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

[David Vaughan]

On 15/03/2004, at 8:55, someone whom I am not attacking personally 
wrote:
>
> 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 Rule?
>
> 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.
>

<consumer warning>  strong statements </consumer warning>
<rant>
There is little sense being spoken in this thread. The above set of non 
sequiturs is an example.

The industry practice and RunRev policy of three-part changes 
(bug/minor/major) and associated pricing policies (none/small/large) is 
well established and of minor interest unless someone has a unique and 
commercially viable proposal which they should then put straight to 
Kevin Miller anyway. If a major upgrade emerges then new bug-fix work 
will cease on all previous versions, although you can continue to use 
the prior version at its last fix level as you please. What else do you 
reasonably expect from a software vendor?

Using the expected changes to the Distribution Builder as an example:
There were some bugs in the old Distribution Builder. There were also a 
lot of things which people thought could work better, and extensive 
discussion of it on the list of enterprise licence holders. Consequent 
on this a fine developer worked with RunRev on an upgraded version 
which is being tested. Yes, it contains bug fixes but better, it is a 
serious improvement in the product. If my licence says I should pay an 
upgrade fee then I will. Bandying words on the exact divider on the 
continuum between bug and feature is otiose if the product was not 
previously unusable (it was not) and there is actual product 
improvement (there is).

Vehicle analogies are pointless. They are fixed term, quite specific 
and their like does not exist in the software industry today. Also, 
they exclude wear-and-tear on consumable parts, which is what an iPod 
battery is and always was. My own iPod battery is fading. My current 
Powerbook battery is down to 2.5 hrs max after nine months. I replaced 
that in the older TiBook after 18 months. So what? The fact that the 
supinely ignorant can extort money from Apple via the publicity of a 
class action is simply free lunching. YMMV.

A while ago, I considered direct investment in RunRev, the company. I 
chose not to do so because, after consideration, the nature of a 
software company such as this exceeded my risk appetite at the time. 
Others have taken greater risk and I continue to benefit from their 
efforts. I support the company while limiting my risks to licence costs 
and to my reputation when I evangelise the product. If they appear to 
be dudding me I will protest, as I have before. If they are threatened 
by ludicrously self-serving licence misinterpretations or by people 
seeking a free lunch I will stand in their defence.
</rant>

<calm stuff>
This thread started, not even on this list, when Ken Norris merely 
(albeit in his somewhat absolutist fashion) asked that priority be 
shifted from new features to bug fixes. The balance between these is a 
difficult one for a company to judge and to keep. They can not afford 
either extreme, either financially or in reputation (i.e. their long 
term financial position). I look forward to the next version.
</calm stuff>

David