OS/2 Shareware BBS: 8 Other/08-Other.zip/week_1.zip/assign.txt

Text File | 1996-01-01 | 36KB | 922 lines

#: 69412 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  15:34:02
Sb: #assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler 72241,1417 (X)

>>  explaining the current status of your product and its marketing.

Terry and I are not really sure that it works.  We're recruiting paid alpha
testers now.


>> "Fundamentally, marketing must refocus away from *selling product* and
toward *creating relationship.*

IMO, this is baloney.  If you need a relationship with each customer in order
to ensure that they can use your product, then you need to get to work
improving either the software or the documentation.  Relationship talk sounds
sweet and pretty until you get to the subject of who is going ot -pay- for all
of that relationship time.  The customer always pays, of course, one way or
another.  If they want relationship, they should place an ad in the personals.
<s>

Hey, we software crafters produce the ultimate mass production product.
Software, more than any other product, is ideal for the low cost, low price,
mass production and distribution approach.  All of the handholding that we do
is just an indication that we haven't become competent with product design
yet.


>> Assignment Two: How have you designed and implemented your marketing to
create relationships? <

Yes.  Low product quality forces us to. <s>


>> What have you done right?

Remain committed to OS/2.


>> What could you do better?

Get serious about getting the product tested.  Throw some money at it and get
it done.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69427 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  17:40:12
Sb: #69412-#assignment
Fm: Felix Cruz 72274,3102
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

> >> "Fundamentally, marketing must refocus away from *selling product* and
toward *creating relationship.*

> IMO, this is baloney.

Try and consider customer relationships from a different point. Look at Coca
Cola, Ford, and McDonald's, to name a few. "It's the real thing", "Quality is

Job One", and "You Deserve a Break Today" were all designed to make a buyer
feel good about buying their products. Another angle: align your product with
"winners" (ie, Wheaties and Michael Jordan, the American hockey team, and Mary
Lou Retton) so your buyers feel like "winners" when the use the product.

"You're in good hands with SofTouch" <g> would be an example of how our
company would try to create a relationship with our customers that valued
reliability as a important measure of product satisfaction....


Felix Cruz
 SofTouch Systems, Inc


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69430 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  19:18:48
Sb: #69427-#assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Felix Cruz 72274,3102 (X)

>> "You're in good hands with SofTouch" <g> would be an example of how our
company would try to create a relationship with our customers

While emotional appeal is a necessary attribute of successful advertising, I'm
not willing to call that "relationship".  To use one of your examples, I might
associate the Coca-Cola trademark so strongly with feeling young and alive
that I actually purchase the product to experience that feeling.  But that
isn't the same thing as me having a relationship with the Coca-Cola Company.

Now consider the family man who -always- buys Fords (or Volkswagens).  He
might experience an actual relationship with the company.  But this perception
is solely between the customer and the advertising material; there is no
actual relationship with a flesh and blood person within the company.

IMO, both of the above phenomena are appropriate marketing objectives for a
software vendor.  What is inappropriate is for the vendor to attempt to
maintain real human relationships with each user.  This is wrong because it
prevents the vendor from mass producing the end product and providing it at a
low price.

IOW, relationship selling and partnering are inappropriate operating
principles when one is supplying software products, unless one is bringing
bleeding edge technology to the "innovators" and "early adaptors".  This whole
notion of relationship selling is indicative of precisely what Moore is
talking about.  We need to be able to shift from sales modes that are
appropriate for early adaptors (e.g. relationships and partnering) to sales
modes that are appropriate for the Early Majority, who DO NOT want
relationships and DO NOT want to be partners with any of us!

WDYT?

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69444 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  22:49:47
Sb: #69430-assignment
Fm: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361

I think you're wrong on this, Jon. (Why does it seem like I'm criticizing you
so much? really, it isn't personal -- I want to help.)

Bill has owned _nothing_ but Honda cars since 1972. He bought the second Honda
CVCC that was sold in Missouri, sight unseen. We talk about getting another
brand of car, but I betcha that when it comes right down to it we'll just
visit our friendly Honda dealer again.

The reason why has almost *nothing* to do with marketing -- though it's
contributed. It's the fact that the company sent a card telling us about a
really minor problem *years* after I'd have considered them responsible for
such a thing. That the cars have all run well. That we've had good service,
over and over, across the country. I don't feel like I have a relationship
with any live breathing individual at Honda, but I *do* feel that the company
knows that if it keeps us happy, we'll continue to give them our money.

