nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (02/15/90)
I recently posted some problems I've had with the Zortech compiler.
Another larger question to ask is why this industry insists on
shipping beta-quality products as finshed products. When I got
my Zortech Rev 2.0 package the disk envelope seal was already broken!!!
I called Zortech and they said that THEY opened the package to insert
some disks with some last minute changes. Now they're shipping a
version 2.06 to fix some more problems. When I got my QuickC version
1.00 I found lots of problems, SOME of which were fixed in the vers.
1.01 that Microsoft shipped a month or so later. This kind of stuff
is endemic in the PC business.
Part of the problem is that the manufacturers are abusing the
"you open it, you can't return it" clause on their packaging.
The implicit licensing agreement is supposed to protect them
from unauthorized copying but it provides them with an excuse
to ship expensive junky products knowing that they can't be
returned. If I spend $350 on a TV and I'm not satisfied I can
return it; if I spend $350 on a C++ compiler I'm stuck with it
no matter how dissatisfying it is. This has to change. Software
is an increasingly big business and consumers of software deserve
the same rights and protections that they get for other products.
[ some wise-ass is bound to point out that you don't really
buy the software, you just buy a license to use it. Fine,
whatever. So if I'm not satisfied with my license then
I ought to have the right to return it for a refund. ]
As a software developer I'm very sensitive to the need to protect
the company and to ensure that it is compensated for its work.
But it is not clear that allowing the return of an unsatisfying
product would make the illicit copying problem any worse than
it already is, nor is it clear that we are fully exploiting all
possible technological fixes to that problem. Moreover, as a
software developer and consumer of software I'm also sensitive
to the need to improve the quality of the stuff I'm shelling
out my money for. I believe that the right to return (for refund)
unsatisfying products will create a rapid improvement in quality.
---Peter
PS -- Who administers consumer protection laws? I have
a feeling that they are state functions but they seem
to be fairly uniform; is the federal government involved?hankin@sauron.osf.org (Scott Hankin) (02/15/90)
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > If I spend $350 on a TV and I'm not satisfied I can return it; if > I spend $350 on a C++ compiler I'm stuck with it no matter how > dissatisfying it is. This has to change. Sometimes it's just a matter of where you get what you get. MacConnection, for example, lists lots and lots of items (the overwhelming majority, in fact) which come with 30, 60 and 90 day guarantees - if you don't like them, return them for a refund. I know that MacConnection is run by the same folks who run PC Connection (at least at some level) so perhaps they do the same thing. This is their response to customer demand. It makes them more competitive than others in the same business. I don't know how they work this out with the actual producers, because some of them don't offer any guarantee at all (MacInTax, for example - although I might be able to see the reasoning there) and I believe that it is up to the vendor just how much guarantee they offer. Legislation is seldom the answer to problems eventually solved by the marketplace. - Scott ------------------------------ Scott Hankin (hankin@osf.org) Open Software Foundation
daniel@saturn.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) (02/15/90)
In article <48a44d7c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > Part of the problem is that the manufacturers are abusing the > "you open it, you can't return it" clause on their packaging. > ...if I spend $350 on a C++ compiler I'm stuck with it > no matter how dissatisfying it is. Having developed software for such a company I share your views. > As a software developer I'm very sensitive to the need to protect > the company and to ensure that it is compensated for its work. > But it is not clear that allowing the return of an unsatisfying > product would make the illicit copying problem any worse than > it already is, nor is it clear that we are fully exploiting all > possible technological fixes to that problem. Limiting software to a particular period of time or number of executions appears difficult, especially on PCs, but even on workstations. And the problem with crippling the software until the person knows they want it means they don't really get to try it out. If we could find a good solution it would be really useful. > ---Peter daniel
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (02/15/90)
Don't forget Microsoft's Law (also known as Gates' Rule): If it ends in ".0", don't buy it. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. sullivan@aqdata.uucp San Dimas, CA +1 714 599 9992
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/90)
[redirect this thread to comp.misc] In article <10760@saturn.ucsc.edu> daniel@saturn.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) writes: > Limiting software to a particular period of time or number of > executions appears difficult, especially on PCs, but even on > workstations. A particular number of executions, I can believe. But a particular period of time is no big deal. Everything you send through the mail or buy in a store is timestamped (either via the cancellation or on your receipt), so allowing people a 30 or so day trial period seems fairly easy. Other goods are sold that way. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
gwollman@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Garrett A Wollman) (02/16/90)
