pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (03/23/88)
First, a brief aside on the buggyness of pre-4.0 Telebit roms: In article <3897@umix.cc.umich.edu> (Peter Honeyman) writes: >rahul, where did you get the idea that the rev 3 roms "don't work >right"? they work just fine. i'm told, however, that the rev 4 >roms are even better. > > peter Well, I identified a couple of nice bugs in the pre-4.0 roms. First, if S92 is set to 1 (*answer* the phone in reverse order, PEP tones last), dialing *out* gets screwed up in certain situations. Second, the modem absolutely refused to connect to a few 1200 baud modems we talk to. It dropped the call as soon as the other end answered with carrier. Version 4.0 fixed these bugs. Now, on to the topic at hand: What is a good ROM upgrade policy? As noted by others, US Robotics has a ROM upgrade policy involving *no* cost to the customer and trans-shipment of ROMs (you only send them the bad ones after you receive the good ones). They also have a two year warranty period. This is an eminently reasonable policy. Of *course* it costs USR $$$. Warranty service is part of the life-cycle cost of manufacturing a product! A good ROM upgrade policy should include: - Minimal downtime for the customer (they paid for a working modem; trans-shipment of replacements should be the norm unless the can do while-you-wait carry-in replacement). - No charge, except maybe minimal handling fee. Why shouldn't the manufacturer be able to recover their development costs on upgrades? Because: - The new firmware is being developed anyway for new shipments. The cost of development is R&D going into *new* product, not *old already shipped* product. - If there were NO problems with the old firmware, it might be ok to claim that a ROM change is purely for additional, un-anticipated features. Can *you* claim to have written a big pile of *perfect* code? Note that the definition of perfect is in the eyes of the customer, not the manufacturer. See below. - After the warranty runs out, the customer expects to pay something/ more for fixes and enhancements. But you've gotta watch the competition! - New features should generally be added for free. - First, recognise that when dealing with firmware, it is a pain to try to unbundle separate features. - Many (NOT all) changes that are 'new features' to the manufacturer, are 'bug fixes' to the customer. For example, if I don't like the interactive reponse, I think: "Lousy response time. Why don't they use shorter packets? They should have done it right the first time". A Non-Techie <tm> customer just thinks: "this thing is slow. I don't like it". Now, when they come out with new roms with better response time, both the Non-Techie type and I think "ahhh- they've finally fixed *that* bug". - In today's market, manufacturers of leading-edge [*over* the edge and churning around in the sand, sometimes :-)] products can rarely afford to turn updates like this into a revenue center. If your product is changing so quickly that I'm likely to get a less buggy, more-better-faster box for the same price simply by waiting a couple of months, then an expensive upgrade policy is simply going to cost you sales growth and make your customer base less happy! - Unless the new features actually change the price of the product, your existing customer base is not going to be excited about paying for new features. *Willing*, maybe. But not 'golly-I- love-this-manufacturer' happy! Some companies get a lot of good referrals from existing customers with a policy of: "upgrades to new features only cost the difference between what you bought and the new-improved version". If the new version is priced the same as the old one was, there are a couple of ways to go: 1) no charge for the upgrade; 2) Still sell the old one to the public at a reduced price, charge the difference for the upgrade. Unless you are IBM, with a lock on the Fortune 500, the name of the game is Customer Satisfaction. Telebit, you may be able to *justify* charging $$$ for upgrades, but the *competition* doesn't, and your existing customers DO notice! If you can't beat the competition in the customer service area, at least keep up with them, or you're going to lose lots of those happy-points you've worked so hard to gain! I'm sure you're listening, Telebit-folk. Your competitors are also listening, and will certainly be taking advantage of any edge you give them. I hope you can be as responsive here as you have been in the technical areas. Great technology is *not* all a company needs in order to have a successful product! Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (03/23/88)
In article <176@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > - The new firmware is being developed anyway for new shipments. > The cost of development is R&D going into *new* product, > not *old already shipped* product. > > - Many (NOT all) changes that are 'new features' to the manufacturer, > are 'bug fixes' to the customer. For example, if I don't like the > interactive reponse, I think: "Lousy response time. Why don't they > use shorter packets? They should have done it right the first > time". A Non-Techie <tm> customer just thinks: "this thing is > slow. I don't like it". Now, when they come out with new roms > with better response time, both the Non-Techie type and I think > "ahhh- they've finally fixed *that* bug". I just recently had my company buy ten Trailblazer Plus modems. We are considering investing in even more modems. Previously, I wouldn't have touched them with a ten foot pole until the interactive response was improved. The availability of uucp spoofing was also an important factor. Previously, the Trailblazer served no useful function for us. The interactive response was slow so you couldn't use it with your terminal. UUCP throughput was lousy so you couldn't use it for mail and news. I used to hope Telebit would dry up and blow away. V.32 was the "right" way to go. But when they added uucp support, I thought, maybe this is my kind of vendor. Then I went to Uniforum, tried the TB+, and was sold. Therefore, for this site at least, Pete's claim that the new features were needed for new customers is correct. I can easily believe that Telebit is not making money off a $100 upgrade charge, much less a $50 one. It seems that what they are doing is acquiring an image of being greedy with their customers. I think a possible solution to this would be for Telebit to authorize the copying of their 4.00 EPROMs. I can't see how this would cause them to lose any profit. Revenue, yes, but the profit on a $50 order can't be very much. Possibly someone could even post the data. This site could do so easily but we wouldn't without Telebit's express permission. -- I love my VT-320. I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com