--Esther


#: 69488 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  14:34:28
Sb: #69444-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417 (X)

>> I think you're wrong on this, Jon.

Good.  It is rare to find people who know how to disagree agreeably. <s>  The
more that you disagree with me, the more that I'll like you.  I'll warn you,
though.  If you disagree with me too much, Bill and Maryann might become
jealous!


>> The reason why has almost *nothing* to do with marketing

The fact that your "loyalty" to Honda is a rational decision doesn't conflict
with my assertion that, in many cases, emotion is a significant factor
contributing to brand loyalty.


#: 69430 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  19:18:48
Sb: #69427-#assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Felix Cruz 72274,3102 (X)

>> "You're in good hands with SofTouch" <g> would be an example of how our
company would try to create a relationship with our customers

While emotional appeal is a necessary attribute of successful advertising, I'm
not willing to call that "relationship".  To use one of your examples, I might
associate the Coca-Cola trademark so strongly with feeling young and alive
that I actually purchase the product to experience that feeling.  But that
isn't the same thing as me having a relationship with the Coca-Cola Company.

Now consider the family man who -always- buys Fords (or Volkswagens).  He
might experience an actual relationship with the company.  But this perception
is solely between the customer and the advertising material; there is no
actual relationship with a flesh and blood person within the company.

IMO, both of the above phenomena are appropriate marketing objectives for a
software vendor.  What is inappropriate is for the vendor to attempt to
maintain real human relationships with each user.  This is wrong because it
prevents the vendor from mass producing the end product and providing it at a
low price.

IOW, relationship selling and partnering are inappropriate operating
principles when one is supplying software products, unless one is bringing
bleeding edge technology to the "innovators" and "early adaptors".  This whole
notion of relationship selling is indicative of precisely what Moore is
talking about.  We need to be able to shift from sales modes that are
appropriate for early adaptors (e.g. relationships and partnering) to sales
modes that are appropriate for the Early Majority, who DO NOT want
relationships and DO NOT want to be partners with any of us!

WDYT?

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69453 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  00:11:57
Sb: #69430-assignment
Fm: Felix Cruz 72274,3102
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361

"What is inappropriate is for the vendor to attempt to maintain real human
relationships with each user."

Jon,

You are missing the point. Marketing activities (like advertising) are
designed to make *individuals* feel like they've got a "personal" relationship
with the products and services they buy.

Your "technology" is no different, and it probably needs even *more* human
hand holding at this point in its life cycle, because you've got to convince
developers that your technology is useful and valuable to them.

Your technology is interesting, but of little value, until you can
successfully tell developers how and why the use of your idea will make them
money.

Please don't answer this until we've all had time to understand and adapt all
the principles included in the book (I think you'll see your marketing
awareness improve over time). <s>

With the best of intentions,


Felix Cruz
 SofTouch Systems, Inc


#: 69412 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  15:34:02
Sb: #assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler 72241,1417 (X)

>>  explaining the current status of your product and its marketing.

Terry and I are not really sure that it works.  We're recruiting paid alpha
testers now.


>> "Fundamentally, marketing must refocus away from *selling product* and
toward *creating relationship.*

IMO, this is baloney.  If you need a relationship with each customer in order
to ensure that they can use your product, then you need to get to work
improving either the software or the documentation.  Relationship talk sounds
sweet and pretty until you get to the subject of who is going ot -pay- for all
of that relationship time.  The customer always pays, of course, one way or
another.  If they want relationship, they should place an ad in the personals.
<s>

Hey, we software crafters produce the ultimate mass production product.
Software, more than any other product, is ideal for the low cost, low price,
mass production and distribution approach.  All of the handholding that we do
is just an indication that we haven't become competent with product design
yet.


>> Assignment Two: How have you designed and implemented your marketing to
create relationships? <

Yes.  Low product quality forces us to. <s>


>> What have you done right?

Remain committed to OS/2.


>> What could you do better?

Get serious about getting the product tested.  Throw some money at it and get
it done.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69500 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  18:58:51
Sb: #69412-#assignment
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 >  >> "Fundamentally, marketing must refocus away from *selling
 > product* and toward *creating relationship.*
 >
 > IMO, this is baloney.  If you need a relationship with each
 > customer in order to ensure that they can use your product, then
 > you need to get to work improving either the software or the
 > documentation.

Doesn't this go back to the *software* v. *solutions* issue? If you have no
connection with your customers, how do you *know* you are solving a problem
for them? How can you even expect them to know that you are providing a
solution?

