -0000, Twisted <>
    >> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
    >>
    >>>> For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net
    >>> ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    >>> thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    >>> in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    >>> alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.

    >> It is $300 US.

    >
    > Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    > Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank --
    > every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.


    Impossible to say without seeing their books, since we do not know what it
    costs the manufacturer. What's the overhead? What were the development
    costs? For all we have evidence, they might be taking a loss.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Jul 19, 2007
    #11
  12. Roedy Green Guest

    Re: generate report in excel format

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:48:48 -0000, Twisted <>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said:
    >Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    >Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank,
    >every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.


    It is a very specific product, and he probably has sold no more than a
    couple of copies. I have a similar problem with The Replicator which
    has swallowed months of effort with only one sale.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 20, 2007
    #12
  13. Twisted Guest

    On Jul 19, 4:40 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    > Twisted wrote:
    > > On Jul 19, 6:42 am, Roedy Green <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:20:22 -0000, Twisted <>
    > >> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >
    > >>>> For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net
    > >>> ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    > >>> thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    > >>> in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    > >>> alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.
    > >> It is $300 US.

    >
    > > Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    > > Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank --
    > > every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.

    >
    > Impossible to say without seeing their books, since we do not know what it
    > costs the manufacturer. What's the overhead? What were the development
    > costs? For all we have evidence, they might be taking a loss.


    If it's data, and they choose an efficient distribution mechanism for
    this, then the marginal cost is pennies. They could sell copies for a
    dime apiece and turn a profit in the long run. That they charge not
    only more, but THREE THOUSAND TIMES MORE, means they lack viable
    competition, and means a market failure of the "some asshole has a
    monopoly and is being predatory with it" variety has happened. Again.
     
    Twisted, Jul 21, 2007
    #13
  14. Twisted Guest

    Re: generate report in excel format

    On Jul 19, 7:36 pm, Roedy Green <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:48:48 -0000, Twisted <>
    > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said:
    >
    > >Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    > >Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank,
    > >every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.

    >
    > It is a very specific product, and he probably has sold no more than a
    > couple of copies. I have a similar problem with The Replicator which
    > has swallowed months of effort with only one sale.


    You'd have more to show for it if you charged less, I suspect. It
    would surely be in more widespread use if you'd charged nothing. Of
    course you'd have less money in that case -- albeit only one sale's
    worth. But if you had charged something small, but nonzero, you might
    very well have ended up with more money than you actually did using
    your actual price point.
     
    Twisted, Jul 21, 2007
    #14
  15. Lew Guest

    Twisted wrote:
    > If it's data, and they choose an efficient distribution mechanism for
    > this, then the marginal cost is pennies.


    You keep throwing around that term "marginal cost" as if you actually knew
    what you're talking about. I was talking about all the costs, not just the
    marginal cost of distribution. Even the most elementary materials on
    accounting and economics point out that there are many costs, such as the ones
    I explicitly mentioned (overhead, development cost). You keep harping on one
    smallest category of cost as if it were the only one. Wrong.

    Since you change the argument to base it on the least significant cost a
    business faces, and pretend that there are no other costs to the business, you
    present an utterly fallacious case.

    You would excoriate the farmer for charging fair prices for produce because
    their farmstand costs so little to set up. What about the whole growing
    season of labor, when they're spending and spending and spending hoping their
    crops will recoup the costs? Then you come along and tell them they're
    monopolists because the "marginal cost" of a farmstand doesn't justify their
    prices.

    Your favorite pseudo-expert term "marginal cost" is useless. That is only the
    /marginal/ cost, i.e., the cost /other than/ all the other costs you so
    conveniently ignore. You'd have all software vendors out of business in no time.

