Upgrade version and pricing [was] Re: Fix it before moving ahead [OT]
mpetrides at earthlink.net
Sun Mar 14 15:55:12 CST 2004
Ayup. It happens but that isn't necessarily the right way to do
things. For example, contractors fail to fix warranty items on new
homes all the time, claiming they are not defects and knowing that most
people will not take the time to pursue them. It's a fact of life, but
that doesn't make it right AND it doesn't confer immunity if someone
gets REALLY ticked off and decides to approach the issue with the class
action sledge hammer.
Just look at Apple's approach to the iPod battery thing. They are
entirely correct in saying, if a battery drops dead after a year that
is not a manufacturing defect. Doesn't stop them from bad "Apple's
dirty little secret" publicity nor does it prevent the same ticked off
customers from availing themselves of the only recourse they really
have--which is to get together a class actionl. Does it t matter that
Compaq's iPaq is far, far worse with respect to battery life--also not
user serviceable. Nope. That's no protection at all.
My point in all this is that manufacturers CAN and do cram terms they
want down the throats of customers all the time. And most of the time
get away with it. But that doesn't make it right and it DOES make for
very annoyed customers who are looking for a way to strike back. Is
this any way to do business? I think not. What happened to the Golden
BTW, the comments above are NOT to be construed as applying to RunRev
and not even to Apple (although they ARE worse about some of this). By
and large, both DO care about customers far more than those guys in
Redmond. The comments are simply addressed at the question which was
posed by Dar which I read to be: what should a manufacturer's
obligation be when defects surface in a product they no longer sell.
On Mar 14, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
> I can't speak for RunRev, butI can tell you Altuit doesn't have a
> problem asking users to upgrade to newer versions of their software--
> as we (like many companies) incorporate bug fixes with feature update
> s. It's too much trouble to maintain multiple sets/versions of source
> code. And in some cases, the bug fixes are intertwined with feature
> updates, which make it even harder to keep separate source versions.
> Most software licenses these days do not have 'bug-free' clauses.
> Typically, you purchase the software 'as is.' In our case, we allow
> you to try the product for 15 days before purchasing. I believe RunRev
> also has a 'try before you buy' clause. While, this does not absolve
> us (or them) from making bug fixes, it also doesn't compel us to
> provide them for free in update/ugrades either.
More information about the use-livecode