There are many kinds of "relationship," some more interactive than others.
Your product is essentially a *medium*, not totally dissimilar to newspapers,
television stations, or perhaps better, cable TV operators.

All of the above try to build a relationship with their customers, through
letters to the editor, customer support staff, whatever. My local cable
company's reputation is not terribly good, which is part of the reason why I
don't subscribe, but they're trying (quite hard lately) to improve....

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69502 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  19:27:53
Sb: #69500-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10

>> ...build a relationship with their customers, through letters to the
editor, customer support staff, whatever

Yes, being in touch with your customers is mandatory for you.  But it should
not be mandatory for your customer.


#: 69538 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  00:56:13
Sb: #69502-#assignment
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > Yes, being in touch with your customers is mandatory for you.  But
 > it should not be mandatory for your customer.

For direct media, that may be. I don't think it's required for cable providers
though.

But at any rate it should be an option. Some customers need handholding, some
don't. A good company will usually cater to both.

At the same time, it may be that you (or any other vendor or businessman) may
want to *encourage* dialog ... for ideas on product enhancement, new products,
whatever. One tends to be more likely to volunteer such information to a
company or individual with whom a relationship has already been established.

If a therapist's first question to me were, "Tell me about your sex life," I'd
be rather hesitant to give a direct answer, no matter what his or her
qualifications were. It takes a while to build a relationship like that; it
isn't that much different to a business-customer relationship.

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69564 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  09:49:58
Sb: #69538-#assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10 (X)

>> If a therapist's first question to me were, "Tell me about your sex life,"
I'd be rather hesitant...

My last programming assignment involved database development for a research
project at a teaching hospital.  The data were collected from the patient's
chart and from a detailed interview in which the patients were asked
-extremely- detailed questions about their sex life, drug abuse, and alcohol
consumption.

To my suprise, it appears that people chosen randomly from a population of
individuals diagnosed as having hepatitis are often quite willing, even eager,
to tell a complete stranger (the interviewer) all about their sex lives.

People are funny.  And database work can sometimes be quite interesting.
<grin>

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69602 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  19:01:46
Sb: #69564-#assignment
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > To my suprise, it appears that people chosen randomly from a
 > population of individuals diagnosed as having hepatitis are often
 > quite willing, even eager, to tell a complete stranger (the
 > interviewer) all about their sex lives.

And yet I'd wager the response rate wasn't close to (and wasn't expected to
be) 100%. There is also the matter of the approach taken to getting to the
point where the stranger was able to extract the information he or she was
after.

There is a great example in the British SitCom, "Yes, Prime Minister" in which
the way questions were asked were able to elicit contradictory final
statements of support (or lack thereof) on a particular issue. Gaining desired
information can have similar pitfalls based on precisely what questions are
asked, how, and in what order....

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69606 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  19:33:49
Sb: #69602-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10

>> able to elicit contradictory final statements

Heck, Sam, I catch myself making contradictory statements in my postings,
sometimes even on the same thread.  Perhaps this is due to both the looseness
in the language and the looseness in my head.


#: 69636 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  07:24:56
Sb: #69606-#assignment
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > Heck, Sam, I catch myself making contradictory statements in my
 > postings, sometimes even on the same thread.

I think a lot of us do, and (usually) I see it as a sign of an open mind -- an
important attribute of a developer.

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69637 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  08:05:13
Sb: #69636-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10

>> (usually) I see it as a sign of an open mind

Posting inconsistent opinions might be amusing now, but just picture what we
are going to be like online in 40 years.  What are the youngsters going to do
with us old relics from the 20th century?

Cybersenility could become a real social problem on the net!!!


#: 69686 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  18:09:40
Sb: #69637-#assignment
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > What are the youngsters going to do with us old relics from the
 > 20th century?
 >
 > Cybersenility could become a real social problem on the net!!!

Ah, yes, I can just see it: they'll have us drooling, sitting in the lounges
of our respective VR retirement homes ... while they repeat the mistakes we,
their grandparents, made....

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69699 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  21:09:25
Sb: #69686-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10 (X)

>> while they repeat the mistakes we, their grandparents, made....

