jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/13/91)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >You want an infinite warranty? A more useful statement would be "since >software doesn't `wear', the analogy to a warranty on a physical commodity >does not make sense." >> Sell Mach (for the $1000 or $1500 or whatever) with an ``Unlimited >> Money back Guarantee''... >Why not just suggest that they declare Chapter 7? Comes down to the same >thing. Is that an indication that you think most of the software would come back? >Now, you *could* suggest that they sell the software with unlimited-term >bug fixes...that's half of what you're asking...but the price is *not* >going to be $1000-1500, or anything close to it. >Sure...and the customer can pull the plug and TAKE a refund. He can use it >until it's obsolete, find a bug (or whatever) and demand a refund. He gets >the use of it for as long as he wants; the price of the software is merely >a deposit. I don't really understand why a money-back, satisfaction guaranteed is so alien to compunter companies. It must root from days when Bill Gates used to run ads calling people all kinds of names for copying his paper tape BASIC. There has developed a righteous indignation on the part of software vendors that says that customers should feel honored to pay what many feel to be extortion prices for software only find it bug-riddled and sometimes unusable? The satisfaction guaranteed warranty is so obvious, I'm not sure why more vendors have not picked up on it. After all, it works for WallMart (wonder if Sam Walton being the richest man in America could be a lucky coincidence?), K-mart, Sears, and most reputable mail order operations. All these guys run on vastly smaller margins than software companies. I can't understand why computer companies would want unsatisfied customers in the first place. If you give 'em their money back, the most they can honestly say is that the product did not fit their needs. And the warm jucies that _cheerfully_ refunded money gives people little motivation to be vindictive. ISC's _OLD_ (want make the distinction now) and SCO's current policy are sorta at the opposite end of the customer satisfaction spectrum. Customers who buy because it's the only thing available are NOT loyal customers. Coming from a non-computer background, my perspective is slightly different. Customer satisfaction is a natural given and if it takes giving the money back, even if the customer is abusing the process, that's what we did. I used to own a wholesale welding supply company. Even though we sold hardware that DOES wear out to people who are not know for their sophistication, we had an unlimited money-back guarantee. If you had the guts to actually lug in a worn out welder and ask, we'd give you your money back. Even given that the welding supply business is a hostile warranty environment, our warranty adjustments ran well under 0.5%. I can count on one hand the number of instances where I knew the person was ripping me off. And in a couple of cases, I later did profitable business with the individuals. We were successful even given that our average gross margins were under 20%. I think that the proper question is not whether a satisfaction-guaranteed warranty is reasonable but why it's taken so long to come about. 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) (03/13/91)
After a peripatetic start, I think John has us pointed in a useful direc- tion. First, one bit of leftover from the mt Xinu - Mach thread... jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > > [Withrow] > >> Sell Mach (for the $1000 or $1500 or whatever) with an ``Unlimited > >> Money back Guarantee''... > > >Why not just suggest that they declare Chapter 7? Comes down to the same > >thing. > > Is that an indication that you think most of the software would come back? No, it's an indication that I don't think people will pay what it would cost to provide the sort of support you need to back up the guarantee. You can't just slap on the unlimited guarantee without adding support/ maintenance effort, and somebody has to pay for that. In order to stay in business, it's the customer who has to pay for it. Suppose it cost twice as much? How long have they got to recoup their investment in a 2.5+ Mach based product before everyone is looking for the next "new/improved" one? I still have worries about an unlimited-term guarantee on something that becomes obsolete (without wearing out) in a year or two. But I'll defer that (and what I mean by obsolete) for just a bit--so hold the flames just a moment. > I don't really understand why a money-back, satisfaction guaranteed > is so alien to compunter companies... > ...There has developed a righteous indignation on the part of > software vendors that says that customers should feel honored to pay > what many feel to be extortion prices for software only find it bug-riddled > and sometimes unusable? I suspect that a lot of the time, software vendors are just strongly interested in being able to charge enough for their products to recover the product costs within the lifetime of the product. OK, now I'll make a heretical observation which I know will offend a lot of you. It's a personal statement, so don't even think of attributing it to ISC. (...Nomex, check...breathing gear, check...into the bunker we go...:-) Software vendors are providing what is demanded of them. It's not that they set out to produce buggy software, nor that they're employing in- competent engineers to build products. (They keep ME away from ISC's product, you'll note.:-) But the overwhelming demand is NOT for reliable, efficient software! The demand is for features! It's "give us this and that and the other...and we'll buy it from the first vendor who offers it! We don't care if it's slow, or badly designed; we don't care if it will give you maintenance headaches unto the seventh gener- ation. We want it all, and we want it NOW!" The demand that the soft- ware actually work is only made later, and only made of the vendor who first satisfied the feature-list requirements and got the sale. Fea- tures requested may never be needed or used. If you accept that premise, you can see what sort of software it engenders. Should you accept the premise? Let's kick that around for a bit. I'm not saying that all of you out there are feature-mad; indeed, some of you are NOT or this discussion wouldn't keep coming up with such force. I agree with John's sentiments. I'm playing devil's advocate. The lust for new software seems to be as strong as the lust for new cars. Moreover, just as re-tooling each year for a different set of tailfins adds to the cost of a car--and just as model-year changes sometimes result in problems that wouldn't have existed if they'd left well enough alone--the ever-changing software increases costs and generates gratuitous problems. Software is actually worse, because of compatibility: We're carrying every tailfin and chrome strip for the last twelve years. Pick a pair of vendors in any software market--say Sun and HPollo, or AT&T and OSF, or Novell and Microsoft...doesn't matter. Look at what they're advertising; look at how they compete. Is it quality? performance? relia- bility? NO. The ads point to price, features, and delivery dates. How much "stuff" can you get, for how few dollars, and how soon? > I can't understand why computer companies would want unsatisfied customers > in the first place... They don't. OK, let me stir it up again, with another contentious devil's- advocate (personal!) hypothesis: An unsatisfied customer is better than none at all! If people buy from you based on features, and only forsake you if you do a really bad job, then clearly the way to maximize your customer base (hence revenue) is to provide the minimal level of support required to keep from losing customers--let 'em grumble all they want, but stop 'em short of leaving--and put the rest of the effort into features. (I've seen software markets--not this particular 386 UNIX one, but else- where--where I'm at a loss to explain vendor behavior any other way!) John points out that > ...Customers who buy because it's the only thing > available are NOT loyal customers. and he's right! But unless they have a better choice--enough better to make a switch worthwhile--they'll stay and grumble. Obviously I'm down on the feature frenzy...but let me belabor it just a little more: If you actually draw people into using all the features you provide (for better or worse), they CAN'T leave even if they get unhappy. You lure them into non-portability. Oh, it's actually billed as super- portability: You provide everything that everyone else does (allowing people to port INTO your environment) but then you provide more (to keep people from porting OUT of your environment). This game is played on a daily basis in operating systems, and people are still falling for it! The feature frenzy also shortens the lifetime of software products, and makes them less predictable. This means software vendors have to amortize more engineering costs over a shorter period and fewer units sold. THAT, I believe, is what makes the software cost what John calls "extortion prices". I've ranted enough...OK, if you think I'm full of it, I'd be glad to be shown wrong. Show me where and how quality is succeeding in the software marketplace. I don't mean good feelings; I mean sales. (I know of a few examples, so it's not entirely hopeless...but how widespread is it? Are the few examples aberrations?) And if you agree, even in part, with my frustration at the feature wars, suggest how we get off...because I think it's a treadmill for vendors AND users. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...But is it art?
