As a VAR
for the Mercator product line, I have been hesitant to publicly comment on all
these e-mails because of the possibility of my comments being interpreted as a ‘sales
pitch’ for Mercator. Perhaps that still will be the case, but being the person I
am, I find it hard to resist commenting.
I don’t have
a lot to do with the (former) Harbinger product line, and therefore was not
really aware of this situation until this e-mail flood crossed my path. Brad’s e-mail
was the trigger for this response, because, in my role as an EDI consultant, I
agree with him completely.
I have a
2000 Grand Prix. When Pontiac introduces the 2001 models, they will not cut off
support for the technology present in my 2000 model, or deny that my 2000 model
exists. It would be an act of suicide for them to do that. While it’s true that
ultimately support for a product must be phased out, good Customer Service and
Relations dictates that this be a very gradual phasing out. I know Mercator
plays the game that way. When they introduced the 32 bit version of Trading Partner
PC, they kept right on supporting the 16-bit version until it was not feasible to
do so, and gave PLENTY of warning that that was going to eventually happen (In
fact, I’ll bet you can STILL get a question answered if necessary). The same
thing is true for the mapping product…at least two major upgrades have been
introduced in the recent past, but Support is available no matter what ‘flavor’
you’re running. I’m trying very hard not to point to Mercator, it’s just that
that’s the company I’m most familiar with, and I’m also sure there are plenty
of good EDI software companies out there with good products who aren’t taking
the stance I’ve heard described over the last week..
I have a
client who is a vendor for the Retail Industry with 115 Trading Partners, doing
at least six different transaction sets, and the corresponding daily volume of
EDI transactions. If this ‘stunt’ were to be pulled on them, no matter WHICH
EDI software vendor was involved, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend ‘pulling the
plug’ and seeking another vendor. This discipline (EDI) is too dynamic for
companies to be wasting their time doing things that shouldn’t be necessary,
when Sea-changes in the discipline are either upon us now, or at the least looming
around the corner. And if this is being done now, what does the future hold for
those companies who ‘tough it out’ and don’t switch to another product? Will the
same sort of thing happen a year from now? Why not, when getting the first
payment is so easy? It’s kind of like the attitude taken by a large Retail
Chain I won’t mention who seems to treat 856 charge-backs as a Profit Center. Why
not, if you can get away with it?
I hope I’ve
misread this situation, and if I have, I apologize. There have been too many
e-mails in the last few days though, all saying basically the same thing, and
to me it’s very disturbing.
Chuck Boucos
Willow Farm Solutions
http://www.willowfarmsolutions.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Electronic Data Interchange
Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Brad
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000
11:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: In response to
Kayla]
Just to let you know we now use the Windows TrustedLink ver 4.3.4.
We bought the windows version of STX 4.2.X during our Y2K update. Before
that we were using the DOS version, the windows product has always been slow,
its database is well lets be nice and say limited. Basically not a real
improvement on the DOS based product. But I would say that it was at least a
substantial change in the basic product. But I mean really Mr. Park to compare
this latest upgrade to a change in functionality? LOL.
Mr. Park as to the point that all your doing is not offering
technical support all I can say is I have a 1972 Electra Glide and I can still
get factory tech support on it. Heck I can still call MS and get support on MS
3.0 if I need it. When You pull support of a product you make it mandatory for
any intelligent, sane I.S. person to create an emergency migration plan at the
least. What do you think, the people here are talking about 10 transactions
sets a month? How can you suggest that it would be morally or ethically
responsible to allow a company of several hundred if not thousands of
Co-Workers to rely on programs with known errors in them with no on going
effort to eliminate those errors. Please Mr. Park I find the whole attitude one
that disgusts me. I know that we are actively seeking to replace our software
because of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Park [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 2:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: In response to Kayla]
I can sympathize with you here Mary. I feel that I spent
enough on Windows
3.1 and Office 95 when they came out but I did have to pay an
upgrade fee
when I wanted to use software that only ran on Windows 95. I
could have
saved my money and just kept going with 3.1 but there were
enhancements in
Windows 95 that I liked and software I needed that ran on 95 so I
upgraded
(but boy did I wait a while before doing so). The same can
be said for many
software titles that I have purchased and have had to upgrade at a
cost and
in many cases there were maintenance pieces included in
them. Did I like
this? No. In fact what Microsoft did is even less
drastic than what we are
doing. I HAD to purchase the upgraded software in order to
use newly
developed software by other vendors. In our case you will
simply not be
able to receive support. I believe that the
enhancements found in
e-Version 5 provide a solid value proposition in and of themselves.
Just like in other software companies, nobody is forced to migrate
to
e-Version 5. In order to continue support however there was
a strategic
decision (one in which I of course was not a party to) made by the
company
that given the changes of the new version we could no longer
afford to
support the older versions since in many cases there are some
fundamental
differences in the old Trusted Link software and e-Version
5. You are
however credited for your previous purchase of Trusted Link.
