NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/next/misc/18034

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 6.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!anderson
From: [e-mail] (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re: Open letter to NextDevelopers (long)(Flamebait)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:25:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jul21.182528.3113@digifix!uunet.ca>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Lines: 146


In article <1992Jul21.182528.3113@digifix!uunet.ca>
[e-mail] (Scott Anguish) writes:

>No..  what I am saying is that, with respect to demos, it is
>unreasonable to expect them to work for an extended period
>of time.

We're not making much progress here, and I think one reason
is that you seem to want to load up the rhetoric.  For
example, it isn't a matter of "extended" trial periods,
really; rather, it's a matter of allowing enough of either
execution time or useful major features enabled to give a
prospective buyer a good enough idea of what they're getting
for their money.

The alternative, which I believe works against everybody's
interests and is also at variance with the de facto
traditions developing around the NeXT user and developer
communities, is to do what major vendors do: you pay the
going price before you get anything, and either you're stuck
or you're nicked a 15% restocking fee.

There's another area -- and I note some agreement coming
from other posters -- where I believe you're making a
mistake, and this shows it:

>Having a "demo" that runs for 10-20 hours straight without
>any restrictions is not a demo.  It is a full working piece
>of software with ZERO insentive to buy.

You seem to have a fundamentally negative attitude toward
the buyer (incidentally, if you were going to be consistent,
you should be at least as negative about vendors).

Naturally, this is a debatable issue, and there is indeed
precedent showing there really are cheats and other kinds of
jerks in the world.  But most people are upstanding, honest
folks, quite willing to pay for things of value.  Most NeXT
people, for example, paid a premium to get on the NeXT track
to start with, and these are the very people we're talking
about.

Apparently you are simply unwilling to trust people to do
the right thing.  I can't *prove* you're wrong, but I have
been working in this field for nearly 40 years now, and I
can only say my experience suggests strongly that the vast
majority of people are entirely trustworthy in such matters.
The only incentive they need, then, is value from the
product, which in nearly all cases works out to be
suitability to a range of tasks in the real world, and
paying a fair price for the product is seldom an obstacle.

Scott Hess has been working on the possibility of having a
pop-up panel remind people, after some suitable time, that
the program is not licensed yet.  Andrew Loewenstern
(lion-star, what a great name!) and Glenn Reid sent me
software to try out that worked for quite a long time before
it expired.  In that time I had an ample opportunity to
review how the products would fit into the overall flow of
my tasks.  I was very enthusiastic about these products, but
in due course I could see that useful as they were, their
functions did not arise often enough in my own work to
justify purchasing them.  For other users, though, I'm sure
they would be excellent tools.

The important point here, and I think you've discounted it
pretty thoroughly (perhaps unintentionally) is that these
developers are putting out good products and are responsive
to their customers.  Though I didn't buy these particular
items, I certainly have had a positive experience with these
people and would gladly consider anything else they might
come up with.

I don't know what Andrew has been doing more recently, but
I can tell you that I will be taking a very good look at
shelling out for Glenn's next product.

Another example is Andrew Stone.  I had many hours in which
to fool around with both Create and DataPhile, and the more
I used them, the more I saw how they could contribute to my
work in new and productivity-enhancing ways.  So I got
licenses for both those products.  During the time I was
evaluating them, Stone Design changed its licensing
policies, I think to the advantage of all users, including
me.  As far as I know, it wouldn't be possible to have a
better relationship between user and vendor, absent some
unlikely factor like one of us being hideously rich (as,
alas, neither of us is).

Now all of these people are presumably busy making great new
stuff and have minimal time for engaging in this sort of
discussion.  Besides, were they to come on here and say
"yeah, we bust our butts for the customer" someone would get
on their case for being self-serving.

>And since you twisted my words around on me, I will repeat
>them...

I merely disagreed; you apparently see that as "twisting."

>>Its FREE!  Quit complaining!

I believe I've made a serious point, one you've not responded
to yet, regarding the suspect nature of the implication that
the mere fact of something being free exempts it from having
to answer to qualitative judgments of any kind.

>This is the reality.  You haven't paid for the software.

But isn't that *obvious*?  Who would disagree?  Hence, it
must not be very much to the point.  What is is this:

>You don't have the RIGHT to have full use of the software.

I don't recall anyone asking for that.  You're the only
person who's even mentioned a full-use "right." This is
classic straw-figure form of argument.  The issue is not
full use, it's how much use of what kind for how long.  The
issue is not rights, it's reasonable expectations: how much
of what is reasonable, how little of it is unreasonable.

>Its interesting how this seems to have turned into a
>personal attack on your part.

I don't see it as personal; if you do, that's for you to
deal with.  There do seem to be people who take any and all
criticism of their views as a personal attack, but I think
it's a losing proposition to engage them on that basically
flawed level.  It's not for me to say whether that includes
you, though I think there's been some evidence for it.

Now if I haven't managed to persuade you that a successful
commercial relationship derives more benefit from mutual
trust than from any form of coersion, than I'm prepared to
leave it at that.  The sun will still come up, I'm sure.
Maybe we'll find something to agree about in future.

<> At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own
<> concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
<> the mystery of human life.
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: [e-mail] <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: [e-mail]  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone [phone]