On Feb 23, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Rob Cozens wrote:
Garrett, Dan, Jim, et al:
[snip]
What is the world coming to when users complain when the company
that provides them a product gives them input in determining where
resources should be spent on maintaining and updating that product?
Aiding in the direction of the product is one thing.
Runtime Revolution Ltd. gives every user of its product an
opportunity to influence the decision on how limited R&D and
Support resources are allocated.
This is something I don't understand..... You say "limited R&D" which
I don't see. Not with the prices of the products being offered.
I've seen smaller companies with products under 100 USD handle these
things far better. If Runtime has a problem with finances that they
are not capable of handling these issues on their own, then there is
something wrong going on within the company.
This is not about influencing the direction of the product. This is
about how bug reports should be directly given to the company, the
company should track it internally and insure that it's taken care
of. Users should not have to do anything else, that's why they pay
Runtime for the product.
I doubt that you can name many other products you use whose
manufacturer give you that same opportunity.
Visual DialogScript, PureBasic are two that come to mind
immediately. I assure you I can probably compile a list of products
that far exceed your imagination. But again, you are talking of
another animal completely. All companies are happy to listen to
their customers with regards to the direction of the product, but
none of them ask the customers to help them find their bugs and keep
track of them. Even open source and freeware products don't ask of
this. Gambas is one that fits here.
Is there some better means of making that determination than asking
the people who use the product? Market survey? Ouija Board?
Again, this is about bugs and how Rev is to take care of them, not
the users. Give direction for the product future is a different story.
Especially a product like RunRev, which appeals to such a broad
range of uses and users. Given the documented errors and
enhancement requests, how does one decide where to focus time and
resources. If each RR user complied a personal bug fix/enhancement
request list, to what degree would those lists overlap? How many
users would prefer my list to yours, and vice versa?
What good are enhancements if the bugs are not fixed?
If you were in charge of RR development, wouldn't you like to spend
your resources on areas of relatively high importance to a
relatively large proportion of users? How do you ascertain that
without asking users?
Fixing bugs is highly important!
And if I were involved directly with the company, I would have
insured that all bugs were taken care of before upgrading the
product. I probably would have fired the alpha testing team and the
beta testing team, as well as the person who's let the product go to
market knowing there were unfixed bugs in it.
Jim begins "I don't use Bug or Revzilla." and ends "Bugzilla is not
useful for me." Dan writes "I'd be all for making Bugzilla far
more useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community,"
Jim shouldn't have to be concerned about any 'zilla. He should be
concerned with using his product and being happy with it.
I see it the other way around. RR has offered its user community
an opportunity to influence resource allocation and bug tracking;
but it can't work without the participation of that user community.
Something the community really has no business being involved with.
That's the job of the company providing the product. If I wanted to
be a part of their process, I would have asked for a job there or
bought stock in their company or something. I bought a product that
I thought was a stable product, something I could use and not have to
waste time with following up on a 'zilla system to see what bugs are
listed, fixed, ignored, voted on, rated etc. It's absurd that a user
would have to deal with this. Taking part in where a company puts
forth it's time and resources is up to the company and users
shouldn't have to deal with this. I didn't pay hundreds of USD for
this! Then I'm expected to pay for bug fixes that I had no hand in
creating in the first place? I'll pay for enhancements, but tossing
in enhancements in updates is not fair play at all, and asking users
to pay for updates that fix the companies own mistakes is just
wrong. Upgrades, sure, but not updates. Asking users to be more
involved in the bug reporting system is asking too much for such an
expensive product.
I guess I'm not specifically upset with the bug issue, but with
several issues. My views of how things should be are not that of the
majority. I can be extreme in my views about products should be free
of bugs and such. And usually "you get what you pay for" holds true,
but I'm feeling cheated here. Typically if you pay hundreds, you get
a sold product, and I don't see that now. And I see a company that
may or may not have some of it's own internal management and priority
issues.
You know, I paid only $69 USD for PureBasic and they work hard to fix
any and all bugs pointed out to them. One day I posted a bug to
their forum, and two days later a fix was available for download.
And I don't pay for updates and upgrades. And then I sit here and
wonder why I paid so much money for Rev.
Well, I should stop. My participation in this subject probably has
been less than productive to everyone on this list, and Runtime
itself. I'm not a bad fellow, but I can get really upset with some
things. So my apologies to all and I will not reply to this subject
unless specifically invited to return to the subject. Otherwise, if
anyone wishes to further this subject with me directly, feel free to
email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
