@lubos can you please atleast consider this…?
Sounds like a good idea.
@romangarg please read the thread & understand what has been written, not just the bits you want to hear.
1 Like
@Patch
the main reason as mentioned by @Tut why he is not supporting this feature request is because of its complexity & that many user would get confused
@lubos also think it is too complex
I am only trying to clarify tut why it wouldn’t be as confusing to user as he imagines…
And, i am also suggesting lubos & tut how the complexity can be reduced.
Rest, I leave it for lubos to decide whether he thinks implementing this feature would be useful or not…
@romangarg there were comments about complexity by others including me and there were also important posts such as number 14 by @Joe91:
You don’t seem to know that lubos is Manager’s developer and thus decides to implement the ideas or not? Yours isn’t even in the ideas category.
@Mark it is actually clear he does:
I believe others have already appreciated what you have proposed.
I also do not think your suggestion would be usable in most businesses.
Which is why I suggested you wait and hope Lubos implements what he has suggested. The likely alternative is no change to the current pricing approach (not your suggestion).
You might not have. But that will be the very first thing that others will demand if multiple-tier discounts are introduced. It is the most common form of discounting in the world. The fact that you did not mention it shows how your proposal only considered your personal workflow and business situation, and not whether the proposal is workable in a general purpose accounting program.
Prices, discounts, they are all variations of the same thing. Call them whatever you wish, they determine how much you charge your customers or are charged by your suppliers. And how are you going to handle situations where, because of known difficulties collecting payment or extraordinary delivery problems, you decide to charge a customer more than usual rather than offer a discount? That, too, is a common situation.
1 Like
My proposal covers requirements of not just my personal workflow but also for most businesses involved in selling of established brand goods, fmcg products, medicine(drugs) etc which already has a fixed MRP, & its selling/buying price relative to that MRP
These brand/company/ franchise mostly ask their distribution channel partner(business) to issue invoice with certain fixed value ( like DP, SDP, RP etc) , & provide them with certain margin on that selling price
So the only way these businesses can sell to their customer is by providing discount on that sp set by these brands/ manufacturer or franchise.
There is already a functionality to charge for “late payment fee” to handle difficulty in collection of payment
And also freight & other charges can be used to handle delivery
And lets not debate anymore on this topic. It started with my request being too complex to implement.
& Now it has come down to you mentioning that my request is missing features like item qty based discount, which i dont think is going to reduce the complexity in any way
This is my last reply on this topic unless @lubos at some point may consider this feature to be useful & adds to ideas category
If the requested feature is ever considered for implementation by lubos , my would suggestion would be introduction of ITEM CATEGORY module as well as mentioned in first post of this topic. It will reduce lot of effort in assigning discount for a group of item that falls under same category/brand
@romangarg your implementation proposal seems too complicated. I’m sure there is simpler and more elegant way to solve the same problem. I just don’t know what it is yet.
What I know is that I need to implement ability to specify pricing in multiple currencies (already in ideas category).
Then implement pricing levels (and pricing levels could include discounts as you require) - also already in ideas.
When these two are implemented, you might find out that your problem is partially solved already. Only then we can look at what is still missing.
2 Likes