    Remember for future reference, "marginal cost of distribution" is not the
    only, nor even the most significant cost of software for the manufacturer.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Jul 21, 2007
    #15
  16. Twisted wrote:
    > On Jul 19, 4:40 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    >> Twisted wrote:
    >>> On Jul 19, 6:42 am, Roedy Green <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:20:22 -0000, Twisted <>
    >>>> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
    >>>>>> For generate excel in java,jxcell is a good choice.http://www.jxcell.net
    >>>>> ALERT! hh just attempted to stick a hand in your pocket. This jxcell
    >>>>> thing is not free. What is downloadable there is apparently crippled
    >>>>> in some way. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Continue searching for a free
    >>>>> alternative. Save your money. Don't subsidize subtle spammers.
    >>>> It is $300 US.
    >>> Ludicrous. That's gotta be a whopping $300 more than it costs.
    >>> Whoever's selling it (hh?) is laughing all the way to the bank --
    >>> every purchase is pretty much pure profit margin.

    >> Impossible to say without seeing their books, since we do not know what it
    >> costs the manufacturer. What's the overhead? What were the development
    >> costs? For all we have evidence, they might be taking a loss.

    >
    > If it's data, and they choose an efficient distribution mechanism for
    > this, then the marginal cost is pennies. They could sell copies for a
    > dime apiece and turn a profit in the long run. That they charge not
    > only more, but THREE THOUSAND TIMES MORE, means they lack viable
    > competition, and means a market failure of the "some asshole has a
    > monopoly and is being predatory with it" variety has happened. Again.
    >

    The thing you're forgetting it the cost of creating the software,
    database, collated information or whatever. Unless you're a hobbyist
    that cost needs to be recouped. There are a few ways:

    1) Build a one-off bespoke item for one customer. He pays agreed
    cost+profit and can then do what he likes with the item.

    2) Charge the initial customer the full cost+profit and give
    copies away to everybody else. That won't fly: nobody will pay
    full price with that sales model, but that sounds like what
    you're advocating.

    3) Charge the initial customer the full cost+profit but sign an
    agreement that they get a rebate every time you sell another
    copy. I have seen this used but its rare because the initial
    customer can be hard to find and the admin costs are
    relatively high.

    4) Spread cost+profit over a projected sales target, 'n' and charge
    each customer (cost+profit)/n - the usual sales model BUT it
    depends on preventing free copies being made and distributed.

    5) Give the product free but charge for manuals, installation and
    support. This also depends on nobody making free copies of
    manuals, giving free support or (worse) third parties charging
    for support. I've seen it used (e.g the Pegasus MUA) but its too
    subject to petty pilferage to work well.

    6) Err, I don't think there is a 6, at least not if you want to
    earn a living from your work.


    --
    martin@ | Martin Gregorie
    gregorie. | Essex, UK
    org |
     
    Martin Gregorie, Jul 21, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    On Jul 21, 11:52 am, Lew <> wrote:
    > Twisted wrote:
    > > If it's data, and they choose an efficient distribution mechanism for
    > > this, then the marginal cost is pennies.

    >
    > You keep throwing around that term "marginal cost" as if you actually knew
    > what you're talking about. I was talking about all the costs, not just the
    > marginal cost of distribution. Even the most elementary materials on
    > accounting and economics point out that there are many costs, such as the ones
    > I explicitly mentioned (overhead, development cost). You keep harping on one
    > smallest category of cost as if it were the only one. Wrong.


    No. It is you who are wrong. You conveniently snipped the rest: "They
    could sell copies for a
    dime apiece and turn a profit in the long run."

    The "other costs" you speak of are one-time costs. They spend these
    once, then the marginal cost for each copy sold. So they're initially
    in the hole $D, the development one-time costs. Subsequently, they get
    $P-$M, price minus marginal cost, on each copy. Assuming $P-$M is
    positive, the amount they're in the hole by shrinks linearly over time
    and eventually goes negative. At that point they're showing a net
    profit and from then on it's gravy train time.

    It's elementary arithmetic. That you cannot grasp this shows that you
    are not a fit opponent for this debate. Stop posting over and over
    again arguing with me and forcing me to waste my time refuting your
    drivel and unwanted, mathematically-bankrupt opinions.

    > Since you change the argument to base it on the least significant cost a
    > business faces, and pretend that there are no other costs to the business, you
    > present an utterly fallacious case.