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/14/91)
In article <8024@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > I don't really understand why a money-back, satisfaction guaranteed > is so alien to compunter companies. It's alien to *everyone* today. > After all, it works for WallMart > (wonder if Sam Walton being the richest man in America could be a > lucky coincidence?), K-mart, Sears, and most reputable mail order operations. I'll save bandwidth and leave out my problems with Sears, the most reputable of the companies you have named, but let me just say that if you think this policy is alive and well you can't have had the bad luck to buy a lemon lately. That reminds me. I gotta call a mail order company about a return. They sent me the wrong part and want me to pay return postage. But this is beside the point. The subject at hand is an *unlimited* money back warranty. I admit the shortage of 30 or 90 day money-back warrantees is a high priority on my "what I'd fix if I was god for a day" list, but an indefinite one is really just asking for trouble. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.021244.2538@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > But the overwhelming demand is NOT for > reliable, efficient software! The demand is for features! How do you determine that? Who out there is *shipping* reliable and efficient software? Who ever *has*? As soon as a UNIX version becomes reasonably stable and systems big enough to run it have become affordable, it's mutated out of that state. Every few years, when hardware to run old UNIX has reached a low enough price most people can afford it *the software is off the market*. It's happening again: now that you can get a 386SX with 8MB on the motherboard, V.3.2 is disappearing. Sure, you'd have to sell it for less to fit the market, but where's the profit on systems you don't sell? > I've ranted enough...OK, if you think I'm full of it, I'd be glad to be > shown wrong. Show me where and how quality is succeeding in the software > marketplace. Show me where it's being sold. How do I vote with my pocketbook if there are no names on the ballot? Here's a challenge for ISC: how about freezing the current version of your V.3.2 offering. Call it UNIX Classic, and sell it for a price aimed at the folks with $875 386SX clones. Don't include X, or MS-DOS emulation, or any of that stuff. Don't even support X: let people run Roell's server... just provide the hooks. AND keep selling it. Polish it if need be to reduce support costs, but don't go to V.4 or V.5 or ... if Apple can sell a "Mac Classic" and make a killing, you can do the same. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/14/91)
Preface: Lest anyone get the wrong idea, Dick and I are friends. Therefore this discussion should be considered a traditional debate and not a flame. Other thoughtful input is of course welcome. rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: First, about satisfaction-guaranteed warranties. >No, it's an indication that I don't think people will pay what it would >cost to provide the sort of support you need to back up the guarantee. >You can't just slap on the unlimited guarantee without adding support/ >maintenance effort, and somebody has to pay for that. In order to stay in >business, it's the customer who has to pay for it. Suppose it cost twice >as much? How long have they got to recoup their investment in a 2.5+ Mach >based product before everyone is looking for the next "new/improved" one? >I still have worries about an unlimited-term guarantee on something that >becomes obsolete (without wearing out) in a year or two. But I'll defer >that (and what I mean by obsolete) for just a bit--so hold the flames just >a moment. I assert just the opposite. A properly designed product, properly documented will not need massive support. Let's use the automotive industry for a comparison. A combination of consumer pressure, government regulations and the competative climate have pushed the auto business into a situation quite similiar to software and hardware companies. To wit, the "welded hood" concept (The hood is conceptually welded shut, therefore no maintenance is necessary or performed.) has pushed car quality to the point that on average, a car will last long enough with little enough maintenance that the auto companies must find other ways to get you to spend more money on cars. Furthermore, the market will no longer tolerate much of any maintenance at all. My wife views her Toyota as a transportation appliance. She is pissed when she has to do any more than change the oil. So far, she's only been pissed once. Let's look at some concepts and see how they apply to computers: Cars Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Needs regular purchases by Low cost upgrade policies repeat customers encouraged by trade in allowances. Extended warranties (7 year, 70,000 mile, etc) Free technical support. Lemon laws and other consumer ????? Comming in the future? protection provisions. Forced money-back guarantees. Satisfaction guarantees (Lee's promise, Satisfaction-guaranteed Japan Inc's accomplishment, for example.) Warranties. Consumers' desire for bells, whistles Same and gadgets at low cost. No obvious defects or design flaws No major bugs and certainly (fixed at no cost if they slip in) no software-induced system crashes. Established engineering, design, None. (I have NEVER in my manufacturing and QA/QC entire career seen a soft- methodologies. ware QA/QC program that had a hope of working.) And considering that the price of cars has not kept up with the cost of goods sold while software prices have been on a steady increase over the last couple of years, arguing the cost of supporting a good warranty sounds even sillier. >I suspect that a lot of the time, software vendors are just strongly >interested in being able to charge enough for their products to recover >the product costs within the lifetime of the product. > Software vendors are providing what is demanded of them. It's not that > they set out to produce buggy software, nor that they're employing in- > competent engineers to build products. (They keep ME away from ISC's > product, you'll note.:-) But the overwhelming demand is NOT for > reliable, efficient software! The demand is for features! It's "give > us this and that and the other...and we'll buy it from the first vendor > who offers it! We don't care if it's slow, or badly designed; we don't > care if it will give you maintenance headaches unto the seventh gener- > ation. We want it all, and we want it NOW!" The demand that the soft- > ware actually work is only made later, and only made of the vendor who > first satisfied the feature-list requirements and got the sale. Fea- > tures requested may never be needed or used. >If you accept that premise, you can see what sort of software it engenders. >Should you accept the premise? Let's kick that around for a bit. I dont' accept that premise at all. The most I've heard from users as a software development manager has been that they'd like the provided features to actually work. Not an unreasonable request. Even most new feature requests are really requests to get omissions in the original product. To the extent that we (customers) actually pay real money for broken products, we do have to accept part of the blame. No one would ever buy a car whose engine would not run unless you held the little dohicky at a certain angle. Yet, citing ISC's inode bug, the security bug, SCO's C2 debacle, almost any binary version of sendmail and the list goes on and on, we sucker customers just keep buying and even recommending the products. To an extent, this is because we have no other