rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (03/16/91)
I think some of the discussion about quality and (unlimited) warranties is getting sidetracked by the automobile analogy. I understand the value of an analogy, since we're really aiming at how the software world could be re-shaped in some other mold, but I think we need a closer analogy. John DeArmond got more out of the analogy than I would have expected--but his arguments fall short in a couple of places, as do the arguments of the folks on the other side. (It's not valid to say "software isn't a car; therefore if we do <x> with cars we can't do <x> with software." If the analogy breaks down, it says neither yea nor nay.) I'd like to suggest that when the analogy gets weak, we abandon it or look for a better one, rather than either: - continuing to stretch it without regard to the dissimilarity or - trying to reason backward that if the analogy breaks down, the idea being advanced can't still hold for both items separately One problem with cars is that they're physical objects which wear out in a very real, direct, observable sense. (A couple of people have pointed out that software also "wears out"--but in such a different sense that although I agree with the point, I don't think it supports the analogy.) Another problem is that cars are bought and sold; software is licensed. You might use books rather than cars to answer these two analogy breakdowns. The point of purchasing a book is usually for the contents much more than for the embodiment. You are licensing a copy of a written work. And while books do wear out, that's relatively rare. The information content remains. Books also allow us to carry the red herring argument about software, that "every defect was there from the start". If your encyclopedia says that the atomic number of Fe is 37, it's wrong; it's a defect (a "bug") and was there from the start. You have to be a little careful about the scale between books and software; for example, the K&R white book is about the equivalent of half a meg of source code. Also, prose is more forgiving--an error in number, tense, or mood of a verb seldom produces a catastrophic misunderstanding. Still, books can be a useful analogy to software when more tangible mechanical objects don't compare. One of the major differences between software and cars is that there's a very different class of interoperability. I can drive a Toyota or a Cadillac on the same road--if this were the world of software I'd only be able to drive on Toyota roads, and if they didn't go where I wanted to go, I'd have to buy a different kind of car! One of my cynical observations about software was the way some companies act as if "a dissatisfied cus- tomer is better than no customer"--and one of the reasons is that the more customers you've got, the more applications you'll get. There's a positive feedback. Market share means something very different. (I could launch off into more reasoning here, but it would only stretch the non- analogy even further.:-) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/17/91)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >I think some of the discussion about quality and (unlimited) warranties is >getting sidetracked by the automobile analogy. I understand the value of >an analogy, since we're really aiming at how the software world could be >re-shaped in some other mold, but I think we need a closer analogy. John >DeArmond got more out of the analogy than I would have expected--but his >arguments fall short in a couple of places, as do the arguments of the >folks on the other side. Actually, the more I think about my analogy, the more parallels I see between software and automobiles. >Another problem is that cars are bought and sold; software is licensed. Let's get one thing out of the way up front. With the rare exception of vendors who sign an a priori contract with a buyer, the only licensing that occures with shrink-wrapped software is in the minds of the vendors. Legally the SALE of shrink-wrapped software falls under the purview of the UCC which governs all sales absent a contract. The trivial argument to those who dont' believe this is that if the vendor has the right to proffer a unilaterial contract and make it stick, I have the right to unilaterally modify that contract to my liking before initiating the acceptance act (bursting the shrink-wrap in most cases). I, of course, delete any as-is warranty dislaimers, write in my own satisfaction-guaranteed warranty :-), delete any single machine clauses and change the state of juristdiction to Georgia. Where we really end up after this flight of fantacy is back under UCC. So we buy a car and we buy software. The analogy holds. >One problem with cars is that they're physical objects which wear out in a >very real, direct, observable sense. (A couple of people have pointed out >that software also "wears out"--but in such a different sense that although >I agree with the point, I don't think it supports the analogy.) That is ultimately beside the point for most instances. The analogy is that for most people, they want a new product (and the vendor wants them to buy a new product) long before the old one is obsolete. I happily drive my 15 year old Datsun Z and I happily edit under DOS using my almost 15 year old WordStar. Both Detriot and the software guys would have liked me to have upgraded years ago. >You might use books rather than cars to answer these two analogy >breakdowns. The point of purchasing a book is usually for the contents >much more than for the embodiment. You are licensing a copy of a written >work. And while books do wear out, that's relatively rare. The >information content remains. I don't totally agree with the commercial analogy to a book but I'd like to point out that technical books DO obsolete about as fast as software. I just bought the second edition of Comer (TCP/IP) for that very reason. I bought it for the same reason that I upgrade some software, namely, to get new features - in this case, new protocol information that has evolved since the last writing. >Books also allow us to carry the red herring >argument about software, that "every defect was there from the start". If >your encyclopedia says that the atomic number of Fe is 37, it's wrong; it's >a defect (a "bug") and was there from the start. You have to be a little >careful about the scale between books and software; for example, the K&R >white book is about the equivalent of half a meg of source code. Also, >prose is more forgiving--an error in number, tense, or mood of a verb >seldom produces a catastrophic