Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apollo:6036 comp.sys.hp:5832 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!metro!news From: jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo,comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Netpower: Support via Internet Summary: Repeated private complaints to HP preceded public campaigning. Message-ID: <1990Aug7.042856.5218@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Date: 7 Aug 90 04:28:56 GMT References: <1990Jul23.100007.2429@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1480002@hparc0.HP.COM> <1743@tuvie> <1083@soleil.UUCP> <101950138@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> <1990Jul30.072518.8055@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Sender: jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) Reply-To: jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) Organization: Dept of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney Lines: 152 In article <1480002@hparc0.HP.COM> in comp.sys.apollo, graham@hparc0.HP.COM (Graham Eddy) writes (replying to an earlier article of mine): > ... in fact, it would be helpful if people with constructive >criticism contacted *us* rather than the media first. As Mike Gschwind and Len DiPaoloa have already pointed out, a lot of us *have* contacted HP with complaints first before going public. Part of the reason we are upset is that private complaints do not seem to have been heard. See below for my own case. > 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. The HP/Apollo merger took place more than a year ago. The merger of support structures in the Australian Response Centre took place last December. There has been a lot of time for the problems to be ironed out. In my opinion, this excuse is wearing very thin. >... >> It should be possible to support paying customers by email ... >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! Educational customers, who form the majority of those with access to the Internet, are often *not* as rich as large commercial customers when it comes to finding funds for support. See the comments in the Open Letter on this. So I'm glad to hear that poor customers should get good service too! :-) >> 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! Agreed, setting up an Internet Liaison Unit will cost HP money for staff and perhaps equipment. But just the savings on individual SEs having to copy patch tapes themselves (as apparently happens at the Australian Response Centre for one) would go some way towards freeing up personnel to run an FTP archive. Anyhow, remember that HP is a $12 billion company. There are plenty of resources somewhere. If you need to cut something, how about that HP/Apollo 9000 roadshow with flashing lights and "talking" workstations? >... >has anyone making this proposal actually costed an appropriately sized >anonymous ftp server, or is it assumed costless? Workstations are not expensive these days, you know! Anyhow, hpcvaaz.cv.hp.com is already acting as a public FTP server (see <101950138@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> in comp.sys.hp). You might need an extra disk ... you'll find that third-party ones are quite cheap. :-) >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! I asked about SupportLine in <1990Jul30.072518.8055@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> -- that article seems to have crossed with Graham's. Could you please give us more details? In particular, what does SupportLine offer for Apollo customers? I've just received details of various HP ApolloLine service options, and SupportLine is not mentioned, at least not by that name. Perhaps it could be what some of us are looking for, especially people without direct Internet access. >> 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. As far as I know, nobody has accused HP of perfectionism! Agreed, software often has to be released when it's only (say) 80% ready. But at present I don't feel we're seeing enough action on the remaining 20%, which should be covered by prompt attention to APR bug reports, and by properly distributed patches where necessary. >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? *I* am amazed to see such a statement from someone working in the same Response Centre as the support engineer who handles my APRs and to whom I have been complaining privately for months about lack of answers and even acknowledgements. Before the Response Centre took over responsibility for Apollo Product Reports (on 11 December 1989), I had already sent a letter expressing dissatisfaction with the APR service to my sales rep (26 September 1989), followed by phone calls, and a FAX complaining specifically about lack of email response from apr_cs_admin@apollo.hp.com (1 November). The first reply I got said that the level of support contract we had (SSS) did not entitle us to acknowledgement of APRs. After I pointed out that this was incorrect, I received another letter accepting this and telling me the new procedure for submitting APRs to the Response Centre. I started doing this in late December. I FAXed the Response Centre on 2 February and 26 March pointing out that APRs had not been acknowledged, and sent email complaining about lack of acknow- ledgement and response to the SE on 14 May, 18 June, 11 July and 23 July. My first "netpower" posting appeared on 6 July. The reasons for my complaints were as follows. Of the 16 APRs (excluding duplicates) I have submitted to the Response Centre, I have received a formal written acknowledgement by post to only ONE; three others were closed over the telephone. Apart from those, I had not been informed of the official Product Report numbers for any until 13 July, when I was given one official number by phone; four other numbers were emailed to me on 20 July, together with responses (two incomplete) generated in Chelmsford as far back as May. There are still three APRs open, submitted in February and March, for which I have not yet been given official PR numbers. The Australian Response Centre has been sending the APRs to Chelmsford, and they have received and worked on at least some of them. One major problem seems to be that the Apollo International Coordinator and/or the APR admin people in Chelsmford have not been sending acknowledgements or responses back either to me or the SE. The responses that I have received come from the SE who has been extracting them direct from the on-line database (he seems to have started doing this in early July -- that's very welcome, if belated). There's some good news. On 31 July I submitted a new APR (well, actually it was an old one I had sent in August 1989 about 10.1, but that was never acknowledged and the bug's still there in 10.2, so why not? :-). The official PR number reached me via Melbourne from Chelmsford the next day, 1 August. So complaining helps! But was it the months of private complaint or the weeks of public campaigning that did it? Sorry for the tirade. But the point is ... I (and I don't think I'm alone) complained direct to HP till I was blue in the face. Lack of improvement caused the frustration that has led many of us to campaign on the net. -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au Phone: +61 2 692 2232 FAX: +61 2 692 4534 -- Please keep your OPEN LETTER signatures coming in! Progress report soon.