> I agree it's not limited to the computer industry, but I suspect it
> is far more prevelant in the Technology industries than the
> mainstream commercial.
Absolutely. Technology companies are inventing stuff. It's all about
innovation.
Mainstream commercial just makes it smaller and cheaper. It's all about
"cost of goods sold".
> Imagine buying a Quadrophonic sound system only to find it worked on
> 3 speakers? Or buying a Ford Car advertised as having Air Con to find
> it works from 10 to 15°C but not above? There would be an outcry.
Actually, I was involved in a court case where the air conditioning
manufacturers claimed that they only warranted that they could produce a 10
degree (Fahrenheit!) temperature differential and that their product
therefore wasn't defective. Of course, they didn't document that part of
the warranty...
Since we were in the South and dealing with a salt-of-the-earth judge, he
pretty much laughed them out of the courtroom. What with our multiple week
long streaks of 100+ (F) degree days...
> So, when Joe Soap goes into Computer World and browses the Mac
> Software shelves (or should that be shelf?) he sees Microsoft
> Office:Mac and the box says "Syncs with your hand-held!" without
> spelling out some serious limitations. Isn't he entitled to get just
> as upset as he would in the previous examples?
Nope.
One, hand-helds are still mostly in the hands of early adopters (well, maybe
a step beyond early adopters, but still far from mass market). They know
better.
Two, the software does two hundred and thirty seven gajillion other things;
the speakers just sit there not working.
Three, what does it mean "entitled to get...upset"? ;-) I'm not into
entitlements or rights (I'm getting really intolerant in my old age).
> Didn't Steve Jobs introduce the iMac & iBook partly to get out of the
> 'Hi-Tech for Geeks' market for computers and bring them into an
> 'appliance' market? Isn't that a reasonable step to take? Hardware
> wise he has pretty well achieved that (there is no step 3!), but I
> think that a lot of companies have a long way to go on the Software
> side.
I'd argue this is part of the reason that we're seeing iMovie, iTunes, iDVD,
and whatever the other components are called.
Frankly, I'm not aware of any companies who are producing stellar code. I
can assure you that it's not because of a lack of desire or effort on the
part of the developers.
The public accepts crappy code and rewards the first to market. Return on
investment demands that software companies therefore focus on time to market
and work on fixing things when they can. "When they can" is often pushed
back time and time again by time to market pressures.
>> A right? That's a bit extreme. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,
>> and bug-free software?
>
> Not necessarily a right to have it bug-free, but consumers (in the UK
> at least) DO have the right to have a product perform AS ADVERTISED.
> If there are limitations to any advertised feature, they should be
> spelled out clearly BEFORE the consumer makes his purchase. It would
> be interesting to see a case of damages for faulty software brought
> by our Advertising Standards Agency.
It's been tried a time or two. It's one of the reasons that the licensing
agreements get more and more annoying each year.
I believe that you'll find that there is now a limit of liability clause in
almost every single one which limits liability to the cost of the software.
>>> My partner is a good example. She uses computing for its functionality -
>>> word-processing, spreadsheets and addressbook - period.
>>
>> Well then, the Palm syncing problem wouldn't affect her, now would it? ;-)
>
> Yes, she may. If she uses the computer for an address book, why wouldn't she?
I would argue that she would be outside the profile you presented.
Hand-held computing isn't quite mainstream just yet.
Now belly button rings, multiple piercings, ankle bracelets, and
tattoos...that's mainstream. ;-)
As I said before, the current situations sucks (a highly technical term).
"Top minds" are working on improving the situation, but we're years away
from having any technology that will help write solid code. In truth,
there's nigh onto no theory that will truly help produce solid code.
Computer Science is doing little work in this arena because it's not "an
interesting problem" nor is it, classically speaking, a Computer Science
problem. CompSci is far too theory oriented for my tastes.
Computer Engineering is doing little work in the area because it's not
profitable. And we're all busy inventing things. ;-)
Software development is still being done with the equivalent of stone
knives. :-(
mikel
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