misunderstanding. Still, books can be a >useful analogy to software when more tangible mechanical objects don't >compare. Actually, you've made your analogy better with this paragraph. The printed text is exactly like software executables. The "source code" in this case is the typesetting text with all the formatting commands. Troff source, for example. Secondly, errors in context have almost the same result. True, a verb may not affect the meaning of a sentence anymore than an extra character on a data entry screen won't affect its functionality. But if Comer told me that Telnet used port 24 instead of 23, that would be as catastrophic as an inverted branch decision in software. >One of the major differences between software and cars is that there's a >very different class of interoperability. I can drive a Toyota or a >Cadillac on the same road--if this were the world of software I'd only be >able to drive on Toyota roads, and if they didn't go where I wanted to go, >I'd have to buy a different kind of car! What you're actually pointing out is a failure in the software industry in the area of binary compatability. I suspect that one day soon we'll get there if the software companies will learn enough to have an SAE of the software world. Silicon is getting fast enough that the binary code one day soon will be for a virtual machine whose instructions are executed in microcode by a wide variety of divergent physical architectures. That this virutal machine might end up being a 386 makes me wanna gag but I digress :-) What this discussion is converging into is the idea that software is no different than any other merchandised product such as automobiles or books. The failing of the industry is that it has failed to adopt the lessons of merchandising learned long ago in other segments of the economy. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (03/20/91)
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > >...You might use books rather than cars to answer these two analogy > >breakdowns... ... > I don't totally agree with the commercial analogy to a book but I'd like to > point out that technical books DO obsolete about as fast as software. I just > bought the second edition of Comer (TCP/IP) for that very reason. I bought > it for the same reason that I upgrade some software, namely, to get new > features - in this case, new protocol information that has evolved since > the last writing. Let me toss out a couple of examples with "book" upgrades. Both have to do with PostScript books. First, there's the new reference manual. If you've been running with the old "red book", and you're doing serious PostScript, you need the new ref. manual. It's something like 2.5-3 x the size of the old one. It's got all of the new operators, more detail on how things work, more information... all 'round a good deal--and not much more expensive than the old one. It's a great deal, and after getting several years' use out of the old red book, you'd be hard-put to complain about buying the new one. But on the other hand, there's a revised version of the Type 1 font book (the "black and white" book). This is a rather slender manual; it's ex- pensive compared to its size (presumably because it's pretty esoteric and not likely to sell very many copies). The original had been out less than a year when the revision came along. Is the revision necessary? For me, yes, because there are (said to be) significant corrections. But it gripes me that I have to buy an entire new copy (a "new release") because there were "bugs" in the first release. The concept of "money back guarantee" or "free upgrade" doesn't even begin to apply here, nor do I expect it to. With software (and unlike books or cars), at least an "upgrade" is possible. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/21/91)
In article <8273@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > What this discussion is converging into is the idea that software is > no different than any other merchandised product such as automobiles > or books. And what would happen if you took your old Datsun or your K&R1 back and demanded your money back because you weren't satisfied? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (03/21/91)
In article <3X4AKI@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >And what would happen if you took your old Datsun or your K&R1 back and >demanded your money back because you weren't satisfied? That would depend on why you weren't satisfied and whether your state has a lemon law or not. In 1983 my wife had a year-old Datsun that the dealer was unable to fix so it wouldn't stall during the first 10 minutes of running. The dealer traded for a new one for about $1000 (and that one is still running). Since then, the laws have changed. I think now the dealer would have to have given a full refund or replace it with one that worked (but we no longer live in Wisconsin). I liked the book anology but it kind of misses the funtional aspect of software. I'd compare a buggy program to something like an engineering or medical reference where mistakes are more than an inconvienience. Is there a precedent for handling mistakes in a published work where errors cause actual damage to occur? Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/21/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <8273@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >> What this discussion is converging into is the idea that software is >> no different than any other merchandised product such as automobiles >> or books. >And what would happen if you took your old Datsun or your K&R1 back and >demanded your money back because you weren't satisfied? If I were the Datsun dealer? Why I'd cheerfully give him his money back because a) the car is now worth more as a collectors' item than it cost new b) I'd know that the use of his money had made me many time over as much in the 17 years and c) I'd know that I could generate enough local media attention because of such an unusual transaction that I'd make any losses back in short order. I can see the headlines now: "Car dealer refunds disgruntled owner's money after 17 years." Of course, you did not ask what the gating function would be in this instance. I'm sure that with a bit of thought, an appropriate function could be devised to limit the car dealers' exposure. John John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/22/91)