choice. It would bode vendors well to remember that often times when consumers seem to have no choices, they look to governments for fixes. The array of automobile-related laws is a sad example. Does this industry really want that? The premise that a vendor must charge large bucks to cover expenses before the product obsoletes is equally empty. The lifetime of most major successful software is measured in fractions of a decade. Unix - almost 20 years. Lotus - going on 10. WordStar - going on 15. WordPerfect - going on 8. I look around at the tools I use and with one or two exceptions, they are the old familiar one. Unix. Wordstar. A Lotus clone. Microsoft Word. The one new tool I've bought recently, CorellDraw (WOW!) meets most of my criteria for good software. A fantastic product with no discovered bugs yet, unlimited support, decent documentation including a instructive video tape, and a fair price. (not good but fair). I've purchased upgrades to all these products in order to gain new features. That's what the upgrade fee pays for. Where the problem comes in is when a vendor tries to justify many hundreds or thousands of dollars for a mature product by claiming development costs. I wonder if any of the original Lotus people are even still there, much less being paid? I think several things are at work here to conspire to make bad, expensive software happen. First and foremost, there has crept in this concept that software can somehow be engineered. This implies that software can be produced by droids using engineering formulas/CASE/etc tools. Part of this stems, I think, from computer academia wanting to call sofware development "engineering" so that they can have a "real" engineering program just like the MechE and EEs. They can't be satisfied with software development as a creative enterprise more akin to art than engineering. True, algorithms can and are engineered; product development most assuredly cannot. Again, with an automotive/manufacturing background, I find this extraordinarily strange. The designers at an auto company consider themselves artists who work in studios. Same for the product developers at, say, a food company. Good software is invariably written by creative people passionately involved in the product. Products written by droids who work 9-to-5 jobs and who could care less what they are doing are the software equivalents to Elvis on black velvet paintings. The second problem is that many software companies are run by people who are in the business for all the wrong reasons. Between those looking for quick bucks with memories of when a CP/M floppy and a xeroxed manual would bring $500 and those who are just flat incompetent, many companies are a sad mess. I've worked for some of the worst. In many companies, even the process of hiring programmers is bankrupt. At my last company, it caused the HR droids to spin in place when I actually proposed to TEST prospective development programmers. They went catatonic when I specified that candidates would have to bring and present example software during the interview. I suppose that all I was supposed to do was to evaluate their power ties. Companies with genuinly good software are almost invariably lean and mean and the developers are passionate about what they do. Take my new favorite, Corel. The entire company including their consulting and laser disk divisions is about 80 people. Hell, at the last software company I worked at, there were more than 80 people in the department that tried to work around all the bugs for the customers. >Software is actually worse, because of compatibility: We're carrying every >tailfin and chrome strip for the last twelve years. Actually, in many cases, its the useless chrome and tailfins as excess baggage that's the problem. Let me pick on ISC again for a moment. Look at the useless tripe that helps make up the 60 lbs of books and disks. LookingGlass? LPI? Topviews? (is that name correct?) Most of this stuff is useless and even if it worked as advertised, I'd pity the company that developed solutions on top of these proprietary tools. I have to wonder who came up with the idea to put this stuff in the distribution. I can't imagine customers beating the doors down demanding a copy protected windows manager like LookingGlass or a compiler as pitiful as the LPI stuff. What we want are good, reliable hotrods. Fast, efficient and simple. >Pick a pair of vendors in any software market--say Sun and HPollo, or AT&T >and OSF, or Novell and Microsoft...doesn't matter. Look at what they're >advertising; look at how they compete. Is it quality? performance? relia- >bility? NO. The ads point to price, features, and delivery dates. How >much "stuff" can you get, for how few dollars, and how soon? >They don't. OK, let me stir it up again, with another contentious devil's- >advocate (personal!) hypothesis: An unsatisfied customer is better than >none at all! If people buy from you based on features, and only forsake >you if you do a really bad job, then clearly the way to maximize your >customer base (hence revenue) is to provide the minimal level of support >required to keep from losing customers--let 'em grumble all they want, but >stop 'em short of leaving--and put the rest of the effort into features. This is not a devil's advocate hypothesis. It is fact. I have seen that precise attitude in at least 2 companies I've worked for. The software business is now about where the automobile business was in 1968. The question is, who'se gonna be the Ralph Nadir of software and do we really want what such a cretin will produce? Do we really want a National Software Safety Administration? I don't think so. >Obviously I'm down on the feature frenzy...but let me belabor it just a ... >This game is played on a >daily basis in operating systems, and people are still falling for it! Yeah, kinda like it would be in the auto business were it not for legally enforced SAE and DIN standards. I hope it does not come to legally enforced standards in the software business. >And if you agree, even in part, with my frustration at the feature wars, >suggest how we get off...because I think it's a treadmill for vendors AND >users. I'm not sure I agree that feature wars are a major component in software cost. I'd more likely agree that it is a source of many bugs. In any event, the solution from the vendor's perspective involves strong participation in standards activities and selectively just saying NO to creeping featurism. Unnecessary embelishments on established standards should receive the same level of distain as would a "new and improved" bolt thread standard. 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
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/14/91)
