Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpausla!hparc0!graham
From: graham@hparc0.HP.COM (Graham Eddy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Netpower: Support via Internet (was: Apollo/HP contrast)
Message-ID: <1480002@hparc0.HP.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 90 13:15:40 GMT
References: <1990Jul23.100007.2429@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)
Lines: 96

in the following, my voice is my own and cannot be construed as official
company policy.  okay, now that i can't drag hp/apollo into this..

> As an Apollo customer, I feel that great improvements are urgently needed
> in many aspects of support.

yes, no doubt.  in fact, it would be helpful if people with constructive
criticism contacted *us* rather than the media first.  the merger of the
support structures has not been as smooth as it might have been :-( and
some feedback from you people needing support would help set priorities.

> Without disrespect for the size of HP, I'd like to point out that Sun and
> Apple are not tiddlers either.  Sun has an archive on uunet.uu.net.  And as

perhaps it should be made clear to all that we are not comparing support
apples to apples :-)  some companies base their support on "you fetch it
if you think you need it but don't expect *us* to talk to *you*" and some
do it differently.

> It should be possible to support paying customers by email on a public
> network, provided those customers are using the equipment being supported
> for purposes acceptable to the network.

it is only a minority of customers who have access to the sort of
facilities being touted here.  this suggestion thus is based on the
assumption that large and rich customers should receive better service
than smaller customers.  ecch!

> Firstly, making information available by FTP to everyone on the net is
> much cheaper than distributing it by old-fashioned means. 

see above.  the suggestion advocates two separate delivery mechanisms.
anyone with a bit of business acumen will realise that this means it
is actually more expensive, not cheaper, if the labour component is
nontrivial.  labour is the most expensive component today!

> Secondly, if routine support questions, which hundreds of different customers
> might want to ask, can be answered by the customers themselves through
> reference to a public archive, HP support resources will be freed to process
> tricky non-routine questions more effectively.  That should make life more
> interesting for support engineers, apart from anything else :-)

see above.  i like the idea of a free-for-all forum for people to
discuss problems - as we have now with comp.sys.apollo - but am concerned
at the prospects of smaller customers without access to such.  ultimately,
from where does the funding come?  do we expect smaller customers to pay
more for more extensive assistance and the funds be used to subsidise
the richer customers? or the reverse: the richer customers pay for the
forum to subsidise the extra assistance smaller ones require?  has
anyone making this proposal actually costed an appropriately sized
anonymous ftp server, or is it assumed costless?

hp/apollo is offering this service already through SupportLine.  from
some of the stuff i've seen on the net, it needs improvement.  fine, so
let hp/apollo know what needs changing!

> Thirdly, an efficient and attractive support system available via Internet
> will be a big plus for HP in selling more machines.

i agree wholeheartedly! but see above.

> See above.  We pay for support contracts to get major software upgrades,
> and certainly expect to continue to do so.  It may require some changes
> in corporate culture, but I don't see why a responsible company, proud
> of its reputation for fine products -- as HP justifiably is -- should
> not be willing to make incremental patches publicly available when there
> do turn out to be blemishes in its software.

*sigh* is it only development people who understand the 80/20 rule?
there are two choices: release software when it is nearly done (i.e.
possibly some obscure bugs) and get it out now, or spend an extra two
(maybe three) years and get it just right.  it is better for *everyone*
that reasonable care be taken, rather than perfectionist care, else
it will never be seen at all!  in fact, i continually argue that we
should put out software earlier in its cycle, labelled with a clear
warning that it is indeed early and prone to errors - but consumer
gets to decide whether to use it.

adding to that, food for thought: of you developers out there, how
many of you are prepared to make an absolute gurantee of your own
software, that no matter what future developments occur etc that you
will drop what you are doing and fix bugs no matter how important
or trivial?  no, you'll draw a line and say: here it is; it's as
good as can be reasonably expected..

okay, in summary: it is clear that some people are not receiving the
level of support they expect.  i am amazed to see people complaining
that hp/apollo does not read notes/usenet, yet these same people post
their complaints there instead of letting hp/apollo know!  please, if
you have constructive criticisms, contact your local response centre
or support office: how else do they know to lift their game?

-graham
send hate email to: graham@hparc0.hp.com
or nuisance calls to: +61 3 895 2839
or even obscene gestures via FAX: +61 3 890 0326