In article <8503@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >And what would happen if you took your old Datsun or your K&R1 back and > >demanded your money back because you weren't satisfied? > If I were the Datsun dealer? Why I'd cheerfully give him his money back > because a) the car is now worth more as a collectors' item than it cost > new b) I'd know that the use of his money had made me many time over as > much in the 17 years and c) I'd know that I could generate enough local > media attention because of such an unusual transaction that I'd make any > losses back in short order. I can see the headlines now: "Car dealer > refunds disgruntled owner's money after 17 years." Right. I can see that in living color. You'd be laughed out of the showroom. How about a 1 year old Nissan, then? Can you get your money back on that? Even if the Odometer shows it spent the whole time in your garage? > Of course, you did not ask what the gating function would be in this > instance. I'm sure that with a bit of thought, an appropriate function > could be devised to limit the car dealers' exposure. OK, how about explaining this term, "gating function", a bit. Sounds like a limitation on your unlimited warantee. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/23/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >How about a 1 year old Nissan, then? Can you get your money back on that? >Even if the Odometer shows it spent the whole time in your garage? Well... My mom did get a new Volvo after a year's worth of hassles. Sure it was a lemon but Tennessee effectivly does not have a lemon law. The result? She still thinks Volvos are a piece of crap but she has nothing but nice to say about the dealer who also sells Honda and BMW. Net win, I'd think. >> Of course, you did not ask what the gating function would be in this >> instance. I'm sure that with a bit of thought, an appropriate function >> could be devised to limit the car dealers' exposure. >OK, how about explaining this term, "gating function", a bit. Sounds like >a limitation on your unlimited warantee. The gating function should ideally be something that forms somewhat of a barrier without appearing to be one. In my welding supply warehouse, that function was stationing the sales/service desk right out in the middle of the showroom floor coupled with our requiring the customer to bring the returned item to the desk. In the 2 years I owned the place, I had ONE, count 'em, 1 person who abused the system. This fellow quite obviously bought a welder to do a job and returned it when he was finished. One of my regular customers who was in the store gave the guy a little hell and then bought the welder at the used price we marked on it. A double net win for me. I still got a buck or 2 more than my cost. More importantly, I gained several new customers as a direct result of the word of mouth advertising. For the car dealer, the gating function was our having to escalate the problem to the dealership owner. That was more of a function than I'd like but it WAS his store. For software, requiring that the package be returned in all the original packaging with all the manuals, flyers, and disks. Not only does this make it easier to repackage for resale, it notifies the customer that if he's gonna take the software for a trial, he better take care of it. That coupled with requiring an RA should handle the casual and/or ridiculous people. Ultimately, so a few slip through, big deal. Whether one thinks this will work or not depends a lot in your view of human nature. I happen to believe that most people will be honest and ethical if given a chance to do so. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar21.054633.10472@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > That would depend on why you weren't satisfied and whether your state > has a lemon law or not. Oh no, we're talking no questions asked money-back open-ended guarantees. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
root@equinox.UUCP (Super user) (04/01/91)
> >For software, requiring that the package be returned in all the original >packaging with all the manuals, flyers, and disks. Not only does this >make it easier to repackage for resale, it notifies the customer that if >he's gonna take the software for a trial, he better take care of it. >That coupled with requiring an RA should handle the casual and/or >ridiculous people. Ultimately, so a few slip through, big deal. > >Whether one thinks this will work or not depends a lot in your view of >human nature. I happen to believe that most people will be honest >and ethical if given a chance to do so. > >John > >-- >John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) When Arnet was trying to get its computer system sales going, we had a meeting to figure out someway to emphasize our service & reliability. Someone, (I don't remember who), suggested a Lifetime Satisfaction Guaranteed on the computer system (similar to Arnet's Lifetime guarantee on their boards). You can't guarantee a system like you can a board, of course. There are moving parts that will, fail. You could guarantee satisfaction, though. If a hard drive failed after four years, it wouldn't be materially covered. "Stuff" happens... Service & Tech. Support were against it. But the rest of us were very enthusiastic about it. We agreed with John, just look at a company like LL Bean that offers lifetime satisfaction for its products. Whoever returns any?? Within a day or two, we'd swung service and support around. Then to be sure, we each called a couple VARS. They hated the idea. "What are you going to do when a faster machine comes out and the user wants to return his old, slower machine?" said one Nashville VAR to me. He continued: "You don't sell much into endusers. Last month I had an enduser want to return a computer system because he didn't want to read the documentation!" Everybody else kinda got the same response. It was a beautiful idea, but it was scrapped. Software's a little different. I had an unpleasant experience when I tried upgrading with an Excelan TCP/IP driver. The old driver and Excelan board hadn't ever been used. When I tried installing it on Xenix 2.3, it wouldn't work. Tech Support told me I needed a new driver. They couldn't give me one. So I got transferred. THEY WANTED TO CHARGE ME OVER $750 FOR A DRIVER!! For a product that had never worked! To make matters worse, "three to four weeks for delivery". For $750 bucks I'd have the disks copied in 10 minutes! What are they using, express tortoise!? The right way: WordPerfect Corporation. Enough said. _________________________________________________________________ Arf, Yipe, Grrrrrrrr Equinox Systems (305) 255-3500 x289 Death to the Shah! 14260 SW 119th Ave, Miami FL 33186 WolF Kozel : Computers,kali,chess & beer