🚀 go-pugleaf

amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:

>In article <DAF.90Jun29131357@betty.cs.brown.edu>, daf@cs.brown.edu (David A. Fedor) writes:
>>>(To put it a bit more bluntly, I refuse to purchase a product for which
>>>I have to pay for tech support, in addition to the price of the product.
>>>Should I discover that I have accidently purchased such a product, I return
>>>it.)
>> 
>> What???? Excuse me?  I think one of the basic points of this discussion is 
>> that tech support costs money, which has to be reimbursed through the price
>> of the software package.  

I agree.  Support does cost money.  That money in general comes from the
price of the product.  (TANSTAAFL)

>>				The idea of the 1-900 number is to LOWER the price
>> of the basic package, while being able to charge only the people who actually
>> use the tech support.

Would it really?  
Or would it just lead to software being sold for the same prices as they already 
are, but with the added problem that the software companies now no longer have 
any incentive to provide a good UI, online help, good documentation, etc?  In 
fact, under this scheme, the company would have an incentive to NOT provide such.  
After all, if tech support becomes a profit center, it would soon occur to 
someone to produce a product with LOADS of really great features (so the Review 
looks good), and a very poor manual.  Three months later, when the user is 
ready to play with some of the more obscure features/combinations... 

Designing and Developing a GOOD user interface costs time and money.  Producing
a good manual is also an expensive proposition.  I have yet to see a review of a 
product that covered documentation and tech support.  I would expect that a
product produced under these guidelines could sell very well.

>> Tech support people need to be payed!  The money had to come from somewhere...

Yes.  But not as an "Add-On".  It is not.  To put it another way, why should
I have to pay to be able to USE your product, after I have purchased it?
Why should I have to pay more because YOU (the product developer) did not
write an addiquate on-line help system?  Or Manual? 
 
>> we're trying to find a way that people who DON'T need tech support won't
>> have to pay for the people who do. (Very much like communism vs democracy! :-)

No.  What I see is that you are trying to justify turning tech support costs
into a profit center, as opposed to a penalty for poor design or bad trade off
decisions. 

>Thank you, Dave.  Tech support people have to be at their terminals ready to 
>calls at any time. I cannot hire personnel to be secretaries, salesmen, and 
>tech support all for the same salary.  It just doesn't happen. 

I don't expect it to.  I do, however expect that the price for poor engineering
come out of your pocket, not mine (at least not as a hidden charge)

>It's bad enough that most companies put you on hold forever and a day, much
>less have their tech people do more than one job.

So what is to stop them from doing this anyhow (and collecting money for it)?
or do you really expect them to be able to answer your quention right off 
("Just hold on a minute while I transfer you... ring... ring... ring...")

And just wait until someone comes up with the scheme of copy protection
via a tech support password (e.g. call tech support and if you are a 
registered user, we will give you a password good for the next six months)

No Thanks.

I develop software for a living.  When I am designing the interface, I 
spend a lot of time designing and working with tech support to try to 
make it so that people will not need to call them.  How am would I be 
able to convince management to make the trade off (time to market v. 
fewer tech support calls) when the Tech Support division was responsible 
for 10% of our profit last year?????

If that is the way things are going to go, I would rather see the (not) FSF
approach win.  At least that way, I would have a chance at getting my 
problem solved (rather than explaining my problem for the fifth time to
some flunky).

+C
-- 
Cory Kempf				I do speak for the company (sometimes).
Three Letter Company						603 883 2474
email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory