bnfb@june.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn Freeman-Benson) (01/26/88)
What is the consensus about software vendors offering free upgrades and bug fixes? It seems to me that other industries have always charged for upgrades, especially in a consumer environment. For example, dish washers are not upgraded each year for free -- if you want a bug fix, you buy a new one. Now I agree that the analogy is not perfect, but the software industry is moving from small numbers of individually built programs to large numbers of mass produced programs, and thus we are moving towards software as a consumer item. If one were to say "buy the upgrades", then the engineering issues of quality and relability would become even more relevant. Furthermore, the usual practice of only supporting (in the training sense) the latest release, would be hard to justify. Comments? Bjorn N. Freeman-Benson
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/27/88)
[In response to a query asking why software vendors provide free
updates when most products updates are sold at a profit.]
First, if you buy a washing machine, and the door falls off in the
first ten days of use, you call the vendor, and get it fixed under a
"warranty", usually in a day or two, if the vendor plans to stay in
business.
However, software vendors are scared witless about giving warranties,
because of something called "consequential damages". Also, (I've done
this task) fixing up a broken piece of code is rarely an operation
you'd like to guarantee to do in a couple of days. Instead, when the
compiler you just bought can't compile a null program ("the door falls
off..."), you call the vendor, it gets added to a long queue of things
to fix, and, usually months later, you get an "upgrade".
Sometimes it is really an upgrade, but most of the time, it is just
somebody "putting the door back on" in such a way that it won't fall
off when you use it. So, your "free" upgrade is just a little scam
that you and the vendor agree upon, to replace the much too dangerous
(to the venor) "warranty", while still getting things fixed, sometimes.
If "software engineering" were yet a science, and programming could
produce reliable, workable products at reasonable costs, this scam
would not be tolerated. However, with the demand for software far
outstripping the ability to produce it, and the reluctance of the
buyers to pay the true cost, in time and money, of producing reliable
software, we programmers continue to rebuild our bridges each time
they tumble into the torrent, and call our efforts "engineering".
What a terrible devaluation of a word!
Software engineering - it CAN happen in our lifetime!
Kent, the man from xanth.
I code reactor power plant control in C.
I add "count_of_recent_alarms" to "count_of_rods_to_lift".
C has weak type checking; the compiler doesn't notice.
A major coolant valve sticks, a spate of alarms occur.
All die.
Oh, the embarrassment!beyer@houxs.UUCP (J.BEYER) (01/27/88)
Of course manufacturers of inferior products such as automobiles may be forced to distribute bug fixes -- often called recalls -- and be sued for various liabilities ... .
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/28/88)
In article <4082@june.cs.washington.edu> bnfb@june.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn Freeman-Benson) writes: >What is the consensus about software vendors offering free upgrades >and bug fixes? Well, I would say that depends upon the nature of the release. Often the next release or upgrade of a software product contains a blend of bug fixes and new features. In some cases, those bug fixes are esential both to the end customer, and to the viability of the vendor in the eyes of their customers. The features are nice to have and are probably viewed by the vendor as essential to keep their customer base from going with a product from the competition. >If one were to say "buy the upgrades", then the engineering issues >of quality and relability would become even more relevant. >Furthermore, the usual practice of only supporting (in the training >sense) the latest release, would be hard to justify. Another problem from the vendor's view point is supporting multiple versions of a product. In the ideal case a vendor would like all of their customers to be working with the latest release, so that there is no need to support older releases. However, if the vendor is going to charge for the upgrade, this may keep many from taking it. Software is a funny commodity. We are constantly trying to draw comparisons with other industries/products in terms of engineering, production, support, etc.... But it is fundamentally quite different from all other products and processes. It deserves it's own approach, but don't ask me how. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/29/88)
In article <3850003@wdl1.UUCP> rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: >Bjorn Freeman-Benson writes: > >>What is the consensus about software vendors offering free upgrades >>and bug fixes? > >First I want to say that I don't feel that this topic is entirely in >keeping with the theme of this newsgroup, but then neither is the >subject of office cubicles and it drew some attention as well. Perhaps it is stretching it a bit. It seems more like a marketing question, but if you must use software products yourself that you buy from vendors, eg. compilers, database systems, etc...., then it is an appropriate topic for discussion here. The subject of office cubicles and offices damn does belong here! It has a direct impact upon programmer productivity, which is one of the primary buzzwords in the software engineering world :-) > >Upgrades and bug fixes are not the same thing and should not be lumped >together like this; if you are going to make analogies, seperate them >and make individual analogies. Lots of retail products have been >subject to recalls. This is usually when the manufacturer just plain >blew it and made something dangerous or extremely defective. I would >equate this to bug fixes and note that the consumer virtually never >has to pay anything during a recall. Oh, really? While I agree that certain bugs do get immediate attention due to the fact that a customer can not function without a fix, many bugs have to wait for the next release to be corrected and the customer must live with it until them. > >Since this column is software engineering, let me just say that if >software was being developed properly, there wouldn't be obvious bugs >that need fixing in the first place!!! And pray tell, how can we all accomplish this state oh wise one? >Rion Cassidy >Ford Aerospace ^^^^ Ford -> Quality is Job 1, right :-) -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826