In article <10760@saturn.ucsc.edu> daniel@saturn.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) writes: > >Limiting software to a particular period of time or number of >executions appears difficult, especially on PCs, but even on >workstations. And the problem with crippling the software until >the person knows they want it means they don't really get to >try it out. If we could find a good solution it would be really >useful. I think that Vermont Creative Software has found a neat solution to this, at least for developers... If you don't like their package *after any length of time*, you can send it back. Since they (obviously) can tell whether or not a given package contains their code, it is not too dangerous for them to do this. -GAWollman "Boy! two articles in one day!" (independent C programmer) -- "All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and children. . . . As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other bases is possible." - Lazarus Long [RAH, _TEFL_] ---------------Hopkins doesn't *want* my opinions------------------------
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (02/16/90)
From article <48a44d7c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, by nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson): > > ... manufacturers are abusing the > "you open it, you can't return it" clause on their packaging. I would be interested to hear from some lawyer-types on this issue. I was under the impression that just about every state has an 'implied warranty' law which would nullify the statement on the shrink-wrap package if the product is demonstrably defective. But then you probably would not go through the hassle of trying to recover the cost if they stone-walled you, so the point is moot. I for one have never bought a product bearing such a statement, and I probably never will. [ Followups should go elsewhere. Where? ]
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/16/90)
D'ya ever get the impression that the inventor of a HOME SHRINKWRAP MACHINE would become an overnight millionaire? :-)
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/20/90)
In article <1990Feb15.010300.16896@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >Don't forget Microsoft's Law (also known as Gates' Rule): > >If it ends in ".0", don't buy it. [ Also known, around here, as Tommy's Translation: "How do you write a 'beta?': .0" ] WordPerfect has extended this to If it ends in "5.1", don't buy it. for exactly the same reason(s). kEITHe
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (02/20/90)
Scott Hankin (hankin@osf.org) posts... >> If I spend $350 on a TV and I'm not satisfied I can return it; if >> I spend $350 on a C++ compiler I'm stuck with it no matter how >> dissatisfying it is. This has to change. > > Sometimes it's just a matter of where you get what you get. MacConnection, > for example, lists lots and lots of items (the overwhelming majority, in > fact) which come with 30, 60 and 90 day guarantees - if you don't like > them, return them for a refund. I know that MacConnection is run by the > same folks who run PC Connection (at least at some level) so perhaps they > do the same thing. This is their response to customer demand. It makes > them more competitive than others in the same business. > > I don't know how they work this out with the actual producers, because some > of them don't offer any guarantee at all (MacInTax, for example - although > I might be able to see the reasoning there) and I believe that it is up to > the vendor just how much guarantee they offer. > > Legislation is seldom the answer to problems eventually solved by the > marketplace. Agreed. But in the PC world, at least, the marketplace has failed to solve this problem. I called PC Connection to ask why they don't offer this arrangement for PC products and they said that for the Mac products the arrangement is made individually with each supplier. It seems they have had difficulties convincing suppliers of PC software of the benefits of this system. Maybe consumers of Mac products are more demanding of quality or reliability in the products they buy? Also, we shouldn't be too quick to assume it is the marketplace which is responsible for our being able to get refunds on defective products. Many states have "implied warranty" laws. Basically these say that no product can be sold "as is" or "without warranty". If a product proves to be defective or fails to be whatever it represents itself to be on the packaging, then the consumer can get his money back. According to Steve Poitrast, a lawyer with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office with whom I spoke last week, the existing "implied warranty" law in Massachusetts should also cover software. He added that he's not aware of whether this has ever been tested in court. [ BTW, this has gotten off of 'C'. Is there an appropriate comp.? forum for a topic like this? ] ---Peter
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (02/21/90)
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > Another larger question to ask is why this industry insists on > shipping beta-quality products as finshed products. If software consumers and magazine reviewers weren't so all-fired impressed with long feature lists maybe developers could concentrate on quality not quantity. However, as it is, any developer who produces a product with a few well-thought-out and well-implemented features is guaranteed to lose against the product with a long feature list; the length of the bug list is irrelevant. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]
jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (02/21/90)