    Straw man. I did not pretend that there were no other costs. I glossed
    over the fixed costs because they'll be paid off in finite time and
    after that the graph climbs into the black and just keeps climbing. As
    long as their price exceeds their net ongoing costs per unit. (This
    includes amortized support costs if they don't separately charge money
    for support, and otherwise it's just the incremental cost of stamping
    out one more plastic disc or pushing a few more electrons down a
    wire.)

    > You would excoriate the farmer for charging fair prices for produce because
    > their farmstand costs so little to set up. What about the whole growing
    > season of labor, when they're spending and spending and spending hoping their
    > crops will recoup the costs? Then you come along and tell them they're
    > monopolists because the "marginal cost" of a farmstand doesn't justify their
    > prices.


    That doesn't make any sense. They have a whole lot of labor per ear of
    corn or whatever, which they charge for. This is very different from
    doing a whole lot of labor once in the farm's entire lifetime and then
    sitting back and watching it grow all by itself unattended and still
    charging just as high a price for it. Of course farmers aren't that
    lucky, but even so, the one-time cost of buying the land is probably
    not figured into the price in any way; only the per-ear cost of
    raising crops of corn after the land is theirs (and any ongoing land
    taxes they might have to pay, divided by the number of ears in each
    harvest).

    > You'd have all software vendors out of business in no time.


    By your theory, Red Hat should be wallowing in debt. Explain the
    observation that it is not.

    > Remember for future reference, "marginal cost of distribution" is not the
    > only, nor even the most significant cost of software for the manufacturer.


    It is in the long term, aside from support, which they can always
    charge separately for (as Red Hat does).
     
    , Jul 21, 2007
    #17
  18. Guest

    On Jul 21, 11:57 am, Martin Gregorie <>
    wrote:
    > The thing you're forgetting it the cost of creating the software,
    > database, collated information or whatever. Unless you're a hobbyist
    > that cost needs to be recouped.


    It's a one-time cost though.

    > There are a few ways:
    >
    > 4) Spread cost+profit over a projected sales target, 'n' and charge
    > each customer (cost+profit)/n - the usual sales model BUT it
    > depends on preventing free copies being made and distributed.


    Not really. It means you'll hit the target later, but you can still
    hit it. You can compete with free. Also, once the target is hit
    there's no justification for not dropping the price to just above
    marginal anymore OR for disallowing copying.

    A business model that depends on regulating heavily the downstream use
    of the thing after you sell it is a poor choice for a variety of
    reasons anyway.

    > 6) Err, I don't think there is a 6, at least not if you want to
    > earn a living from your work.


    Non sequitur. An individual "earns a living from their work"; a
    corporation "makes a profit". Which are you now talking about? An
    individual with proven programming talent should be able to find work
    coding, no matter how profits are earned by their employers. Which
    might be selling hardware widgets, and the employee works on widget on-
    board software, or on the office's accounting systems administration,
    or who knows what.

    As for a proper number 6, how about

    6) The development costs are shared with a wider community, which is
    made possible by not being proprietary, and afterward you find a way
    to compete with free, and turn a profit and even become a stock market
    darling in the process. AKA the Red Hat business model.

    Given that 6 obviously can work, why should society do anything to
    help the brutish 4-using vendors enforce their wishes arbitrarily on
    third parties long after they've concluded their transactions with
    said vendors? There's obviously no need, and kicking the crutches out
    from under those nasty vendors would force them to switch to something
    nicer that still works, like 6, or go under. (If there's need for
    whatever their product was, someone else will find a way to market it
    successfully by being smarter and more agile since there's demand to
    be met. And the dead vendor's employees with coding talent should be
    able to find work, perhaps at such a replacement, but certainly
    somewhere in the programming field anyway.)
     
    , Jul 21, 2007
    #18
  19. Lew Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jul 21, 11:52 am, Lew <> wrote:
    >> Twisted wrote:
    >>> If it's data, and they choose an efficient distribution mechanism for
    >>> this, then the marginal cost is pennies.