Gee Dick, I don't know if you are still talking to me, but here goes... ;-) In article <1991Mar13.021244.2538@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >I still have worries about an unlimited-term guarantee on something that >becomes obsolete (without wearing out) in a year or two. What is the difference, from the point of warrantee costs, between the two? Do you mean that you think someone is more likely to cheat you for something that becomes obsolete than for something that wears out? (I assume you are talking about the `dishonest=cheating' warrantee claim here and not the `honest' one, right?) >OK, now I'll make a heretical observation which I know will offend a >lot of you. Software vendors are providing what is demanded of them. >But the overwhelming demand is NOT for reliable, efficient software! >The demand is for features! [ Boy am I insulted. If I ever meet you I will punch.... Sorry, just joking... ;-) ] I think the demand is for ``reliable, efficient software'' that is full of features. This is no different from what people want in cars, TVs, VCRs, etc... The difference is that the car, TV, and VCR people seem to be willing and able to supply that, whereas the software people seem to believe it is impossible. Even the computer hardware suppliers are willing to supply it. Your modern 386 PC is cheap, reliable, fast, and loaded with features. >Pick a pair of vendors in any software market...Look at what they're >advertising... Yep. They have all missed the boat on this... >An unsatisfied customer is better than none at all! If people buy >from you based on features, and only forsake you if you do a really >bad job, then clearly the way to maximize your customer base (hence >revenue) is to provide the minimal level of support required to keep >from losing customers--let 'em grumble all they want, but stop 'em >short of leaving--and put the rest of the effort into features. This is proabably *exactly* what they are thinking. But I think this is yet another example of the old ``short sighted American Managment''. I think research indicates that mose people will repeat their business with a supplier, even when other suppliers have more ``features'' or whatever, unless they are *dissatisfied* with the current supplier. I think you are seeing customers jump ship due to dissatisfaction and confounding it with a desire for new features. >I've ranted enough...OK, if you think I'm full of it, I'd be glad to be >shown wrong. Unfortunately, for us buyers, you are not wrong about the supplier side of the equation. However, >Show me where and how quality is succeeding in the software >marketplace. there *are* stirling examples where people *do* make a profit by good customer service. Probably the best example is MECA and MYM. Yeah, there are a few people who are unhappy, but they sell a lot of software, and almost no-one switches. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (03/14/91)
In article <VR.9HWB@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Show me where it's being sold. How do I vote with my pocketbook if there >are no names on the ballot? SCO XENIX. Everyone wanted to go to SysVr3.2; SCO didn't create the market, you know. Despite XENIX being very stable, small, and fast, people wanted "real" UNIX. Because of the features, partially, and partially because of the name. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/15/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> After all, it works for WallMart >> (wonder if Sam Walton being the richest man in America could be a >> lucky coincidence?), K-mart, Sears, and most reputable mail order operations. >I'll save bandwidth and leave out my problems with Sears, the most >reputable of the companies you have named, but let me just say that >if you think this policy is alive and well you can't have had the bad >luck to buy a lemon lately. Boy! Talking about Freudian Slips. I was thinking Macy's and typed Sears. I'd never buy even the time of day from Sears. Sorry :-) >But this is beside the point. The subject at hand is an *unlimited* money >back warranty. I admit the shortage of 30 or 90 day money-back warrantees is >a high priority on my "what I'd fix if I was god for a day" list, but an >indefinite one is really just asking for trouble. Why do you say that? There is some really basic merchandising psychology involved here that should be intuitive but if not, is outlined in a number of books on the subject. There are three important aspects of unlimited money-back warranties. The first is, the no-questions-asked removes the dishonesty quotient from the equation. People no longer have to lie about the product or worse, destroy it, in order to get their money back. Just like at K-mart. You hand them the package and the receipt and they hand you money. Secondly, the comfort of knowing a remedy is available actually pursuades people NOT to use it as fast. This is a well-proven concept, a concrete example of which is the self-infusion pumps now used by most hospitals to administer pain killers. The patient can get a dose when it's needed by simply pushing the button. Patients use less pain killer because they know it is available all the time and thus they don't have to request anticipatory doses. The same with product warranties. If I know I've only got 10 days to return something, I'll cut my losses early and get it right back. If I know I always have the ultimate weapon at my disposal, I'm likely to continue with trying to resolve problem. Third, the vendor sets up small threshold, called a "speed bump" by some because of the analogy, that makes the customer take some small assertive action in order to avail themselves of the money-back warranty. In a storefront, require the customer to bring the item to the customer service desk. Mail order, require the customer to call and get an RMA number. You don't ask questions of the customer, you simply require him to do a little something extra. The psychology is that if the customer really has the guts to bring in an obsolete and/or destroyed product, give him his money back with a smile. This process will embarrass the majority of the people who don't have a legitimate problems with the product. Let's take our old whipping post friend, ISC Unix. Would you really have the guts to use the product for a year and then arbitrarily ask for your money back? I would not. On the other hand, if I'd been trying to get a bug fixed for a year OR if 2 years down the road, a new application came along where, say, the Inode bug made it impossible to run and the well known bug had not been fixed, sure I'd bundle it up and return it. Money-back guarantees level the playing field for the consumer. As it is now, especially if you are foolish enough to pay any attention to shrink-wrap "license" fiction, you are pretty much buying software on blind faith with no recourse once you step through the trapdoor of plunking your money down. Money-back warranties, whether voluntary or forced on the industry by the government, gives the customer an alternative to just eating the cost when he buys a pig in a poke and that pig turns out to be dead. 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
mjl@lccma.bos.locus.com (Mike Leibensperger) (03/15/91)
Here's a ridiculous analogy; let's see how far we can stretch it.... Consider the purchase of a car. You buy it new, and it runs perfectly well for seven years. After seven years, is it reasonable to expect the manufacturer to return your money on the basis of an unlimited warranty? No. The car has accumulated a lot of wear and tear over seven years, and it is no longer worth what you originally paid for it. Software undergoes similar wear and tear, believe it or not. Even if stray gamma rays don't destroy the bits on the distribution media, a subtle form of wear and tear devaluation is still taking place. Let's take a concrete example. How much would you pay *right* *now* for a TOPS-10 source license and a 9-track tape with the code on it? I'll even through in this extremely valuable KL-10 processor. *Now* how much would you pay? But wait! That's not all you get! For absolutely no extra charge, I'll throw in this VAX-11/730 running an early beta release of VMS 2.0. That's right! VMS 2.0!!! NOW how much would you pay? Not a damn cent, if you're wise. And you certainly wouldn't pay the initial purchase price. These items, wicked cool though they were at one time, are now obsolete. Big time. And just try to get a bug fixed! Unlimited software warranties? Sir, I have no desire to impugn your professional accumen, but really sir, you make me guffaw. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) yr obdnt svnt, mjl@locus.com -- Michael J. Leibensperger <mjl@locus.com> "None are so deeply enslaved Locus Computing Corp./Boston as those who falsely believe 25 Burlington Mall Road they are free." Burlington MA 01803, (617)229-4980 x169 -- J. W. von Goethe
