> Because software doesn't wear out. It always does what it always
> did--without any upkeep whatsoever. As long as it does what people
> need it to do, they have no intrinsic need to replace it. In the vast
> majority of cases involving commonly used software applications, the
> reason why people think they need to replace it is because they've
> been lied to by software marketers who falsely claim that the new
> version contains something of substance that is really new and
> different, or because those marketers have deliberately broken the
> software so it won't continue to run if the user buys into their hype
> and replaces their OS--or simply buys a new computer and, not being
> particularly savvy (nor desirous of being savvy) about their options,
> is more or less forced by the vendor to accept a new OS.
Your funny.
You see a project or a client as a single sale. Others here have created
verticals for an industry. Should those people be forever screwed because
the initial project was fine that there is no need to upgrade?
Are you saying that the people who maintain Pegasus and keep it current bad
businessmen?
I think your missing major parts of human nature in your premise. Human
beings want change. Fashion is a key industry that proves this. Now take
on the science of advertising. It's proved itself on the psychology for new
and improved.
Clothes wear out. software doesn't. Electricity and natural gas run out and
must be replaced. Software doesn't.
Fashion is an industry but it's based on trivia. Advertising is an industry
but it's based on deception. Despite what's become the fashion in
socioeconomic thought since the Reagan years, just because something makes
a profit does not mean it's an okay thing to do.
As the IT person for a mid-sized not-for-profit agency that lives off
taxpayer dollars, as well as a private citizen who doesn't make a whole lot
of money working for said not-for-profit, I'm a discriminating customer
with a very tight budget. It's not my problem if a software vendor can't
come up with something new that's actually worth me paying for. I'm not
responsible for the vendor's living. If s/he can't compete by selling
something worthwhile, then he deserves to go out of business.
I agree, the business model can become a problem under these circumstances.
This is one reason why some people promote free and open source software as
an alternative. IBM makes plenty of money selling consulting services and
servers while throwing in Linux.
It remains immoral to A: In the position of a trusted expert, tell people
they need to buy something that they don't need; or B: Deliberately break
something one has already sold to someone, or in the process of
"maintaining" it, so they have to pay to replace it. That's why such
practices are illegal in the auto repair industry, and why they ought to be
illegal in the software development and consulting industries.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
