C
Chien Lau
I had a situation occur today that's happened a number of times before
and I'd like to get your take on it:
Imagine... You're developing a WinForms app for a client that includes
the use charts. So you purchase a .NET charting component, design the app,
and deliver it to the customer. One year later, the customer comes back and
says, "There's a bug in your app. The application crashes when I do such and
such to the chart." I start debugging and realize that the error is
occurring in the charting component. I call the vendor who acknowledges that
yes in fact there is a well-known bug in the charting component. It's been
fixed -- but if I want the patch, I need to pay for the product again. This
seems outrageous to me, but I've had it happen to me with numerous component
vendors that provide charting, grid, docking windows, and FTP functionality.
On one hand, I see their point. In the year since I've released my app,
they've added lots of cool features to their component and they want to be
paid for their work... but on the other hand, I don't CARE about the new
features. All I want is to get this bug fixed, recompile, and re-deliver to
my customer. Why should I have to shell out another $600 for a completely
new version of their component?
Some .NET component vendors handle this by trying to get me to sign up
for a "subscription." Under the subscription, I'd get the latest version of
that vendors product(s) for as long as I keep paying for my subscription.
What's your opinion of this? Do you guys typically buy into these
subscriptions? A sales person at a popular component vendor today asked me,
"When you buy Visual Studio 6.0, do you expect to get Visual Studio.NET and
all future versions of VS for free?" My reply was, "no." I said that I don't
mind paying more money for VS 7.0 because I planned to make use of many of
it's great new features... but I wouldn't be too happy if MSFT charged me
again for the product or make me "subscribe" just to fix glaring bugs. When
Microsoft finds a glaring bug in Win2000, for example, they give me a free
patch -- they don't tell me "tough luck -- go pay for Win2003."
What's your opinion on "subscribing" to a software component (like a
grid, chart, smtp, etc.)? Is my frustration unjustified?
and I'd like to get your take on it:
Imagine... You're developing a WinForms app for a client that includes
the use charts. So you purchase a .NET charting component, design the app,
and deliver it to the customer. One year later, the customer comes back and
says, "There's a bug in your app. The application crashes when I do such and
such to the chart." I start debugging and realize that the error is
occurring in the charting component. I call the vendor who acknowledges that
yes in fact there is a well-known bug in the charting component. It's been
fixed -- but if I want the patch, I need to pay for the product again. This
seems outrageous to me, but I've had it happen to me with numerous component
vendors that provide charting, grid, docking windows, and FTP functionality.
On one hand, I see their point. In the year since I've released my app,
they've added lots of cool features to their component and they want to be
paid for their work... but on the other hand, I don't CARE about the new
features. All I want is to get this bug fixed, recompile, and re-deliver to
my customer. Why should I have to shell out another $600 for a completely
new version of their component?
Some .NET component vendors handle this by trying to get me to sign up
for a "subscription." Under the subscription, I'd get the latest version of
that vendors product(s) for as long as I keep paying for my subscription.
What's your opinion of this? Do you guys typically buy into these
subscriptions? A sales person at a popular component vendor today asked me,
"When you buy Visual Studio 6.0, do you expect to get Visual Studio.NET and
all future versions of VS for free?" My reply was, "no." I said that I don't
mind paying more money for VS 7.0 because I planned to make use of many of
it's great new features... but I wouldn't be too happy if MSFT charged me
again for the product or make me "subscribe" just to fix glaring bugs. When
Microsoft finds a glaring bug in Win2000, for example, they give me a free
patch -- they don't tell me "tough luck -- go pay for Win2003."
What's your opinion on "subscribing" to a software component (like a
grid, chart, smtp, etc.)? Is my frustration unjustified?