[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


    Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 10:53:51 CDT
    From: mac%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (Mac Michaels)

    >  Second, why should software be any different from hardware?  If I don't
    >  pay for a service plan, and a board fails, I'd have to pay Symbolics to
    >  send someone to replace the board.  By the same token, if you don't pay
    >  for SW Support, and you discover a failing function, you pay for
    >  Symbolics to send you a fixed version.
    The key word is "fixed".   Often what you get instead is "This is a known
    problem that will be fixed in the next release."   What did you get for the
    extra money?  People on software subscription will get it as soon as you do.

Software Support has sent me fixes as soon as they were developed on
many occasions.  Often even when I don't ask for them (most of my bug
reports are not about critical problems, and all I expect is for them to
be added to the bug list and dealt with eventually, yet SW Support
frequently develops patches for them right away and sends them to me).

    >  Software support is a service, not a right.
    Its a service only if you get faults corrected promptly.

I've had very few complaints so far.

And you still haven't addressed the other role of SW Support I
mentioned: customer assistance.  I personally don't make much use of
that, but I believe that many less wizardly customers make frequent use
of it.

Finally, there's a very practical reason for charging for SW Support:
there's a cost to Symbolics for every customer they support.  If they
have to deal with more customers it requires more personnel to answer
phones and mail, and more hardware for those people to use, and more
physical plant, etc.  These costs need to be recovered in a reasonably
direct way, and charging for software support is that way.