And having as much fun groping in the dark as we currently are... <s>


#: 69430 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  19:18:48
Sb: #69427-#assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Felix Cruz 72274,3102 (X)

>> "You're in good hands with SofTouch" <g> would be an example of how our
company would try to create a relationship with our customers

While emotional appeal is a necessary attribute of successful advertising, I'm
not willing to call that "relationship".  To use one of your examples, I might
associate the Coca-Cola trademark so strongly with feeling young and alive
that I actually purchase the product to experience that feeling.  But that
isn't the same thing as me having a relationship with the Coca-Cola Company.

Now consider the family man who -always- buys Fords (or Volkswagens).  He
might experience an actual relationship with the company.  But this perception
is solely between the customer and the advertising material; there is no
actual relationship with a flesh and blood person within the company.

IMO, both of the above phenomena are appropriate marketing objectives for a
software vendor.  What is inappropriate is for the vendor to attempt to
maintain real human relationships with each user.  This is wrong because it
prevents the vendor from mass producing the end product and providing it at a
low price.

IOW, relationship selling and partnering are inappropriate operating
principles when one is supplying software products, unless one is bringing
bleeding edge technology to the "innovators" and "early adaptors".  This whole
notion of relationship selling is indicative of precisely what Moore is
talking about.  We need to be able to shift from sales modes that are
appropriate for early adaptors (e.g. relationships and partnering) to sales
modes that are appropriate for the Early Majority, who DO NOT want
relationships and DO NOT want to be partners with any of us!

WDYT?

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69583 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:00:25
Sb: #69430-#assignment
Fm: Steve Pitts 100331,1134
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

> relationship selling and partnering are inappropriate operating principles
when one is supplying software products <

Surely the marketing of the product needs to create the _illusion_ of a
relationship between the consumer and the producer. The punter wants to feel
that the SW producer cares about the fact that their product has made the
punter's system inoperable, deleted all the data from the HD, and caused
widespread snowstorms across the whole region. This illusion needs to have
been implanted before the user even picks up the phone to call tech. support,
so that they already feel good about dealing with the SW producer (at the very
least that call is gonna be a lot easier to handle at the other end if that
_is_ the case)

Marketing (it seems to me) is all about creating such illusions (spin
doctoring I think it's called by the more cynical, ie. me <g>). Baloney is a
good word for it (I prefer the word 'bollocks' which has a similar meaning but
is a slightly offensive slang term <g>) but it seems that such baloney is
necessary to reach a sufficiently large target market (which I take to be the
other side of the chasm. Can't confirm this as the book is not yet available
in the outer reaches of the solar system)

Cheers, Steve

(Using OzCIS in Hemel Hempstead, England on 28-Dec-95 at 18:03:31)

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69589 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:54:00
Sb: #69583-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Steve Pitts 100331,1134

>> wants to feel that the SW producer cares

Yes, the customer must feel that the vendor cares about the success of the
"customer experience".  For me, documentation and customer support operations
are only workarounds, not solutions, to the problem of software product
complexity.  The solution is to produce software that is radically simpler,
eliminating the need for documentation and a 200-line switchboard.


#: 69629 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  23:54:41
Sb: #69589-#assignment
Fm: Herbert Ice 72370,2501
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

  > For me, documentation and customer support operations are only
 > workarounds, not solutions, to the problem of software product
 > complexity.

 I have to agree and disagree, and maybe even wonder if this response is
worthwhile, in that we may be two ships passing in the dark. It's also quite
possible that I am an odd bird, so let's take that into account also<g>.


 Life is a complex topic, hence some things cannot be dissolved down to a
issue of either or. They cannot be simplistic. Lets take the performance
portion of my product, there are 12 different spin buttons controlling those
same options, there are two menus, where one has 5 options, and the other has
4 (the last is all common because it controls the priority class to run the
test in). So we are somewhere between 18 and 21 different knobs that one can
turn, and of course some of the 12 SB's control things that radically affect
the benchmark. This cannot be simplified, only if the underlying OS starts
removing capabilities, and or the nature of a hard drive changes.

 Now how COULD it be simplified, I could sit inside of the machine monitor
each I/O as it passed through, associate it back to a given process name, and
then when the user wished to run benchmarks, popup the list of executables
that could be selected and then rerun those I/O characteristics. This would be
simplified and damn informative, and I do intend to do this. BUT BUT BUT
...

 Why did I say that it could not be simplified? Becuase the knobs are there
for what if scenerios, What if the file is located on the inner portion of the
drive? How much does that hurt us? What if we bump the priority class up for
the importent reading thread, and have say 5 other processes running with
normal priority threads, how does that impact our application? etc. etc. etc.

