At 11:56 2013-05-02, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote:
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
Some do, some don't. Those who leave the industry probably
will not make a big noise about it.
If we haven't heard about it, we've lived without them. Good
riddance. Life is not about always having the "next big thing".
I am referring to businesses getting out of an area because
they can not make money in it. It does happen. Of course, once they
are out of the area, there goes the support for past products which
you appear to consider so important.
[snip]
Sure we can expect it. Getting it is the issue. I would
like to see some of them suffering for their immoral decisions.
For me, "expectation" relates to predictability. If I cannot predict
that something is likely to happen, then I cannot expect it. If we
require it by law, then I can predict that it is likely to happen.
Or it will be fought by corporations with deep pockets.
My current product has been in use for about 5 years. I issue
frequent updates that contain both minor feature improvements, and
bug fixes, for free.
Even when I eventually migrate it to a different language and/or
back end, I will continue to fix defects in the older version, for
free, as long as anyone uses it. That is the ethical thing to do.
Nope. It may be *an* ethical thing to do.
Another one would be making it clear that five years (say)
after development ceases on a platform, there is no more support,
but that licences continue in effect.
Another one would be to give a special offer for people to
change to the new version.
I do not agree that there is ever a time limit after which a
manufacturer's responsibility for defects that s/he he created ends.
There is, IMO, a moral
obligation to fix manufacturer's defects in products for which one
has been paid until either all of them have been fixed or the
product is no longer used. The other option would be to replace the
product with one without defects, also for free.
Irrelevant here. The discussion was not about defective
products. It was about the conversion to a different platform.
IMO, it is reasonable to ask the same of any manufacturer of any product.
No, it is not. Technologies change, and some are no longer
easily available. But I do think that many companies can do a lot
better in this area.
I am not in the for-profit world. Since I use either FOSS
components or VFP (which has no licensing requirements for
end-user applications), I will not even charge existing users for
the completely new version when it becomes available, since it
will not do anything significantly different from what the version
they bought already does.
I think it is unethical to try to collected added money when there
is no real added value being provided.
You have kept up with the versions and issues regarding
them. This is a service for your customers who probably do not
and may not know how to do so. Charging a reasonable amount is
not out of line.
Is your time totally worthless to you?
No. But I am morally responsible for fixing manufacturer's defects
for free because I took money for the product. I suppose I could
return the money instead. :)
So if you buy a pig in a poke, you figure you have to
suffer? Since you are in the not-for-profit world, someone else pays
for your principles. In the profit world, the business has to make
it on its own.
I am not morally responsible to provide product enhancements for
free but I choose to do so because I use them myself, and it costs
me no more to distribute them to existing customers.
If software "wore out", I would agree that people should
periodically have to pay for replacements that provide the same
functionality. But software never wears out. It simply has the
environmental rug pulled out from under it by other hardware and
software manufacturers who are not adhering to their own moral
responsibility to avoid forcing people to pay to replace things that
don't actually wear out.
Or new technologies outdate it. Have you used floppy drives
much lately? I have not.
My view on software, or any other product that does not wear out, is
this: If you can't compete by actually offering new features that
people really need or want, that is not my problem. You have no
business trying to force people to pay you to keep what they already
have. I detest "software as a service" as much as I detest the new
business of music "rental" that has sprung up in recent years.
It depends on the licencing terms. Some people like SaaS. Why
should I get in their way? Me, I do not care for it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** 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.
