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 think that you are confusing your applications that are easy to apply an
update to with all other software.
Just because you think that it is correct to do it doesn't mean it is the
proper thing to do.
Do you have a vertical product or do you focus on a custom app one off type
of work? Your statements sound like you do a custom app and never deal
with them again. Instead of having a product with a lifecycle of X months
that are a true upgrade over the former version.
"Correct" in a business sense <> "ethical" in a moral sense.
Business people will often do what is economically "correct" even when it
is indisputably immoral. We can expect no better of them; that is why
governments have to regulate them.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
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/[email protected]
** 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.