The problem with returning software you don't like is that there is a very fuzzy line between "doesn't work" and "doesn't work as cleanly/elegantly as I would like it to." If you buy an editor, let's say, and it's quite kludgy: it uses idiotic key sequences, non-standard menus, and so forth. You can't stand using it. Yet it does all this with no "bugs." Should you be able to return it for a refund? If you answer yes to the above, does this mean that you should be able to return any book that you buy but don't like? Jim
rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette) (02/22/90)
In article <1990Feb21.023933.16658@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: >nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > >> Another larger question to ask is why this industry insists on >> shipping beta-quality products as finshed products. > >If software consumers and magazine reviewers weren't so >all-fired impressed with long feature lists maybe developers >could concentrate on quality not quantity. > >However, as it is, any developer who produces a product with >a few well-thought-out and well-implemented features is guaranteed >to lose against the product with a long feature list; the length >of the bug list is irrelevant. That is quite true in one respect. Ask yourself "Irrelevant to whom?" It appears to me that the problem cannot be blamed just on magazine reviewers, but upon all the bloody *consumers*. Every company that is producing either hardware or software products has an internal (semi-secret) bug list. Some of these companies will actually give you their lists if you needle them enough before you but their product. Most however deny that such lists even exist! Their tech-support people are trained to say "Bugs? What bugs?" The bad news is that most consumers of such products are too dumb to insist on seeing these lists (or are too dumb to even ask for them in the first place). This longstanding tradition has given rise to a situation in which the sellers have most of the leverage on this issue. Often you (as a consumer) are not in a position to insist on being provided with a bug list for a given product, because the seller knows that if you go to his competitors, they will not give you *their* lists either. The good news is that there are some encouraging counter-trends. I think that here in my home state of California, there is now a so-called "lemmon law" that says that sellers of used-cars must provide the consumer with a list of known major defects. Back in the computer realm, there is one publication (The Microprocessor Report) which is now arm- twisting the major microprocessor vendors to make the bug lists for their micro-processors public information (rather than trying to play the old shell game of denying that any bugs exist). As I understand it, The Microprocessor Report has actually had several successes in getting microprocessor vendors to pledge to make their bugs lists available for publication. So why doesn't this happen more often? I guess it's because most people who *buy* hardware and software get bleary-eyed looking at the features and forget about the possibility that a sufficiently large qualtity of bugs can make all of those features useless. I for one will *never* buy another piece of hardware or software (with my own money) until I get a bug list in advance. Would anyone else care to join this one man boycott of companies with "secret" bug lists? Perhaps what we really need is a "lemmon law" for software. :-) // Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu) // C++ Entomologist // Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (02/23/90)
[ note that I am no longer following up on this on the lang.c
newsgroups; it no longer seems to relate to C ]
jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) posts...
>The problem with returning software you don't like is that there is a very
>fuzzy line between "doesn't work" and "doesn't work as cleanly/elegantly
>as I would like it to." If you buy an editor, let's say, and it's quite
>kludgy: it uses idiotic key sequences, non-standard menus, and so forth.
>You can't stand using it. Yet it does all this with no "bugs." Should you
>be able to return it for a refund?
My comments were directed at software which is buggy; i.e., which
fails to preform its proper funtion, such as a C compiler which
fails to compile legal C code, or which fails to offer some feature
described on the box. In other words, I'm saying that "implied
warranty" laws should apply just as much to software as any other
product. In those cases the line is not so fuzzy. In cases where
it is fuzzy I would apply the same standards to software as to other
products, i.e., "suitability of use" and similar standards.
>If you answer yes to the above, does this mean that you should be able to
>return any book that you buy but don't like?
I don't think you can make the same rules for what are, for most
people, single-use items, like books and videos. This would also
apply to single-use sfotware like tax preparation software. And
I'm not aware that any states' implied warranty laws cover books
based on their content. I think this sort of argument is a straw
man.
---Peter
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (02/27/90)
In article <48a44d7c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
$ [ some wise-ass is bound to point out that you don't really
$ buy the software, you just buy a license to use it. Fine,
$ whatever. So if I'm not satisfied with my license then
$ I ought to have the right to return it for a refund. ]
If your laws are like they are in Ontario, then you do _not_ have
a right to return anything for a refund. If a store offers refunds,
that's just fine and dandy, but there is no such legal requirement.