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/15/91)
In article <8135@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) makes some wonderful points about that ``Ol Debbil'' the *unlimited* money-back guarantee, ending with: > As it is now, especially if you are foolish enough to pay any > attention to shrink-wrap "license" fiction, you are pretty much buying > software on blind faith... Money-back warranties, whether voluntary > or forced on the industry by the government, gives the customer an > alternative to just eating the cost when he buys a pig in a poke and > that pig turns out to be dead. All I can say is, ``Amen Brother''! -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
alex@am.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) (03/17/91)
I agree with Dick Dunn's lament on c.u.sysv386 - there is a "feature frenzy" around, products are sold mostly on feechurs, secondly on time-to-market, thirdly on price, and QUALITY just does not seem to be on the list. I am trying to redirect the discussion to c.s-e, because it does not really seem peculiarly relevant to the world of 386 Unices: I estimate that I spend between 25% and 40% of my time fighting with bugs, BAD bugs, in compilers on all sorts of workstations, in debuggers, in linkers, in system libraries, in RDBMS's, in utilities of all descriptions... I'm TIRED! of this, but it does not seem to be getting any better as time goes on: everything keeps getting faster and shinier and richer - but quality stays low. I do NOT need umpteen extensions to language standards, which I will NOT use anyway since I want to write PORTABLE software; I do NOT need compilers pushing the envelope in hyperdimensional crosseverything optimization for a 7.2% speedup, when the hardware itself is yearly doubling in performance; I do NOT need linkers that will rearrange my code, inline called-once procedures, and make coffee in the morning; I DO need BUG-FREE, *STABLE* software tools, an ar that will not silently munge my archive if it's over 512 entries, a dbx that won't throw me into a wild goose chase by showing the WRONG address for a symbol, a vi that won't dump core when i hit ^D to cancel autoindent and enter some text... What can be done about it? I believe there is a whole shift in emphasis needed throughout the market: magazines and consulting organization should put benchmarks and feechur-lists into the second tier and start ferreting around for BUGS; customers should insist on followup releases to make software SOLID, rather than add chrome (such followups are today ignored as "just a bug-fix release"...); marketing teams should figure out a way to sell based on QUALITY - "our product does NOT dump core, it does NOT munge your data, it does NOT show wrong results"... CAN it really be so hard as all that??? In other markets, after all, there ARE at least a portion of suppliers that do well by selling high-quality, durable goods, where the buyer can rely on their not breaking unexpectedly, rather than the "latest fads"; why, even in our own 'hardware' field there are such markets. Why not in sw too? -- Alex Martelli - (home snailmail:) v. Barontini 27, 40138 Bologna, ITALIA Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/401.3 (home only).
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (03/17/91)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Show me where it's being sold. How do I vote with my pocketbook if there > >are no names on the ballot? > > SCO XENIX. Everyone wanted to go to SysVr3.2; SCO didn't create the market, > you know. Despite XENIX being very stable, small, and fast, people wanted > "real" UNIX. Because of the features, partially, and partially because of > the name. But I think that SCO XENIX gives evidence that in this particular market, the "Classic Coke" formula doesn't work 100%, *but* there is a definite call for it. The problem is that computer hardware doesn't stand still. For example, SCO Xenix 2.3.2GT (the only version actually in production and on sale from them) doesn't boot on some IDE machines, so they had to engineer a fix (xnx259). There are other older examples, like the fact that 2.2.1 falsely detected the existence of FPUs in some machines that were produced *after* the software was released. This made running awk (and hence /etc/custom) slightly difficult, as that release did not have the ignorefpu kernel switch. ``fixed in the next release''. What else can you do ? You can't stop hardware people adding features and making changes any more than you can stop software people producing patches to their code. And in the case of hardware, you can't tell them to ship the equivalent of "copies of last year's distribution floppies" :-) On the other hand, people *DO* want Classic coke, which is why SCO is now coming up with 2.3.4 of their Xenix a year after the product was killed :-) If ISC take up Peter's challenge of providing Unix Classic, they will have to realise that it will take more than zero development work, to get hardware workarounds out, etc. And they should definitely ship it with the u-area bug fixed :-). But I would agree that it's a worth while thing to do, and it should be aimed at the budget market, i.e. cheap. IE: "watch my mips, no new features" as it were, but hardware support work must go on. Sigh. I suppose that means that the $150 unix doesn't quite make it :-( True "Classic Coke" would require a hardware freeze as well as a software one. It is something that would make my employer's life much easier, for one. Maybe it's worth someone's while to license redistribution of some Unix or other at a stable release that works with their hardware, and promise to ship that hardware for ever with that version of Unix ? That would work, assuming that the economics would work out. That question I have no answer to. Maybe someone should commission a market survey and do the sums. But that's not a comp.* issue :-) -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (03/19/91)
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >True "Classic Coke" would require a hardware freeze as well as a software one. not quite, for instance 2.11BSD was just released :-) [see comp.bugs.2bsd] -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public UNIX source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (03/20/91)
(Note in passing: I'm not commenting on a lot of what John wrote because I think he's pretty close to the target. There are a few things I'd like to latch on to for some quick comments.) jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >...And considering that the price of cars has not kept up with the cost of > goods sold while software prices have been on a steady increase over > the last couple of years, arguing the cost of supporting a good warranty > sounds even sillier. I think the "cost per pound" of software has not gone up that much! I'm serious--I think that if you check $/Mb, you'll find it's level or even down. (The issue of whether you want all those extra Mb in the package is a separate one--that's not my point here.:-) > The premise that a vendor must charge large bucks to cover expenses before > the product obsoletes is equally empty. The lifetime of most major > successful software is measured in fractions of a decade. Unix - almost 20 > years... Hold on. That's wrong. UNIX (the name) may be 20 years old. UNIX (the software being sold today as Sys V.3.2) is mostly fairly new. I would bet that less than 5% of today's kernel is more than 10 years old, let alone 20. Both