LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 1996, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:31:44 +1000
Reply-To:     Jerry Le Breton <lebreton@SPIRIT.COM.AU>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Jerry Le Breton <lebreton@SPIRIT.COM.AU>
Subject:      Re: SAS AF Executable

I'm a bit late joining this thread and its pretty well all been said by now, but I'd just like to add my name to the list of disgruntled SAS AF consultants/developers (lest SI think I'm happy with their current policy).

I'd also like to complain about the miriad of modules for which a separate licence (and money) is needed. My current client (busy sheding staff and cutting costs) has a 100 user licence and figured they were paying more than enough already, without having to fork out even more for SAS/Share to implement an AF application I proposed. So another opportunity bites the dust.

Other applications here are being migrated to DB2 so I've been trying to point out the advantages of SAS/Access to the organisation. Its bad enough that SAS is still not considered a "real" IT tool by most "real" IT managers and staff, so then telling them its only going to cost... Well, they hear the word 'cost' and I don't get a chance to finish the sentence. Oh, yes, and how about getting SAS/Assist on the mainframe too...

One area I developed an AF application for, is keen to see it extended and distributed throughout the organisation. But there's the cost of the extra licences. Instead of becoming a major, high profile application, flying the flag for SAS, it'll remain buried in a user area with its dozen or so users.

It doesn't matter that the incremental cost of extra licences may be small, the client is constantly being reminded of The Cost of SAS.

Its been said thousands of times: SAS has an image problem; compounded by their pricing policy, the lack of a run-time version, and their failure to fully utilise third party developers (SI Australia doesn't even operate the Quality Partner Program).

Some years ago, I stopped the endless quest for experience on all the latest software and hardware, and decided to specialize in SAS because I thought it was going places. But maybe its just going to stay in its niche after all. And, as long as their revenue is growing, SI will probably feel they don't need to change anything. Just like Apple in their heyday. I share Don Stanley's concerns: is being a SAS specialist really in my best interest? I'd like the answer to be Yes, but SI don't do much to help. If only SAS was a "real", mainstream product.

Jerry Le Breton Independent SAS Consultant (for the time being)


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page