[GeorgeTheEng]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I also think the software quote is very misleading. The software is meant for academic use which always comes with huge discounts. I doubt FIRST ever pays a dime for the software we receive.

I'm not denying that. It's a matter of how you value it. Truthfully, even the academic prices are more then it costs Autodesk to produce the software. Look at this way, how expensive is it really to make CDs and manuals? That is the only real cost for the software, and at least on Autodesk's part, I beleive it is 100% donated. The development cost of the software is figured into the retail value and expected sales volume.

The question is how you value the kit... There are few options...

• Based it on the actual cost to the teams (i.e the $2k value)
• Base it on the replacement causes to the team (including academic discounts, etc)
• Base in on the retail value (consider it lost sales to a company)
• Base it on the acutal manufacturing costs to the sponsors

My claim is that all of these are valid. But they give you very different values.

I tend to agree with those who talk about the sponsors. I think a few would be annoyed if they provided parts as sponsorship and then found out on a certain set of teams received them.