Things may be different in other provinces or states, but that's the
way it is here.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
I Think I'm Going Bald - Caress of Steel, Rushned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny) (02/27/90)
In article <48a44d7c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > Another larger question to ask is why this industry insists on > shipping beta-quality products as finshed products. When I got > my Zortech Rev 2.0 package the disk envelope seal was already broken!!! > I called Zortech and they said that THEY opened the package to insert > some disks with some last minute changes. Now they're shipping a > version 2.06 to fix some more problems. > Generally speaking, I agree with your complaint. However, you should not be too hard on Zortech because of their C++ compiler. After all, there are no correct implementations of C++ anywhere in the known world. In fact, there can't be. Even if all of the known bugs in the quintessential reference implementation of C++ were fixed, the language itself is still incompletely defined. While I like several of the features C++ offers, I can not recommend it for general use. If you are looking for compilers which should live up to reasonable expectations of merchantability, I would have to suggest that you stick to languages with both well defined standards and a good many years of implementation experience behind them. On the other hand, if you want the features that C++ offers with a fair degree of compatibility with existing C development environments, then by all means use C++. But remember, "you pays your money and you takes your chances." Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715 ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.
mjensen@bbn.com (Martin Jensen) (03/01/90)
In article <777@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >The problem with returning software you don't like is that there is a very >fuzzy line between "doesn't work" and "doesn't work as cleanly/elegantly >as I would like it to." If you buy an editor, let's say, and it's quite >kludgy: it uses idiotic key sequences, non-standard menus, and so forth. >You can't stand using it. Yet it does all this with no "bugs." Should you >be able to return it for a refund? Yes! I would say "No" if the user had been given a chance to fully evaluate the product beforehand, however, the fact remains that there is usually no accurate way to evaluate a product before the purchase. Software vendors would have us buy their products based on their description and assesment ("Our product is GREAT! Everyone LOVES it!! Buy it now!!!") or on the judgement of an "independent" evaluation by a third party. Taking editors as an example, if we were to read all the evaluations on pc based editors we would come down to the choice between, say, Epsilon and Brief. If we don't have access to a copy of each, the choice becomes a coin toss -- hardly an informed choice, nor a particularly smart way to spend a couple of hundred dollars. Would you buy a car without taking a test drive? Highly unlikely. Unless software vendors can find a means of giving the user a proper chance to evaluate a product (Say a full featured copy of an editor, but one that won't write the file .. That way you can evaluate all its features and capabilities without actually getting a working copy.) I think we all should start insisting on warranties that extend beyond the removal of the shrink wrap. Enough people made enough noise to get copy protection removed ... maybe we get the right to evaluate before we buy. > >If you answer yes to the above, does this mean that you should be able to >return any book that you buy but don't like? As to the book analogy ... I can quite legally borrow a copy from the local public library ... try doing that with your favorite editor. /| /| / | / | -/- Martin Jensen (mjensen@bbn.com) / |/ | _ _ / o __ BBN Communications Corp. / |_(_(_/ (_/(_(_() ) Cambridge, MA 02140
CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) (03/01/90)
In article <52780@bbn.COM>, mjensen@bbn.com (Martin Jensen) says: > >Enough people made enough noise to get copy protection removed ... maybe we >get the right to evaluate before we buy. Hooray for ShareWare!! Virtually, - Charles Martin Hannum II "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within." (That's Charles to you!) "To life immortal!" cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu} "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..." c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu} "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."
sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) (03/07/90)
In article <52780@bbn.COM> mjensen@cc4.bbn.com (Martin Jensen) writes: >As to the book analogy ... I can quite legally borrow a copy from the local >public library ... try doing that with your favorite editor. No problem. Just go to the local software rental place, 3 bucks and you get a fully functioning copy of just about anything you want. Do you have software rental stores in your area? Is there a demand for them? Maybe you should think about starting your own business? -- sanders The 11th commandment: "Thou shalt use lint" Reply-To: cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sanders.austin.ibm.com!sanders "she was an innocent bystander, it's a democracy" -- Jim Morrison