of us may find it lamentable that the code is in such a state of flux, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. If you'd seen the figures coming out as V.4 emerged, you would have been amazed at the amount of new/changed code with each delivery. We're talking time frame of months and change/new amounts of 10^5-10^6 lines. That costs money. Again, you can argue whether it's money well-spent, and/or whether you really want to pay for it, but don't think the OS is a cash cow sitting in the corner that you just milk whenever you want money. > >Software is actually worse, because of compatibility: We're carrying every > >tailfin and chrome strip for the last twelve years. > > Actually, in many cases, its the useless chrome and tailfins as excess > baggage that's the problem... > ...What we want are good, reliable hotrods. Fast, efficient > and simple. ...and somewhat later on... > ...The software > business is now about where the automobile business was in 1968. Actually, John, in another place you used the Toyota analogy, which I like a little better than hotrod, but be that as it may. This brings me back to my original ranting. Sure, I want a Toyota-like OS...but I'm atypical. And I don't believe 1968; I say the OS market stands today about where cars did in '59. In '59, people wanted big tail fins, V8's, and lots of chrome. They didn't care about weight or mileage. Gas was cheap and plentiful. They didn't even mind that those land yachts, artificially lengthened by a couple feet, were hard to park. I doubt you could have given away a Toyota Corolla back then. --- In '91, people want a big OS with all the features and a chrome-plated bas-relief GUI at any cost. They don't care if it wastes memory or it's slow--memory is cheap and CPUs keep getting faster. I think Peter's idea of "UNIX Classic" is neat, but I doubt you could give it away to more than a handful of people. > I'm not sure I agree that feature wars are a major component in software > cost. I'd more likely agree that it is a source of many bugs... The latter statement is obvious; I don't follow the former. Features are an obvious source of bugs--why? Because they involve adding code and adding interactions among existing pieces of code. That's why they cost-- adding code costs money (and adding un-needed code wastes money.) >...In any > event, the solution from the vendor's perspective involves strong > participation in standards activities and selectively just saying NO > to creeping featurism. Unnecessary embelishments on established standards > should receive the same level of distain as would a "new and improved" > bolt thread standard. Alas, software standards activities are one of the biggest sources of rampant, gratuitous feature frenzy. Have a look at the "international- ization" goo that wants every program to be at least a page of code, and which has propagated baroque national-collating-sequence requirements into programs that heretofore had nothing to do with natural language issues. (This came about from the idiotic prejudice that ASCII somehow represents a parochial US-English collating sequence.) Notice that we're going to get to deal with ISO OSI in the lower network layers--not because TCP/IP had problems there, but precisely because TCP/IP was an accepted, widely-used, successful standard! (It was used too heavily in the US to be accepted:-) Look at the trigraph wart in standard C--something that nobody really wanted and that doesn't solve the problem anyway. Try to sort through the chaos of how ttys are supposed to work. I could go on for megabytes. The standards process *shouldn't* work this way--but it does. It's broken worse than what individual software vendors are doing. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
jeffl@comix.UUCP (Jeff Liebermann) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.184548.11056@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > it's slow--memory is cheap and CPUs keep getting faster. I think > Peter's idea of "UNIX Classic" is neat, but I doubt you could give it > away to more than a handful of people. You would have no trouble selling Unix Classic to me. I keep small Xenix installations (cash registers, point of sale, hospital ER, telemarketing, acctg, fax servers, email servers) alive. These machines run 3 major programs: the application software, uucico, and mail. I dont need most of the new and wonderful Unix features. My customers pay me for speed and reliability. Features that are not needed are suppose to be purchased as required. I still have some retail stores running Xenix 286 (NOT 386) with 2Mb ram and a 40Mb slow drive on ancient terminals. Most of my customers have asked what it would cost to get "real" Unix. No problem, just add: 6 Mb more ram 80 Mb more disk space a larger tape backup device a runtime upgrade cost equal to twice what they paid for Xenix. For no extra charge, one also gets: A 20% overall performance drop (my estimate). A large (80%) reliablity drop measured in service hours per month. These are not serious for corporate America, but fatal for the small business. The cost of the Unix runtime becomes a very large part of the delivered system cost on small installations. Unix is not going to show up in the small retail environment until a cheap runtime (like Xenix) appears. On the subject of money-back warrantys: I tend to be somewhat suspicious of companies offering money-back guarantees. When a company is unable to support a product, they sometimes offer money back guarantees to reduce the 10% of the customers that make 90% of the noise. It's simply expedient business. I don't believe that Mt Xinu had this in mind when they offered their warranty. With Unix, it's very difficult to evaluate a product within the usual warranty periods. Suitability for re-sale takes even longer. I don't base my business on a quick evaluation. It takes real usage, experimentation, and lots of midnight oil to properly determine if I can sell and support a program or Unix flavour. I don't plan to partake in a kamakazi evaluation of Mt Xinu Unix. It would take me about 6 months. This is well past a reasonable warranty return period. [Not associated with SCO, ISC, UHC, Mt XINU, IBM, UPORT, ad nausium] -- # Jeff Liebermann Box 272 1540 Jackson Ave Ben Lomond CA 95005 # (408)336-2558 voice (408)429-0483 digital pager wb6ssy CIS:73557,2074 # PC REPAIR & RF DESIGN. Committee Against Double Spacing And Wide Margins. # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us uunet!comix!jeffl ucscc.ucsc.edu!comix!jeffl
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/21/91)