    >> You keep throwing around that term "marginal cost" as if you actually knew
    >> what you're talking about. I was talking about all the costs, not just the
    >> marginal cost of distribution. Even the most elementary materials on
    >> accounting and economics point out that there are many costs, such as the ones
    >> I explicitly mentioned (overhead, development cost). You keep harping on one
    >> smallest category of cost as if it were the only one. Wrong.

    >
    > No. It is you who are wrong. You conveniently snipped the rest: "They
    > could sell copies for a
    > dime apiece and turn a profit in the long run."


    Then let me address the point. That is a false assertion. They likely would
    show a loss in the short and in the long run.

    > The "other costs" you speak of are one-time costs. They spend these
    > once, then the marginal cost for each copy sold.


    They still have to recoup the costs.

    > So they're initially in the hole $D, the development one-time costs. Subsequently, they get
    > $P-$M, price minus marginal cost, on each copy. Assuming $P-$M is
    > positive, the amount they're in the hole by shrinks linearly over time
    > and eventually goes negative. At that point they're showing a net
    > profit and from then on it's gravy train time.


    "Eventually" being a very long time. Anyway, what is your beef with profit?
    Profit is a good thing. Providers should make the maximum profit the market
    will allow.

    > It's elementary arithmetic. That you cannot grasp this shows that you
    > are not a fit opponent for this debate. Stop posting over and over
    > again arguing with me and forcing me to waste my time refuting your
    > drivel and unwanted, mathematically-bankrupt opinions.


    I force you to do nothing, except perhaps to resort to insults when logic is
    unable to serve your argument.

    >
    >> Since you change the argument to base it on the least significant cost a
    >> business faces, and pretend that there are no other costs to the business, you
    >> present an utterly fallacious case.

    >
    > Straw man. I did not pretend that there were no other costs. I glossed
    > over the fixed costs because they'll be paid off in finite time and


    Same difference. Calling it "straw man" doesn't make it so.

    > after that the graph climbs into the black and just keeps climbing.


    Your scheme would ensure that it never does that.

    > As long as their price exceeds their net ongoing costs per unit. (This
    > includes amortized support costs if they don't separately charge money
    > for support, and otherwise it's just the incremental cost of stamping
    > out one more plastic disc or pushing a few more electrons down a
    > wire.)
    >
    >> You would excoriate the farmer for charging fair prices for produce because
    >> their farmstand costs so little to set up. What about the whole growing
    >> season of labor, when they're spending and spending and spending hoping their
    >> crops will recoup the costs? Then you come along and tell them they're
    >> monopolists because the "marginal cost" of a farmstand doesn't justify their
    >> prices.

    >
    > That doesn't make any sense. They have a whole lot of labor per ear of
    > corn or whatever, which they charge for. This is very different from


    Actually, it's exactly the same. The developer also has "a whole lot of labor
    per [functional unit of software] or whatever", which they have to invest
    first before they can make a sale.

    > doing a whole lot of labor once in the farm's entire lifetime and then
    > sitting back and watching it grow all by itself unattended and still
    > charging just as high a price for it. Of course farmers aren't that


    You have a complete misconception of how it works.

    > lucky, but even so, the one-time cost of buying the land is probably
    > not figured into the price in any way; only the per-ear cost of
    > raising crops of corn after the land is theirs (and any ongoing land
    > taxes they might have to pay, divided by the number of ears in each
    > harvest).


    Calling development costs "one-time" costs doesn't make them so. You
    conveniently glossed over all the other costs, again, such as overhead, labor,
    marketing, ... You can't just ignore reality. Of course, you obviously don't
    run a business yourself or you'd understand such elementary facts.

    Or maybe you do, and you're just being contrary so you can impress yourself
    with how clever you imagine your arguments to be.

    >> You'd have all software vendors out of business in no time.

    >
    > By your theory, Red Hat should be wallowing in debt. Explain the
    > observation that it is not.


    Rrr?