 So on the one hand, we can simplify on the other we cannot. Documentation is
going to be required, and I believe it must be good doc.


 Jay Ice
 Iceware Inc.


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69638 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  08:05:21
Sb: #69629-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Herbert Ice 72370,2501

>> So on the one hand, we can simplify on the other we cannot. Documentation
is going to be required, and I believe it must be good doc.

In the real world, one's initial focus is on ensuring that the product is
functionally complete and reliable.  Many products are in the field for a year
or two before this is accomplished.  By the time the crafter has the luxury to
shift her focus to issues like making the object sentient and easy to become
familiar with, the product might easily be obsoleted by a newer, competing,
product.

Your story exemplifies this.  It would be impractical for you to stop your
other work on the product for the 6 months that it would take to convert it
into a sentient object.  It is far less costly to document software complexity
than to eliminate it.

BTW, your product sounds interesting.  If it was meterware, I'm sure that I'd
d/l it, start using it, and probably get hooked on it.


#: 69660 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  12:13:38
Sb: #69638-#assignment
Fm: Herbert Ice 72370,2501
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

 I really don't see it as "converting", rather as implementing "sentience",
basically the scenerio I used last time could be done in a short period of
time (define short of course<g>), as it is little more than observation,
taking those same observations and plugging in the numbers. Is this being
sentient? Not for sure about that. Is it one step that probably has to be
taken on the road to sentience? More than likely. We as humans become sentient
through experience (we call it "growing up"/learning), a program will be no
different (unless a new model of sentient is developed). We can jump start a
program by plugging in knowledge (assuming it is usefull), or we can follow
algorithms that allow the program to learn, and at a faster pace than a human
does (as the program should have a larger search space of experience). But in
my example, when the list of programs came up to replicate the I/O sequences,
let's say lotus 123 was not in the list, because the user had never run lotus
123, then to that user the program may not be displaying the best intelligence
because the user knows he uses lotus 123, the program has just never seen it
done.

 Send some information about meterware, I am always willing to listen.


 Jay Ice
 Iceware Inc.


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69667 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  13:45:26
Sb: #69660-#assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Herbert Ice 72370,2501 (X)

>>  We as humans become sentient through experience (we call it "growing
up"/learning)

I'm using the word in a different, less ambitious, way, that does not imply
any learning ability.  The key to sentience is to think of the program as an
object that is -aware- of its environment.  That leads you to a different
sequence of design questions, such as, "What does its environment consist
of?", "What is the range of the object's perception?", and "In what ways can
the object apply force to its environment to affect it?".  The idea, IOW, is
to start by defining the object's eyes and hands.  Then you define the
object's motivations, its decision algorithm, its brain.  It might be an ant,
with no significant learning involved.

The reason that I'm discussing this here is that we are discussing Moore
Chapter 1, so it is a good time to explore how we can eliminate the Chasm
altoghether.  As of Sunday, I expect the discussion to become more near term
oriented as we come to grips with how to deal with the Chasm when marketing
our current products.


>> Send some information about meterware, I am always willing to listen.

I've passed this along to Terry Norton, who is serving as the Vendor Account
Manager for IdeaFarm Operations (a user group). Terry also now has a small
budget with which to revive the "Alpha Team" of paid testers that we had a
year ago.  Getting involved as an Alpha Tester might be the easiest way to
find out what we have in place at this time.

Also, How are you related to Jay Ice?  Jay is familiar with what we were doing
a year ago.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69679 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  15:57:25
Sb: #69667-#assignment
Fm: Herbert Ice 72370,2501
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

 I is Jay, Jay is I, we occupy the same body, but sometimes we forget things
that the other one said<VBG>. If I did understand meterware than it has
escaped me at this point, from the term I could make suppositions, but from
the point of view that was mentioned, I was looking more for guts of how it
works. RE: How does IWSS become meterware enabled?

 So in a sense you are talking about a recognition system, not true sentience?
The example that I brought forth, was primarily recognition, in that we would
be talking about a large "memory" space of past events. Where I would see
sentience in my example is that the code would monitor events, then the
consumer would take the code and "memory" space with him to the local computer
shop, plop it in the machines, and tell it to determine the best machine to
purchase within defined parameters of performance versus dollars. Then again
as I look at this paragraph, I wonder if this is true sentience also.

 My true problem probably stems for the point that I view programs as
sequences of instructions, which I program to execute serial or in parallel.
To achieve true sentience, my code would recognize certain traits of the user,
and then write modules specifically for that user.

