Re: Computer time -> Developer time -> User time?

From: Randall Hyde (randyhyde_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:24:37 GMT

"Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:I8wId.612$Z71.487@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> A demonstration of this is Microsoft's "5 year rule"...basically,
Microsoft
> retract "support" for each of their OSes, 5 years after release...

Actually, this isn't Microsoft. IIRC, The US FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
requires companies to maintain spare parts and what-not for their products
for
at least five years after they discontinue selling a product. I suspect that
the
Microsoft "Five-Year Rule" is related to this issue.

>
> Now, first, if this is a "reaction" to user "demands" then how on Earth
can
> they declare when it'll be "obselete" _BEFORE_ they've even released it!

Our government at work!

> The way the "5 year rule" works is simple...if Longhorn is released this
> year - 2005 - then it'll be officially "obselete" (and Microsoft then
> refuse to "support" it in any way) in the year 2010...just add 5...as
> simple as that...

People still use (and install!) Windows 98. All "obsolete" means is that
Microsoft is not going to be providing free updates for it any longer.
Most people who care about things aren't using Windows 98, anyway.
Also, most people who use Windows 98 don't care about the lack of
updates -- for if they did, they would certainly have gotten a later OS.
As for new users not being able to buy Win98, just keep in mind that
it won't run on many modern machines. So it's not like they've got a
choice, anyway.

>
> It's a "prediction"? Then it's not a terribly good one because, for
Windows
> 98, they've had to _break_ the "5 year rule" and extended the
> "support"...why? Because, completely _contrary_ to this "users are in a
mad
> rush to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade!" theory, far too many people _WEREN'T_
> upgrading from 98...a sufficiently large number weren't upgrading to be
> significant to Microsoft to "extend" the "support"...the retraction of
> "support", in truth, is a "threat" to force "constant forward motion"...if
> everyone refused to "upgrade", then they'd be forced - as in the Windows
98
> example - to stay "supporting" it, otherwise they'd be cutting off their
> own nose despite their face...while 90% of users are still on Win98,
they'd
> "retract" all "support"? No, they wouldn't...they'd be risking their
> "monopoly"...

???

>
> Sir Bill has used this "poker bluff" repeatedly to make himself a
> billionaire...developing software for Apple (for their original Mac) ready
> for "launch date", Bill used another "threat": We will not provide you any
> of the software...Apple panicked at a "launch party" where they couldn't
> actually show the machine doing much of anything because there were no
> software applications and they didn't call his "bluff"...worse, part of
the
> "extra terms and conditions" Sir Bill demanded? "Some" rights to Apple GUI
> technologies...

Actually, the true story is the Bill got screwed by Apple with respect to
the
release of AppleBasic. Bill thought for sure the imminent release of
AppleBasic
for the Mac would spell the end of Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace.
So he agreed to Apple's terms on the condition that they'd kill AppleBasic.
Apple didn't think the Mac was a programmer's machine, so they were more
than happy to drop AppleBasic. In the end, the presence of AppleBasic would
have made no difference to Microsoft, but Apple got concessions from
Microsoft for dropping it (this is all part of the historical record, if you
want
to check it out).

>
> He "threatens" retracting his software and then people panic that it might
> disappear and leave them in a terrible situation so "surrender" to his
> demands...but, really, people should start calling that "bluff"...a
> software company that refuses to sell any of its software? You can't keep
> up that "spoilt brat" attitude for long...unfortunately, Bill will keep
> getting away with it because most people are not "wise" to his "poker
> bluff" tactics...and there's no way to get this message across and for
> everyone to believe it, in order to get the whole world to "call that
> bluff"...so, he'll get away with it...

So where are the other vendors ready to step in?
Linux has had some presence felt, but where is everyone else?

>
> Users _DO_ want _better_ features...but they don't want "random,
completely
> arbitrary features, so long as there are numerically more features than
> before"...

Again, one person's essential feature is another person's bloat.
What seems random by one person is a good design by another.