    >> Remember for future reference, "marginal cost of distribution" is not the
    >> only, nor even the most significant cost of software for the manufacturer.

    >
    > It is in the long term, aside from support, which they can always
    > charge separately for (as Red Hat does).


    Bullshit. You don't have a clue.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Jul 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Twisted Guest

    On Jul 21, 2:47 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    > > No. It is you who are wrong. You conveniently snipped the rest: "They
    > > could sell copies for a
    > > dime apiece and turn a profit in the long run."

    >
    > Then let me address the point. That is a false assertion. They likely would
    > show a loss in the short and in the long run.


    If you are this bad at math, then you should just shut up now and stop
    constantly posting attack responses to everything I write.

    I will spell it out for you now, in extremely simple language that
    even a complete and utter moron can understand. If you still fail to
    understand, then you would be going into my killfile if fucking Google
    Groups had such a feature, and will definitely no longer get detailed
    responses from me, since any such response will obviously just sail
    right over your head.

    Q: Little Johnny spends $10 to develop a piece of software and then it
    costs $0.05 for him to make each copy. He sells copies at $0.10 each.
    How many copies must he sell to break even? To have $10 more than he
    began with?

    A: Each time he makes and sells one copy, it costs him a nickel to
    make and he receives a dime, so he gains $0.05. Two copies sold nets
    him $0.10 in revenue. Two hundred nets him $10 and he breaks even when
    he sells the 200th copy. Every copy he sells after that is a nickel of
    profit. After the 400th copy he has $10 more than he began with. After
    the 1000th copy he has forty whole dollars to show for his enterprise.

    > They still have to recoup the costs.


    See above. Little Johnny recoups the costs after selling 200 copies.

    > "Eventually" being a very long time. Anyway, what is your beef with profit?
    > Profit is a good thing. Providers should make the maximum profit the market
    > will allow.


    Yes, but a properly functioning market should also hold them down to
    just above marginal cost. Thin margins are a sign of healthy
    competition. Fat margins (especially as obese as each sale being 99.9%
    net revenue!) indicate a serious problem has developed in that
    department. Healthy competition is more "just", because things are as
    affordable as they can be given the actual costs of manufacture,
    making it possible for the poor to get something that costs $10 to
    make if they have around $11, instead of it being priced out of their
    reach at $300 or something. Healthy competition is also more
    efficient, and the economy grows much faster than if monopolists can
    just stagnate and rake in money without doing very much except the odd
    lobbying or suing here and there.

    > > It's elementary arithmetic. That you cannot grasp this shows that you
    > > are not a fit opponent for this debate. Stop posting over and over
    > > again arguing with me and forcing me to waste my time refuting your
    > > drivel and unwanted, mathematically-bankrupt opinions.

    >
    > I force you to do nothing, except perhaps to resort to insults when logic is
    > unable to serve your argument.


    You are posting total BS, which needs to be publicly debunked in case
    someone otherwise actually reads and believes the nonsense you wrote.
    See the above math problem with Little Johnny, which proves that you
    are wrong. Now will you please give up trying to "prove" your
    cockamamie theory right when it's been roundly mathematically
    disproven? It can't get any more disproven than that!

    > Same difference. Calling it "straw man" doesn't make it so.


    It is a straw man argument. One-time costs do not affect long-term
    profitability. Recurring costs are the ones to watch out for.

    > > after that the graph climbs into the black and just keeps climbing.

    >
    > Your scheme would ensure that it never does that.


    No, it wouldn't. Little Johnny is in the hole $10 for a while but
    eventually is showing a profit, in case you already forgot. All
    businesses have to invest some money in R&D before they can make it
    back and then keep making additional money with a product. This is
    normal. It is in no way unique to the software industry. GM may spend
    millions designing a new car model, which is based on existing
    technology so no patent protection for that investment. If they make
    hundreds on each car sold, as seems likely, then after the first ten
    thousand units or so shipped they've broken even and every subsequent
    car of that model sold adds to their coffers. Where do they get the
    millions? From the profits from earlier operations. A startup would
    get it from venture capital or investors of some other sort.