Don't mind me... I'm just poking holes in the software=autos analogy. If you don't care hit n now... In article <8085@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > I assert just the opposite. A properly designed product, properly documented > will not need massive support. Let's use the automotive industry for a > comparison. Well, I don't consider this really a valid comparison. The simplest operating system is so much more complex a product, with so much more complex a user interface, than any automobile. But, granting that... > To wit, the "welded hood" concept > (The hood is conceptually welded shut, therefore no maintenance is necessary > or performed.) has pushed car quality to the point that on average, a car > will last long enough with little enough maintenance that the auto companies > must find other ways to get you to spend more money on cars. I don't know what sort of cars you drive, or how you define "long enough", but I find this description of the level of automotive technology pretty much a fantasy. If you don't mind buying a new car every 2-3 years, I guess that's valid. I, personally, do mind. I expect to get at least 7 years out of a car... so I do *all* the required maintanance, change the oil twice the recommended period, check the fluids, and so on. I haven't been disappointed yet. But cars wear out. Software doesn't... and upgrades are a whole different ball game. Most people don't want to upgrade. It's a major operation to pull your local mods out, change the software out, and put them back. Even when we get the upgrades regularly we tend to avoid installing them unless we *know* we have a problem that the upgrade will fix. Solution (:->): built-in problems. Debugging "upgrades". > Cars Software > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Needs regular purchases by Low cost upgrade policies > repeat customers encouraged by > trade in allowances. This is how they get that "welded hood" concept. Coerce car owners into buying a new car years before they should have to. > Consumers' desire for bells, whistles Same > and gadgets at low cost. Me? Many "bells and whistles" have a negative cost. One of the primary reasons I bought my current car was because it was missing one of those annoying bells and whistles: motorised passive seatbelts. And I made the dealer buy that stupid cheesy stereo back. > No obvious defects or design flaws No major bugs and certainly > (fixed at no cost if they slip in) no software-induced system > crashes. I'll go along with this one... but that's not the same as an unconditional money-back guarantee. > Established engineering, design, > manufacturing and QA/QC > methodologies. Like the ones that produced Chrysler's latest minivan transmission problems, is that what you're thinking of? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar14.023417.17464@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <VR.9HWB@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Show me where it's being sold. How do I vote with my pocketbook if there > >are no names on the ballot? > SCO XENIX. Everyone wanted to go to SysVr3.2; SCO didn't create the market, > you know. Despite XENIX being very stable, small, and fast, And expensive... how much does Xenix cost? More than the low-ball UNIX systems, back when they were pretty much equivalent (i.e., before demand paging). > people wanted > "real" UNIX. Because of the features, partially, and partially because of > the name. We're still on Pre-SCO Xenix, by the way, at Ferranti. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/21/91)
In article <8135@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >But this is beside the point. The subject at hand is an *unlimited* money > >back warranty. I admit the shortage of 30 or 90 day money-back warrantees is > >a high priority on my "what I'd fix if I was god for a day" list, but an > >indefinite one is really just asking for trouble. > Why do you say that? There is some really basic merchandising psychology > involved here that should be intuitive but if not, is outlined in > a number of books on the subject. There are three important aspects of > unlimited money-back warranties. The first is, the no-questions-asked > removes the dishonesty quotient from the equation. People no longer > have to lie about the product or worse, destroy it, in order to > get their money back. Just like at K-mart. You hand them the package and > the receipt and they hand you money. OK, we'll drop the Sears bit... but I have never seen this behaviour from any merchant that I have done business with. Unless I've got a *recent* receipt or the merchandise is in "like new" condition, you can't return it. Period. The psychology argument is compelling, but as I've never seen it actually implemented I don't buy it. Limited (30, 60, 90, whatever) guarantees are common. Unlimited, open-ended ones? At K-mart? Sears *used* to do this, 10 years ago. The treatment I got when I brought in a broken Sears bicycle I bought second-hand and asked about replacement parts was amazing. They didn't even require a receipt! But I haven't seen it since then. From anyone. > Let's take our old whipping post friend, ISC Unix. Would you really have > the guts to use the product for a year and then arbitrarily ask for your > money back? I wouldn't. J Random corporate purchasing agent, with no causal connection to the product... sure. Before folks started cracking down on it, piracy was practically corporate policy many places, and that's not just a matter of being a deadbeat. Corporations do not suffer from embarassment. And the main customers of software like UNIX are corporate. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/21/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >OK, we'll drop the Sears bit... but I have never seen this behaviour from >any merchant that I have done business with. Unless I've got a *recent* >receipt or the merchandise is in "like new" condition, you can't return >it. Period. Haven't been shopping much lately, huh, peter? About the only company I've ever had any problems returning merchandise to in an interval not in contention with my concience has been Service Merchandise. Even good old Sears, the company I love to hate, has ultimately returned my money when requested. Not sure what the point of this quibble is but whatever. >The psychology argument is compelling, but as I've never seen it actually >implemented I don't buy it. Limited (30, 60, 90, whatever) guarantees are >common. Unlimited, open-ended ones? At K-mart? Only thing I've ever had K-mart ask me for was a receipt. Reasonable? I think so. >> Let's take our old whipping post friend, ISC Unix. Would you really have >> the guts to use the product for a year and then arbitrarily ask for your >> money back? >I wouldn't. J Random corporate purchasing agent, with no causal connection >to the product... sure. Of course, it does not get back to the purchasing agent until the technical group decides that the product does not fit the bill. And my experience is that engineers and programmers tend to take junk products and deposit them in the boneyard rather than hassling with the paperwork required to return products. In other words, not really an issue. >Before folks started cracking down on it, piracy >was practically corporate policy many places, and that's not just a matter >of being a deadbeat. Corporations do not suffer from embarassment. Corporate piracy is still rampant even among software development companies. I know, I've worked for a few. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of warranties. If a company is really going to rip a vendor off to that degree, it is easy enough to get an evaluation copy from which to copy. No paperwork trail and no potential interstate trafficking charges because no money is involved. Example? Both major 386 Unix vendors. Another example? I recently wrote to a PCB CAD software company requesting a review copy for a magazine article I'm writing. I neglected to mention the magazine. A copy arrived complete with a no-charge PO and a customer number. No questions asked, not even a phone call. Summary: If someone in a large company really wants to rip off a package, it is trivial. The more common cultural pressure in pirating companies is to buy one copy and massively copy it for internal consumption. Again, a warranty is not involved. I'm not sure what your point is, peter. Are you arguing against better warranties and the implied increase in quality. I don't think that this is the message you are trying to send but that's what's comming across. 