Software, support, and warranties

[John G. DeArmond]

wul at sco.COM (Wu Liu) writes:


>Well, I do think there's one major difference between shoes and software
>when it comes to money-back guarantees.  If you return a pair of shoes,
>they're no longer in your possession.  More importantly, the store you
>bought them from can be reasonably certain that you can't keep wearing
>them after they've been returned.  How can software vendors tell if a
>returned product isn't still in use by the returning party?

The more important question is, why should the vendor care?  Which hits
to the very crux of the problem.  The vendor really has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain by not worrying about this non-problem.  Consider the
very infrequent case of someone returning a package with the intent of
getting it free.  If he had not availed himself of the warranty, he would
have likely gotten it elsewhere.  If he simply did not find the program
of sufficient value, he MIGHT, after using the so-called bootleg copy,
recommend it to someone who he think COULD find value.  I've done this
in a couple of cases myself.  That is, I've recommended software that 
I've become familiar with from bootleg copies.  In this instance, the
vendor gets a big net WIN.  

If, on the other hand, the vendor had hit him with one of these tough
shit warranties and told him the same thing when he called in to support
noting that the software did not work as advertised, the vendor would
simply have another pissed  off and potentially vocal opponent.  Take me and
EE Designer for example.  Or for that matter, SCO.

It's really better that the vendor spend his time and money writing better
sotfware rather than sitting around scrouge-like counting the money he
things he should have gotten.

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it