    Movie studios spend enormous amounts to make a movie. Sometimes they
    make back their production costs in the theatre and sometimes they
    don't. Enough do that they turn a profit on average, even if sometimes
    they're temporarily in the hole by tens of millions due to an
    expensive flop like Waterworld. Note that this is before the heavily
    DRM-encumbered DVDs launch; usually a box-office failure doesn't make
    much more in video sales anyway. I think the studio that made
    Waterworld still hasn't turned a profit on it after a couple decades
    of VHS and DVD sales, and all the DRM and copyright in the world
    didn't do any good there. It simply wasn't popular. If it had been,
    all the free copying in the world wouldn't have STOPPED them turning a
    profit. It might have slowed it down. It might actually have
    accelerated it by free copies generating additional buzz and through
    sales of merchandise of various kinds -- popularity would have meant
    being able to sell mugs, T-shirts, and action figures by the ton-lot.

    Flops will still be flops. Hits will still be hits. Only the way the
    money is made off the hits might change. There isn't much to be made
    off the flops, and there never will be, unless you outlawed freedom of
    speech and outlawed bad reviews and imposed amazing levels of police-
    state nastiness to quell word-of-mouth "reviews" from spreading. We
    certainly don't want to do THAT just to protect a few special
    industries' profits, ones that are profitable anyway. Why in fact do
    any curtailing of freedoms for such a purpose then?

    > Actually, it's exactly the same. The developer also has "a whole lot of labor
    > per [functional unit of software] or whatever", which they have to invest
    > first before they can make a sale.


    No. The development costs are like the farmer's land. They are paid
    once and then copy after copy can be made and sold for cheap. The
    farmer isn't so lucky. After buying the land and paying that cost
    once, ear after ear of corn can be grown but it's rather more labor
    intensive per ear of corn, and there's probably land taxes too to
    amortize over each year's crop.

    You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the development cost
    for a piece of software has to be paid again for every single copy,
    which is utter hogwash. Once a single copy has been made at whatever
    cost, further copies are pennies each -- the cost of stamping one more
    CD at a factory somewhere. It goes up to a buck or so if the volume is
    low enough, but even then no higher -- I can burn CDs one at a time
    for about a buck each myself, so the "small press" limit of the
    marginal cost of reproduction of software is around $1 per 650MB. For
    very big chunks of software that's potentially as much as $5. With
    high volume and a disc-pressing factory it's still peanuts -- nickle-
    and-dime territory. Adding shipping and handling costs can raise it to
    a buck a disc or so in volume, and maybe $20 a disc "small press".
    Downloading instead of making physical discs brings it back down to
    pennies. It's certainly never anywhere near $300.

    Remember that, assuming they don't provide free support, these are the
    ONLY costs that grow proportionally to the number of copies they make
    and sell. And those costs are not raised at all by any third-party
    copying and distribution.

    If the purpose of selling copies is to pay down the larger cost of
    making that very first copy out of whole cloth, selling them for more
    than around $40 (discs in small lots) to $0.25 or so (downloads)
    suffices to ensure your initial costs get paid down.

    The only real complication is that if the initial costs were paid out
    of borrowed money there's interest, and prices need to increase to pay
    down the debt faster than interest accrues so that it eventually
    disappears instead of growing. In this case, the added amount needs to
    be higher for lower sales volume, and lower for higher sales volume.
    For very high sales volumes (e.g. Windows XP when it launched) you can
    still charge say a buck a download and pay off any reasonable
    combination of debt and interest-rate in a few years -- especially
    since lowering the price further increases sales volume!

    And there's also the option of saving up money to make the initial
    investment instead of using a loan to finance initial development.
    Then there's no interest to worry about when paying off the initial
    costs. Although you probably still want that "principal" to be paid
    off at a rate exceeding inflation of course.

    > Calling development costs "one-time" costs doesn't make them so. You
    > conveniently glossed over all the other costs, again, such as overhead, labor,
    > marketing


    You're inventing this claim out of whole cloth.

