Upgrade versus update

[Marian Petrides]

True.  But the KNOWN bugs reported during that timeframe should be 
fixed as an update NOT an upgrade.

Kinda like when you buy a car (or a piece of hardware).  If it breaks 
on the day before the warranty expires, you are entitled to a warranty 
repair and a reasonable time period thereafter to be certain that the 
warranty repair did actually fix the problem--typically repairs are 
warranted for 90 days following return of the defective item.

It is quite reasonable IMHO to expect bugs documented and known to 
exist during the first year of a product's life to be covered by an 
IMPLICIT warranty, even in the absence of an explicit one.  Software 
developers (whether RunRev or you or I) should honor this implicit 
warranty and fix the known bugs with patches or updates rather than 
obliging buyers to purchase an upgrade in order to get the bug-fixes. 
It's a moral obligation, even if it isn't a binding legal 
obligation--which it may or may not be (I'm not a lawyer).

Marian

On Mar 13, 2004, at 6:02 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:

> Of course, after a certain amount of time, expecting bug-fixes on older
> versions wouldn't be reasonable either. Every software product has a
> "supported lifetime".
>
> For example, if you found a bug in Windows 95, Microsoft would hardly 
> be
> expected to provide a fix a this point in time.
>
> After a year or two following the major release of a software product,
> usually it's time to go on. Otherwise it becomes too expensive a 
> product to
> support and sell and nobody could afford to buy it.
>
> doug
>
> On 3/14/04 7:56 AM, "Marian Petrides" <mpetrides at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't agree more with all the points you made.
>>
>> Marian
>> On Mar 13, 2004, at 5:56 PM, A.C.T. wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Marian,
>>>
>>>> Ah, but what happens when those bug fixes come bundled with major
>>>> feature enhancements?  Is that an update or an upgrade?  Sounds like
>>>> an upgrade to me.
>>>
>>> That's an "upgrade", as it carries "major enhancements".
>>> Please don't get me wrong on this: I am willing to pay for "upgrades"
>>> (that I need) and I am expecting free "updates" where necessary!
>>>
>>> Now if a company decides to NOT bugfix their product "for free" for
>>> the honest customer the result - at least on the long run - will be:
>>> less customers. That's just what the market is like: The way you deal
>>> with your customers defines the way they deal with you. I have bought
>>> my license from Runrev because I think Revolution is a product that
>>> may help me creating some specific products. I haven't really started
>>> using it (as I really get headache from Transcript), so I cannot tell
>>> if I "need" an update or an upgrade right now :-)
>>>
>>>> I like your idea about having a choice in which upgrade you want to
>>>> take.  I hope you'll post on this list what happens when you try to
>>>> use your free upgrade to go from 2.x to 3.x, because I suspect this
>>>> is an eventuality that RunRev had not anticipated and had not
>>>> intended.  Clever reading on your part!
>>>
>>> Well, that's just what the license says: "Your key is valid for the
>>> current release and one upgrade." It does not say "and the next
>>> upgrade available", it clearly says "and one upgrade". So it is my
>>> choice which upgrade I want to have for free: if there are major
>>> enhancements in the next version it's most likely that I choose that.
>>> If the next-plus-one version is two years ahead, it's very likely 
>>> that
>>> I also choose the next version as well. But if the frequency of
>>> upgrades should be three/four a year, it's very likely that I do not
>>> upgrade to the very next but one of the following versions. According
>>> to the license that's what the key is for: "one free upgrade". I
>>> consider this a fair license and I am going to change some of my own
>>> licenses according to this idea.
>>>
>>> Back to "updates": Software nearly never ever is "bug-free". A
>>> cooperative way to keep your customers satisfied is handing out
>>> "patches" (or call them "updates"), because this shows: You do care
>>> for what you have done. That's true especially for companies that 
>>> have
>>> limited resources: The smaller your budget is the more important it 
>>> is
>>> to have satisfied customers (I tend to call them "partners") that are
>>> willing to pay for "real upgrades", because you fix the bugs you made
>>> in the product you sold them. Only big companies can allow themselves
>>> to ignore that they have made mistakes (do I need to name some?) and
>>> "sell every bugfix as an upgrade". From the cooperative side this
>>> leads to short-term partnerships, and it's up to the company to 
>>> decide
>>> if they prefer that to long-term partnerships with customers/partners
>>> that pay for "real upgrades" because you care for your product.
>>>
>>> Marc Albrecht
>>> A.C.T. / level-2
>>> Glinder Str. 2
>>> 27432 Ebersdorf
>>> Deutschland
>>> Tel. 04765-830060
>>> Fax. 04765-830064
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-revolution mailing list
>>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>>
>> This email has been screened by Engate Spam Sentinel
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>