You're right on target, David. Aligning costs with activity is one of the first rules of effective business management practices... and usually the biggest cost is employees, so tying their time directly to costs through hourly rates or support call charges is very effective, and scales better than any other method I know of.
Darin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gregg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Status of IMail 2006.02... > If a firm is selling an application for a certain platform, it is a > reasonable expectation for the author to be reasonably astute about > that platform, including the minimum requirements for the application > to run. 'Minimum' includes the minimum NTFS security settings under IIS > and particularly for IUSR_machine. Telling a customer 'you figure it > out' doesn't seem very reasonable, particularly when the acquisition > cost came directly out of you own pocket. Having to spend a lot of > time testing and tweaking to figure out what works, shifts that cost > to the customer and will surely cause the author increased support calls. I agree. The product should work out of the box and the instructions should exist that detail how to configure the web application. > While we agree that the final burden for security lies with the admin, > which is why we won't install or upgrade a product which requires IUSR > to have full control and we'll remove a product if the installer gives > IUSR full control, the application author has security Good policy. One that is shared by many admins :) > responsibilities as well. I suspect that if an author wants his > product to sell well in today's Internet environment, it would be > wise to make sure it runs securely on the target platform. This would be ideal, but of all the >NET applications I have seen so far, most are not fully secure and do require a bit of trial and error steps to tighten up. > Suggesting that the increase is support calls is due to clueless > Admins who can't define DNS or an MX record (and that the majority of > Ipswitch customers are that clueless) also seems off target. If That is not what I was saying. The please reread. The point is in an effoprt to support a mail server prooduct, support *will* venture into areas that really are not the expertise of a mail server first level support technician. Much time is spent explaining what DNS is, how it works, etc... > I were a clueless admin and the installer gave IUSR full control, I > probably wouldn't know the difference until sometime well after the > server was compromised and maybe not even then. I didn't suggest that you were clueless. IMail used to call itself the 15 minute solution or something like that. The only way that is possible is if the admin hass a basic understandfing of how DNS, firewalls, etc... work. Just because somebody can install software from a CD does not make them an admin and support *will* be required that *will* take more time. Common sense tells you increased support calls, increased time, all equals increased support overhead. The logical conclusion her eis that IPswitch will need to collect more support money via the service agreements. > Kevin Gillis has already told us that several bugs have been disclosed > after they prudently BETA tested and ran the product in their own > production environment. I suspect, therefore, that the increased call > times/wait times are due to trouble-shooting those issues and not > giving tutorials on DNS or MX records. I think it is fair to say that both are occuring... > If you wish to spend an additional $250 for a support call (not out of > your pocket, I suspect), I suspect Ipswitch will be pleased to book > that contribution. Nope, basic economics are hard at work here at dgSoft. The mroe we have on the expense side of the balance sheet, the less we end up with at the end of each quarter to consider as net profits. As the owner, it is my pocket for certain that the $250 would be payed from. Microsoft has a similar support method - though I think they are currently at $270/issue. ANyway, I've used them several times. I've always received a refund within a day because I do my research first, then I call them. SInce I am bringing an issue that is a result of a bug, the call is refunded, my problem is fixed, everybody is happy. The model works well. It would get you a senior technician and the problems resolved much faster. Again, if it is a bug, the call is free. If not a bug, then it is training right? So what's wrong with charging for it? Remember, my recommendation was to lower the annual cost and make up the difference via non-defect support issues. It is amazing how many folks will turn to the book, KB or the mailing lists before paying $250 for an issue. Do you ever use the Microsoft KB to solve problems or do you call Microsoft first? Regarding the KB. How often have seen somebody post a simple question and get useless responses like "check the KB first!" or "so you think it's ok to waste our time instead of RTFM?" - Well, my point is that by calling support without first checking ther manual or KB deprives others from obtaining truely needed support in a timely manner. An high priced annual support agreement encourages the user to call in right away. Hey that's I'm paying for right? Anyway, don't take it personal my friend. Just an observation, just an opinion shared. Regards, David Gregg dgSoft Internet Services +1 (949) 584-1514 -- mxGuard for IMail The no-nonsense antispam and antivirus solution. Download a free 30-day trial at http://www.mxguard.com/postmaster/freetrial.asp -- To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