    What goes into making a piece of software like say Windows XP?
    You make a first copy. This costs lots.
    You make more copies, which each cost very little.

    The one large cost happens once, up-front. It does not recur, unless
    you decide to make something like Windows Vista, which is obviously a
    gamble (and MS looks like it might lose this one).

    Overhead, labor, and the like associated with the development effort
    is part of that cost-of-the-first-copy. Overhead, labor, and the like
    associated with each disc pressed subsequently is part of the marginal
    cost of reproduction, and we are assuming the price per copy is a bit
    higher than that cost.

    Marketing is optional. Spending a bunch of money to spam everybody in
    sight is a waste of money these days, when there's Internet word of
    mouth. Make something good and people will find out about it and beat
    a path to your door. With something like a new version of Windows, a
    single bit of public fanfare should start it selling at a decent rate,
    and people won't need reminding, because they'll be saturated in
    plenty of mentions of the product. I avoid and block Internet ads and
    aren't watching much TV during summer rerun series, but I run into
    mentions of Vista constantly. No, I don't need reminding that it's out
    there and if I didn't think it was at best a waste of time and money
    I'd be getting a copy or preparing to without any extra prodding from
    Microsoft.

    Marketing is only really needed to generate sales of a product that's
    shoddy and nobody much wants, or something that's really obscure, and
    in the former case I say tough shit, and in the latter case the
    marketing should be more narrowly targeted.

    And marketing is finely tuned. Any sensible company will figure out
    that if they spend $X a year on marketing and use it in various ways,
    they'll get $Y a year worth of extra sales versus if they spent
    nothing, and look for where $Y is as much bigger than $X as possible.
    In that case, every dollar spent on marketing gives rise to an extra
    $1.10 or whatever in revenue, so marketing is actually a profit center
    when you think about it, and is paying for its own costs.

    Stupid companies of course spend $7 zillion on saturation-bombing the
    planet with their spam and end up making $40,000 worth of extra sales
    and then wonder why they are not doing well on the stock market. These
    ones can go straight to hell for all I care; it's their own damn fault
    for not doing the math.

    > > By your theory, Red Hat should be wallowing in debt. Explain the
    > > observation that it is not.

    >
    > Rrr?


    They let anyone make and give away or even sell copies of their
    flagship software product. They sell copies themselves at around $60 a
    pop. They make money on that because the copies are so cheap. They
    also sell paid support services, and finance further development out
    of the profits from the support services (and also outsource it,
    partly to volunteers at no cost). It works -- everyone seems to come
    out a winner. Red Hat, its competitors, its customers, and its
    freeloading non-customers. You cannot possibly contemplate arguing
    against that kind of success!

    (Also notable is that the support service presumably generates
    information guiding further development, as well as the money to
    finance the costs of developing new versions.)

    [Remaining rudeness deleted]

    Lew, feel free to shut up now. You clearly don't know what you're
    talking about, and you clearly have all the mathematical intuition of
    a potted petunia. Figuring out if the revenues exceed the costs long-
    term and doing this accurately is clearly not something you're capable
    of achieving, and you can't possibly make a cogent and correct
    argument on this topic if that is the case. Certainly your attempts so
    far have been dismal failures. So I kindly suggest you cut your losses
    and stick to posting about Java itself.
     
    Twisted, Jul 22, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?a2Vu?=

    how ASP.NET to generate excel report

    =?Utf-8?B?a2Vu?=, Feb 22, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,167
    Alvin Bruney - ASP.NET MVP
    Feb 22, 2006
  2. Gary Wessle

    print formate

    Gary Wessle, May 5, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    292
    Larry Bates
    May 5, 2006
  3. aqmaiya

    Convert Date to Short formate

    aqmaiya, Jun 7, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    355
    John Machin
    Jun 7, 2006
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    505
  5. noydb

    Formate a number with commas

    noydb, Feb 9, 2012, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    193
    Terry Reedy
    Feb 10, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page