Unlimited software warranties

[Dick Dunn]

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 at Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> rcd at 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 at ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...But is it art?