Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!amdahl!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Software Prices (very long) Message-ID: <40404@sun.uucp> Date: 29 Jan 88 01:38:41 GMT References: <2420@crash.cts.com> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 137 In article <2420@crash.cts.com> tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM (Todd South) writes: >What I am talking about is not the small-time developer. I'm refering to the >developer that does nothing but manage. I am not sure what this means, someone who only manages, manages what? >[Background]: >I'm in the military, and do not program for a living, and do not make that much >money. Period. ok, granted. (This also works if you replace 'the military' with 'college' :-)) >[Case One]: > I purchase this communications package, called Apple Access ][ from the > dealer, and go home happy. When I get home, the package works fine. >[Five Days Later]: > Then, after some research, I find out that this program that I paid 90 > dollars for has KNOWN bugs in it that don't allow it to transfer files > right. Ok simply restated, you buy a package, A, take it home and find out that one or more of it's functions do not work. When you get to the dealer he disagrees with your assesment, and you call Apple and they give you some crap about not being able to support you because of where you bought the program. This is a failure on Apples part to support the product. It is too bad you weren't living in california which has state laws concerning warranties and such. Basically it doesn't matter *who* you bought something from, if it breaks under warranty (and there are implied warranties too) then they must fix it or replace it. >[Moral]: > So, I said, "Bye Bye 90 dollars" and bought something that I KNEW worked > from the results I saw watching how other modemers transfered files. I would reccomend this to all new computer owners, find someone who has a package that you know does what you want because that way you are assured that the product is usable. [My Moral] Just because a company is large or small has zero influence over how well they will support their product. If this had been a product of mine and you were unsatisfied I would have cheerfully refunded your money. Here is another pitfall of distribution though, if this program had been sold through distribution then the end user wants *all* his money back rather than what the distributor paid you for the package. That is no fun at all. >[Case Two]: Summarized: I went to buy ver 2.0, but was sold ver 1.0, and the dealer again refused to help out. Then Apple wants a $25 upgrade fee. >[Moral]: >I got pissed off, and bought a rival product that had the version number on the >labelling of THEIR product, and Pinpoint sat on my desk till I sold it to >someone that could use it with their older version of Appleworks for a LARGE >loss on my part. Net loss: 40 dollars. A couple of morals here, (no pun intended). When you found out that Wallyland was not an Apple Authorized dealer, and that Apple would not support anything they sold, you should have changed dealers. Second moral, for the developer this time, Todd is pissed off at YOU because the DEALER screwed him. And no it isn't fair, but this happens all the time. You get a call from someone who is yelling at you because the dealer won't return their money, not fair but look out for it. Another problem is something called 'Pipeline' stock, that is, you have mailed out 500 copies of some wonderful program to distributors and then produce an Update. Now all the distributors want to return their unsold merchandise for the new version. (all at your expense of course). This can be significant if you have lots of stuff in the pipeline. This is also why some cash strapped developers offer new versions of the program with a different name like Frotzo Plus, claiming that you still support the Frotzo program (and all of it's bugs) but reccomend Frotzo Plus to your new customers. Finally, it is extremely nice if you can offer a free upgrade to those people who bought the program say within a couple of months of the distribution of the update. That will save you a lot of customers would otherwise feel cheated. >[Conclusions]: >Well, first off, I probably should have titled my Subject line a little better, >and explained myself to the net a little better. But, I have hashed this >subject around on my bbs a lot, and something in those conversations that >related to what Paul said triggered my hostility to the companies that charged >(in my opinion) a lot for a product that they really didn't support well or >publish well (again in my opinion). So, I have come to the conclusion that >there are just too many middle persons involved in the whole process, and in >your own article you even stated this over and over: Well, first off, I probably would have sold my Apple and gotten a computer someone seemed to care about :-). I really can understand the issues you raised, however I see them as being poor support issues that every company has to take a stand on. If you were a small developer, how would you handle the above two situations? And how do you keep the dealers from misrepresenting you or your product? Tough questions without any simple answers I am afraid. One of the points my article tried to make, was that distributors could help the small developer in getting their program onto dealers shelves. For that service you pay them, and for an equivalent service (you actually flying out and visiting all these dealers) you couldn't afford it. Plus dealers treat distributors like movie critics, when they find one they like they will buy a few copies of anything they reccomend. Not so with some guy that calls from out of nowhere. ("Hi, I wrote Frotzo and I think you could sell a zillion of them. The list price is $50, and I'll sell you 10 copies for $300. Heck these things practically sell themselves, whattaya say?") Final conclusion : When you find a company that doesn't support it's products STOP PATRONIZING THEM, and then if you are really pissed send them a letter explaining why you will never buy another product from them. It helps, and they know that every good sale can make another five, and every pissed off customer can discourage 30 (you see people are much more willing to believe bad things about a product than they are good things, I don't know why but they just do). >Steve Chan (remember him, the first letter in the synopsis?) wrote about >companies, not authors. I meant that authors who work for companies do get >paid (at least the ones that I know of) decently. Lotus, I feel, sells for >so much because they KNOW that businesses write it off! Not, because they >want to make the home user pay. Although, I will have to admit one thing -- >Lotus sure as hell provided my work center with support! I would argue that you could sell a program for *any* price to business if a) It did something they thought they needed to do, and b) you flood them with support if they can't get it to work. As for people like you and me we find other alternatives that cost less. And yes, salaried programmers, can make a decent living (I do :-)) but we all secretly want to get filthy, stinking, rich. I mean Bill Gates did it why can't we :-) And finally, a lot of Amiga programs are published by companies that ARE the author. Sure is says WhizBang Software Inc, but everyone knows it's really just Fred. >Again, thanks for the really interesting and really entertaining response. You >ought to do some short stories! I have but no one has bought one yet. :-( Fortunately BYTE buys an article now and then. :-) --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.