Software
companies sunset products all the time because of business
conditions. The
decision was made to sunset the old versions of Trusted Link and
as a
salesperson I am bound by that decision. This does not mean
you cannot USE
the software anymore however. Quite the contrary, you can
still use it but
you will not be able to call technical support for issues on the
old
software. In addition as a result of many complaints we HAVE
listened to
our customer base and taken some actions such as providing customers
with
reduced maintenance for next year. In fact many of the
benefits of
e-Version 5 will contribute to a lower TCO of the software so
while there is
an upfront fee associated with migration to e-V5 most customers
will be able
to realize smaller VAN charges via our IP based VAN.
I realize that little (if anything) in this email will help quell
your
disgust with the situation but unfortunately that is the way
things are. My
only advice is to speak with your sales rep and see what you can
work out
with them. Other than that you can continue with the product
unsupported
(and quite frankly if support has been that bad then you have
nothing to
lose on this front).
Matt Park
Account Executive
Peregrine's E-Business Connectivity Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: (404) 467-3365
Phone: (800) 555-2989 ext. 3365
www.peregrine.com
Legal Note: The above message reflects my personal opinion and
does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of Peregrine, Inc. or its
employees.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Scanlan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Fwd: In response to
Kayla]
>
> SOOOO.... since there are several of us feeling rather
negatively about
> the
> Harbinger forcing us into upgrading or losing support -
ADDRESS this
> issue.
> December is nearing quickly and I for one am leaning towards
purchasing
> another
> product before putting any further $$ into the
Harbinger/Peregrine
> pockets. I
> feel my company PAID enough for the TLE product and should
not have to
> purchase
> another product every time your company feels the need to
line it's
> pockets.
>
> I'm NOT posting under a phantom e-mail.
>
> Matt Park wrote:
>
> > Myself (and many other sales reps, managers etc) have
been listening to
> all
> > the discussion back and forth between our users and
former users and we
> have
> > been taking the appropriate actions internally to
address the issues
> brought
> > up. One of the main reasons I (and I would presume
others) have not
> > responded to the group as a whole is that I have been a
member of many
> many
> > lists in the past and I like to see an open discussion
on both sides
> without
> > sales/marketing fluff. Typically when a
salesperson comes on and tries
> to
> > defend or promote their product they are immediately
told that this is
> not a
> > proper forum for that type of activity and I
agree. I am in sales and
> this
> > is NOT a sales list. It is a discussion list and
therefore it is for
> > discussing the merits (and demerits) of various products
between end
> users.
> > I am not here to shamelessly market my product, or tell
you that my
> product
> > is the best thing since sliced bread and how our
competition has many of
> the
> > same problems or various and sundry other problems, but
rather to
> address
> > issues with my own customers who might not want to
mention their
> problems
> > directly to me so that I can better service them and
contact them
> offline
> > and off list. It is also a great way to see how
our products are being
> used
> > in the marketplace and what our competition is doing in
order to improve
> our
> > own product.
> >
> > Bottom line is that I did not feel it was proper for me
to address the
> list
> > as a whole given my position in the company since, as I
have already
> > mentioned, this is not a sales list but a discussion
list. However rest
> > assured that we ARE listening and we ARE taking actions
where
> appropriate.
> > Other than stating that I can't really comment on
specific cases that I
> am
> > not involved in. I do take this list very
seriously and attempt to
> rectify
> > any problems and escalate issues properly within our
organization.
> >
> > On a side note I have noticed that quite a few of the
negative comments
> have
> > been coming from phantom email adresses such as yahoo
and hotmail. Who
> > knows who these people are? I cannot respond
effectively to someone who
> > hides behind a secondary/hidden email address in order
to bash my
> product
> > without specific details about their particular
situation. If any of
> you
> > with those sorts of addresses would like to discuss
particular issues
> > offline I wouldn't mind taking the time to at least
direct you to the
> right
> > person if I am not your rep.
> >
> > Finally, I am not here to get into a huge argument with
anyone so my
> > responses will likely be limited at best. I just
felt it was time for
> > someone from the Sales force to give you some sort of a
response.
> Thanks
> > for your time.
> >
> > Matt Park
> > Account Executive
> > Peregrine's E-Business Connectivity Group
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Fax: (404) 467-3365
> > Phone: (800) 555-2989 ext. 3365
> > www.peregrine.com
> >
> > Legal Note: The above message reflects my personal
opinion and does not
> > necessarily reflect the opinion of Peregrine, Inc. or
its employees.
> >
> >
=======================================================================
> > To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To
subscribe,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
<<
> File: Card for Mary Scanlan >>
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
subscribe,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