  >  "In what ways can the object apply force to its environment to
 > affect it?"

 There is a corallary to the above, "The program must understand when to NOT
apply force to its enviroment". This is a subject in programming that I have
grappled with many times, in that the program can make things infinitly worse,
it must understand when to do NOTHING. A total reversal of normal programmer
thinking, in that we write programs to do SOMETHING. Goes back to the
"Wargames" movie, of trying to teach a computer futility.


 Jay Ice
 Iceware Inc.


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69697 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  21:09:10
Sb: #69679-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Herbert Ice 72370,2501 (X)

>> I is Jay, Jay is I,... sometimes we forget things

When you and I met last year, we had not coined the term "meterware" and we
had not yet abandoned the paPYrus (tm) trademark in favor of IdeaFarm (tm).
If I recall correctly, you mentioned that you were involved in systems
integration at the time.


>> How does IWSS become meterware enabled?

(1) In terms of code, you can (for example) do it by adding a single call that
tells the Sally Sales (tm) DLL to let the user have 10 free trials, and then
collect one penny (or one dollar) per use until 79 cents (or 79 dollars) has
been collected.  You would receive roughly 70 cents on every dollar that IFO
collects from the users (in the form of refill orders).

(2) Administratively, no business or formal or contractual relationship of any
kind with IdeaFarm Operations (a user group) is required.  All you need from
IFO is a numeric authorId, which are available to any OS/2 user for free on
request.

(3) You would normally establish a working relationship with Terry Norton,
71540,3161, who would monitor your progress as you played with the Tools.
Terry is serving as the Vendor Account Manager.


>> So in a sense you are talking about a recognition system, not true
sentience?

No.  We should probably table this until I can put together a simple example
and u/l it, including its C++ code.


>> The example that I brought forth, was primarily recognition, in that we
would be talking about a large "memory" space of past events.

This hits close to home for the most irritating -lack- of sentience in current
products:  I cannot stand to constantly maximize a child window in a product
every time that I open the product.  Why can't the product notice that I
-always- maximize the window and then show enough inteligence to figure out
that it should just do it for me?  To some extent, we'll need to have some
support for this kind of coding added to the C++ language, but to a large
extent, this is just a matter of rethinking how we conceive of the product.


>> the consumer would take the code and "memory" space with him to the local
computer shop, plop it in the machines, and tell it to determine the best
machine to purchase

Sounds like a good idea for a meterware product.  The biggest problem might be
to get the sales clerks to let you run your software on the demo machines.  A
tool that can be used to create individualized benchmarks.  Hmmm.  If you
don't write it, maybe I will!!! (Don't worry; I'll never get around to it, and
it's -your- idea.)


>> my code would recognize certain traits of the user, and then write modules
specifically for that user.

Think of a dog.  The dog does not contain modules written for every possible
user that it might encounter.  Instead, it's code implements a "personality".
Perhaps personality, emotion, and feeling are words that hint at the
architecture of the software that runs inside of our heads.


>> the "Wargames" movie, of trying to teach a computer futility.

What we are doing here, Jay, is playing with the idea of sentience as a
feasible and powerful way to eliminate the "discontinuity" that produces the
"chasm".


#: 69589 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:54:00
Sb: #69583-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Steve Pitts 100331,1134

>> wants to feel that the SW producer cares

Yes, the customer must feel that the vendor cares about the success of the
"customer experience".  For me, documentation and customer support operations
are only workarounds, not solutions, to the problem of software product
complexity.  The solution is to produce software that is radically simpler,
eliminating the need for documentation and a 200-line switchboard.


#: 69677 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  15:34:44
Sb: #69589-#assignment
Fm: Steve Pitts 100331,1134
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

> documentation and customer support operations are only workarounds, not
solutions, to the problem of software product complexity <

If by that you mean user interface complexity then I partly agree. The SW
itself might need to complex. We do not yet have the tools and capabilities to
make the UI simple enough to eliminate the need for manuals and _some_ measure
of support

Cheers, Steve

(Using OzCIS in Hemel Hempstead, England on 29-Dec-95 at 20:31:37)

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69698 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  21:09:17
Sb: #69677-assignment
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Steve Pitts 100331,1134 (X)

>> We do not yet have the tools and capabilities to make the UI simple enough
to eliminate the need for manuals and _some_ measure of support

I would like to try to prove you wrong with an example.  Perhaps I can play
with this after my current contract ends.