Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!silvlis.com!jimb From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: It's off until first half of '91 Message-ID: <1990Sep29.083755.2616@silvlis.com> Date: 29 Sep 90 08:37:55 GMT References: <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> <1027@mdavcr.UUCP> Sender: usenet@silvlis.com (USENET news maint) Reply-To: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Lines: 145 In article <1027@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >In article <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: [..] >> Get off their backs about it! Otherwise, maybe they'll stop telling >>us about it, and we'll sit around, not having the slightest clue when it'll >>come out! Yes! Not too long ago, the flames were that Apple didn't provide enough advance notice. It may have been true, that's why the customer found out Word X didn't work with System X, and there were months in between. Apple makes their first attempt to pre-announce, and pre-seed, and the end users are gripping. They should shut up. They don't really know whether system 7 doesn't work, or Word 4 doesn't work under system 7. I don't either. They don't know whether Apple could have release system 7 a year ago for Mac II only, and instead they are respecting the commitment to continue support for the MacPlus. I don't either. > >Back off John. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion/impatience. >Considering how bad Apple has been about announcing this product with >such confidence, then dropping 2/3 of the features and constantly Bad? 2/3 the features? Last I heard they dropped *two* managers from the release. Yes, this is two entire feature sets. And yes, I can believe that it might be possible to enumerate the features in these sets in such a way that if you seperated the added features from the enhanced features the reduction might total 2/3. My reaction to the two feature sets was "so what". I guess you wanted one or more of those features. Everyone doesn't. >postponing the release, I think people are entitled to some irritation. If they had stopped support of the system 6 series due to the expected release of system 7 you might have some ground to stand on. But Apple never stopped accepting bug reports against system 6, they never responded "fixed in system 7", and they have continued to issue new fixes to system 6. > >I totally disagree with your attitude of excusing unprofessional >business practice with this "supplicant" posture of "Oh, No. If I'm not >nice they won't talk to me". The software industry is one of the few >where a company can get away with announcing a new product, then >delivering it several years late and with half the promised features. Oh, really? Which reality are you living in? The only difference *I* found in this situation was that I didn't have to put my money up front and find out it wasn't delivered. Those newspaper articles about defense department contract delays and overruns weren't based upon professional business practices, I guess. As part of my job I buy things to get my job done. These have included over 16 years, services, contracted development and delivery of hardware, contracted delivery of software, and off-the-shelf hardware and software. This includes 4 years as a Program Manager in DOD development contract situations. It includes 8 years in equivelant commercial position. The other years I was involved but not responsible. I'm not always the boss in the circumstances. In this time the on-time 100% compliance approached zero. From service, hardware, or software contract vendors. Off-the-shelf you get what's available. Test it before you buy, but accept what you get. The contract situations were often at least part money up front. Often you were forced to except partial compliance, 'cause you could get most of your job done, or accept the delays if you couldn't. That's the normal situation. >If people are quiet and submissive, as you suggest, companies will never >change this practice. I agree! But I disagree that you have any true complaint in this situation. You haven't put money up front. Your Mac still works. System 6 is usefull and productive, and supported. > >Either these companies need to learn a bit about software engineering >and planning, or they should announce such "products" as R&D efforts >with a relatively open-ended schedule. Software engineering is not yet as definitive as hardware engineering and from my experience the hardware engineering is not approaching 100% ability to forcast results. I always thought they announced the System 7 with an expected Beta date. When they missed that Beta date I ceased to believe their release date. Why didn't you? > >A big part of the problem is people's expectations that a release date >has some meaning. Software vendors should acknowledge this perception >by talking about their development efforts in a way that makes it clear >that these are VERY approximate. Of course, vendors don't want to lose >business to other, available products, so they try to get you hooked on >their "new" package with a wildly optimistic release date, then they >string you along forever (cf: Microsoft, Apple, etc). Apple has sent out continuous updates. Did you only pay attention if they were in Wall Street Journal or something? Lose their business to whom? System 6? OS/2? >Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to >bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, >maybe I will buy someone else's product. Go ahead. Remember, they make you pay to go from DOS1 to DOS2, to DOS3, and then to DOS3.3. And when they announced OS/2 they announced all the managers, but they didn't deliver them all at the same time, and you had to pay for each of them. > >I agree that shipping dates should be taken with a truckload of salt, >but I utterly dispute the inference that this is okay/acceptable. Given: You paid nothing up front. The previous options were not desupported. You are wrong. > > >Eric jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086