>
> The "feature bloat" is caused by one thing...and it's not users
"demanding"
> it...the industry wants to make profits...if it did this in the more
> "honest" way, then they would release a good application and then the next
> upgrade may not happen for many years (and the "new version" isn't simply,
> unlike Windows, a case of "better graphics, USB support and that's it" -
> after all, why exactly do you need to buy a boxed copy of that? Microsoft
> can upload the "new bitmaps" onto "Windows Update" or a few DLLs for the
> "USB support"...it _could_ all be done by "Windows Update" but that's free
> and they want to make money...so, they draw a "line in the sand" and it's
> at those points they change the graphics to make it look "brand new" and
> sell it under a new title with a new logo - but an actual fundamentally
> significant improvement of functionality)...

This is a fundamental problem. How do companies make money without
a continuous stream of upgrades? Sure, Microsoft is rich, but what about
the rest of the industry? What is Microsoft doing that everyone else isn't
with respect to these upgrades? People always have the choice, don't
bother upgrades. I, for one, am perfectly happy With Win2K. I've got
XP on a couple of new machines, but I'm not bothering to upgrade
to XP on the machine I'm typing this on. When the machine dies, then
I'll use whatever OS comes on the new machine. Till then, I don't have
to give Bill any more money for this machine. I'm not forced to upgrade
at all, even when the "five years" are up.

>
> You're usually the one with the statistics, Randy...what are the
statistics
> about _USER PRODUCTIVITY_ since all this "feature bloat" has been
> increasingly introduced? Well, lo and behold, it's getting _WORSE_,
despite
> the bold advertising claims, used to push people onto the new
> version...there's "memetic reality" - a constructed self-delusion of "how
> we would like things to be" - and then there's the _real thing_...a
> "connection" between the two, apparently, is not always necessary when
> "profits" are involved ;)...

User productivity leveled out after Win95 appeared. Certainly after
Win2K showed up (based on NT rather than 3.1), there has been
very little progress made. Combined with the fact that machines
haven't been getting much faster the past several years, productivity
has failed to increase. Computers have done about all they can

>
> It is an industry "self-fulfilling prophecy" to keep pushing this
"constant
> forward motion" hard because you can double, triple your profits by
selling
> some "technology" in "baby steps" over a decade with minor "version
> enhancements" rather than just sell a new version when there is a
> _significant_, fundamental change and improvement to the product...this
> isn't merely a personal opinion, it has been investigated as charges in
law
> courts against Microsoft (typically, the ones that ended up as "out of
> court settlement" that we never heard the court's verdict on this
> practice)...

You've got it.
But don't blame Microsoft. Blame the people who keep paying for all this.
They could easily choose not to bother.

>
> Users "demand" it? Well, they "demand" getting something worth the money
> they hand over...they are _EXPECTING_ actually better software...what they
> are typically supplied is an "illusion" of this...and all the "extra
> features" are a "blind them with science" tactic (because most users don't
> really know what 90% of these claims on the side of the box actually refer
> to), to "convince" them that they really are buying a "significantly
> improved" product...once bought, though, actually listen to them _voice
> their opinions_ on what they bought...if you don't outrightly "hate"
> Microsoft, then you're certainly "disappointed" in what they do...I have
> met _ONE_ person who defended them and was enthusiastic (who suspiciously
> has an incredibly detailed knowledge of NT kernels, that one wonders if
> he's an ex-employee or being "hired" by Microsoft to "be on the look-out"
> for the "next Linux" developing on the OS development groups ;)...and
> challenging that enthusiasm demonstrates no actual solid logical base for
> it, anyway...indeed, comes across more like some kind of S&M "fetish" or
> something...enjoying being pissed upon by contemptuous Microsoft
> policies)...

Why is this any different than car manufaturers expecting you to buy a new
vehicle every three years or so? Heck, Apple expects you to buy a *new*
iPod when the battery in it goes bad (okay, they backpedalled after getting
some bad press, but...). Microsoft is entitled to make money anyway they
can (legally, anyway). Consumers *don't* have to pay for it, if they don't
want it.

However, were Microsoft to just sit on their rears and not bother updating
their OS on a regular basis, other OSes that do get regular upgrades would
start getting all the good press and MSOS sales would go down. So they
have to keep producing upgrades.

Cheers,
Randy Hyde