Upgrade version and pricing [was] Re: Fix it before moving ahead

[Richard Gaskin]

On Sunday, March 14, 2004, at 12:19 PM, A.C.T. wrote:

> If you have followed the discussion you may have noticed that 
> "updates" are considered "bug fixes" by most participiants within this 
> discussion, while "upgrades" are considered "feature enhancements" 
> (meaning NEW features).
> Bugfixes have to be free and they have to be provided.

While I'm inclined in principle to agree and tend to run my own company 
like that, I understand the economic and process difficulties in 
attempting to make that policy, and observe that there is no standard of 
behavior among software vendors.

For example, Macromedia tends to put out one or two free updates every 
year in between feature upgrades, while Adobe (at least since Bruce 
Chizon came on board) has few if any free updates and tends to withold 
bug fixes for inclusion with paid feature releases.

The economic performance of both Macromedia and Adobe is pretty much on 
par looking at the last five-year period, so I can't say one mode is 
always better than another.

And of course there's Apple's OS X, with 10.0 and 10.1 being arguably of 
beta quality yet both required payment, as did the first truly useful 
version, 10.2, $450 later. Yet Apple customers rarely complain about 
that process, and I can understand why Apple charged for the first two 
and acknowledge that I also paid for them -- so maybe it isn't a problem.

I do what I do, others do what they do, and the proof will be in the 
balance of short-term profits and long-term viability. Customer 
satisfaction plays a role in both, of course, and if the feature 
upgrades are compelling enough it becomes a moot point since the 
customer will jump on board with those anyway.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com