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 <8501@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >OK, we'll drop the Sears bit... but I have never seen this behaviour from > >any merchant that I have done business with. Unless I've got a *recent* > >receipt or the merchandise is in "like new" condition, you can't return > >it. Period. > Haven't been shopping much lately, huh, peter? About the only company I've > ever had any problems returning merchandise to in an interval not in > contention with my concience has been Service Merchandise. OK, how long is this "interval not in contention with your conscience"? This isn't a quibble, John. I have never had satisfaction beyond a couple of months, even when the product has been sitting in a box for most of that time. The point is, why are you trying to hold the software vendors to a stronger standard than the real world. > >I wouldn't. J Random corporate purchasing agent, with no causal connection > >to the product... sure. > Of course, it does not get back to the purchasing agent until the technical > group decides that the product does not fit the bill. And my experience is > that engineers and programmers tend to take junk products and deposit them > in the boneyard rather than hassling with the paperwork required to > return products. In other words, not really an issue. Must be a really well-off company, if they can afford to toss money away like that. I haven't had the luxury of working for one like that. > I'm not sure what your point is, peter. Are you arguing against better > warranties and the implied increase in quality. I don't think that this > is the message you are trying to send but that's what's comming across. I don't believe in these "money back no questions no time limit" warranties. Anywhere. That's my point. I'd love to see them, but I don't believe they exist. "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" is just a slogan outside organizations that raise their prices a factor of two or more to cover the fraud. And those companies are getting rarer. Sears is no longer twice as pricey as Fingers, and they don't provide their old level of service. Would you pay $4000 instead of $2000 for UNIX if you knew you could take it back? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/22/91)
>"Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" is just a slogan outside >organizations that raise their prices a factor of two or more to cover the >fraud. Wow, it must be a really good `fraud'! Within the last year I have bought clothes, electronics, and, yes, some computer gear, from various of these `fraudulent' firms, and have had to use the warrantee. In each case the firm rapidly, and with no questions, replaced the item, or refunded my money (depending on what I asked for). In each case the cost of the item was within a few percent (say 5-7%) of the lowest price I could find for comparable goods. In the case of the electronics item, it *was* the lowest price I could find. I guess I better phone the Attorney General's office and report this `fraud'. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.143056.4580@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) writes: > >"Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" is just a slogan outside > >organizations that raise their prices a factor of two or more to cover the > >fraud. > Wow, it must be a really good `fraud'! Within the last year I have > bought clothes, electronics, and, yes, some computer gear, from various > of these `fraudulent' firms, and have had to use the warrantee. Sarcasm aside, how long did you wait before excersizing the warrantee? John's talking about a completely open-ended guarantee... any time you want, just bring it back and we buy it back. No questions asked. I don't believe in this. The only exceptions I have found are overpriced yuppie mail-order catalogs. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (03/25/91)
In article <LW4ANOH@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: -In article <8135@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: -> Why do you say that? There is some really basic merchandising psychology -> involved here that should be intuitive but if not, is outlined in -> a number of books on the subject. There are three important aspects of -> unlimited money-back warranties. The first is, the no-questions-asked -> removes the dishonesty quotient from the equation. People no longer -> have to lie about the product or worse, destroy it, in order to -> get their money back. Just like at K-mart. You hand them the package and -> the receipt and they hand you money. - -OK, we'll drop the Sears bit... but I have never seen this behaviour from -any merchant that I have done business with. Unless I've got a *recent* -receipt or the merchandise is in "like new" condition, you can't return -it. Period. A bit off the track, perhaps, but I have recently seen behavior just like this. Last August I bought a baby carrier (backpack) at EMS (Eastern Mountain Sports, a major hiking gear retail chain). It worked well, until two weeks ago, when one of the straps that attached the frame to the hip strap tore loose. This was on a Friday, on my way home from work -- I carry my 18-month-old son (on the subway) to and from a day care center near my office every day. Two days later (Sunday), I went to the EMS where I had bought the backpack -- without a receipt; I had long since lost it. I showed them the problem and asked them what they could do about it. The store manager told me that they had a seamstress who came in every Tuesday who could fix it for me. "But I need to carry my son to work tomorrow; could you perhaps give me a loaner until mine is fixed?" I asked; at that, he just said, "Go over to the display and take a new one." No questions asked; I didn't even have a receipt! Not only that, but the new one was a newer model, with attachments for a rain hood that mine didn't have. Guess where I'll be buying all my hiking gear from now on? -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street campbell@redsox.bsw.com Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/26/91)
In article <ZH6A11E@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Sarcasm aside, how long did you wait before excersizing the warrantee? >John's talking about a completely open-ended guarantee... any time you >want, just bring it back and we buy it back. No questions asked. Yeah, if I could have I would have sent my 286 Unix back for a refund once I upgraded to a different vendor's 386 version for sure. See here, if you got use out of something for a goodly while, even if it's still in perfect condition, as software would be, you can't really expect to get your money back, or wouldn't everyone want their money back once they were upgrading their systems, going to new software, etc? Sure they would, and how are your vendors supposed to make money, then? -- -- Have computer, will travel. Same old story, same old song; it goes all right till it goes all wrong. -- Will Jennings
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (03/28/91)
In article <C79AXD9@xds12.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >See here, if you got use out of something for a goodly while, even if it's >still in perfect condition, as software would be, you can't really expect >to get your money back, or wouldn't everyone want their money back once >they were upgrading their systems, going to new software, etc? Sure >they would, and how are your vendors supposed to make money, then? How about a 5 year depreciation schedule. Any software that isn't still useful after 5 years wasn't a good deal to begin with, even if it was free. You were ripped off right? You deserve a refund for all that lost time wasted in retraining. After all, they're forcing you to learn a whole new buglist and develop a whole new set of workarounds. Why they should pay *you* to take their new software. :-) Gary