Tech Support: Sucking Even More

Standing behind a product is the seminal moral responsibility of any manufacturer, both in terms of what's smart and what's right. Customer and tech reps are nose-to-nose with the public when it comes to new technology. That means it's critical to provide genuine, easy-to-access, responsive tech support and service. But the very phrase "tech support" has become an oxymoron, an indictment of an arrogant and elitist industry. And a new survey by Jupiter Media Matrix suggests that tech support and customer service are getting worse, not better. (Read more).

Tech support has become synonymous in most consumers' minds with corporate arrogance and greed, the dehumanization wrought by technology, and the frustration millions of people have felt at being hung out to dry by computer makers, access providers and online retailers. People struggle to assemble products, to install software, to access the Net and the Web, to locate passwords, codes and IDs they belatedly discover they need (or have just misplaced). No other business would survive a month operating this way.

Customer service and tech support are the contact points between the public and much of contemporary technology. It causes the greatest fear and anxiety, generates the most anger and resentment; it's become a scandal, branding the computer industry as perhaps the most insensitive and exploitive in America. Computer manufacturers and software-makers make used-car salesman look thoughtful and concerned about their customers -- at least you can go back and find the lot where you bought the car.

Customer service and tech support are constantly being promised and invoked, even as they are rarely delivered. Extortionate service contracts are now routinely offered -- special arrangements by which people who spend thousands of dollars on hardware and software spend hundreds more just for "priority access" to get the kind of minimal support that's standard in other businesses, and that ought to be included free with their purchases. Can you imagine paying extra to call up the store that sold you a sofa to ask where the legs are?

This week, the research firm Jupiter Media Matrix will release the results of a survey showing that while some companies doing business on the Internet are actually responding more quickly to customer e-mail inquiries compared to previous studies, those gains have been more than offset by a sharp increase in the number of companies that don't respond at all.

Of the 225 U.S. companies Jupiter surveyed in February, 38 percent responded within six hours or sooner to an e-mail message sent to customer service. That was an increase from 29 percent in Jupiter's previous survey in September. Only 16 percent of the companies responded with 6 to 24 hours, compared with 25 per cent last fall. The percentage of companies that responded to customers within a day, therefore, remained static at 54 percent; note, though, that many of those responses were in the form of automated e-mails. That doesn't mean the customers complaints were addressed or satisfied.

And here's the truly shocking and maddening finding: 24 percent of those companies surveyed didn't bother to respond at all, up from 19 percent last fall.

But nobody really needs a survey to know that tech support is a nightmare. Support and customer service jobs are often considered boring, low-paying and difficult. The more noise companies make about providing customer service and tech support, the worse they seem to treat the people they hire to do it, paying them little and overloading them with cases -- almost ensuring high turnover rates and bad service. It's hard to keep good people in those jobs, and those who stay are generally miserable and stressed out.

Small wonder they catch the brunt of consumer wrath at the outrageous way in which computers and related products and products online are sold and serviced.

The average consumer, according to a Jupiter analysts, expects a resolution of her complaint or query within six hours. They're not likely to get it. At a minimum, consumers are entitled to e-mail response within a business day, instand and equal access to customer service reps if they need it, and prompt resolution of their problems.

From my personal experience, and that of others, some companies -- Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Hewlett-Packard stand out. They answer e-mail queries and complaints promptly, and provide instant and knowledgeable support. (Microsoft, though, charges customers extra for those "priority" contracts which put them on the top of long phone queues. Hewlitt-Packard takes calls as they come, spares customers complex and eternal phone menus, and even helps customers who haven't paid extra. Dell customer reps stay with customers throughout the life of a complaint. Consumers actually have a name and a number to call, even if the problem takes days to resolve.)

But as the Jupiter survey suggests, tech support generally remains miserable for most people who buy products online or need technical assistance. I'd love to see a survey of how much time and money has been spent by people trying to reach companies that abandon them to elaborate phone menus, keep them waiting for hours on hold, then often can't or won't help even those who survive the access process. As bad as it's been, apparently tech support sucks even more than it used to.

Comments

I know what you mean!

[Anonymous Coward]

I called Linus at home to fix a problem on the latest kernel and he just hung up on me. Called back and got the answering machine. Bad tech support for sure.

Problems began when schematics no longer included.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when every TV, stereo, washing machine, electronic toys, and even early VCRs came with a schematic diagram?

This allowed:
(1) people to fix problems themselves or
(2) allowed local "fix it" shops to proliferate and do repairs.

Ditto with software. Source used to come standard. In the early days, on Unix for example, it was a given that "/usr/src" always had source in there. Now the direct is there but is empty on any non GNU/BSD Unix unless you (an one of many buyers of the product) pay enough to cover an entire years salary of one of the vendor's programmers, and then have to sign NDAs up the ass.

Today source and schematics are all considered "proprietary, burn before reading" secrets, with laywers ready to have you bankrupted and jailed for reverse engineering anything on your own.

The result? No one but the company that made the product can help fix it when it breaks, or troubleshoot problems. And they get swamped since lots of 3rd party tech support (software) or 3rd party repair shops (hardware) can no longer exist because their tools have been taken away by the mega corps.

The mega corps want things to break so you will buy a new frob or buy their $599 "upgrade" to Adobe Premier. Heaven forbid you should be able to fix things yourself, or have shops sell "pre debugged" software that they BOUGHT, modified and recompiled and are now selling.

And don't tell me how "everything's ASICs" and how schematics are useless today. Most electronics that fail, fail in the standard components OUTSIDE the ASIC (e.g., regulator burns out, resistor melts, etc.)

Re:why tech support sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a couple of nice things about tech support. I've done support for many years now.

First off, you get to be the "hero" on a daily basis. Maybe some hotshot coder made the fix, but he made the mistake in the first place, being shot for being the messenger is one thing, but it also feels good for being praised for being the messenger too. That's what I love about this job.

Also, I just like working with computers, and I've tried programming, and frankly, I just don't have the time and patience for it. I understand it, but I don't want to spend months of my life getting involved in trivial API details that are going to change the minute Microsoft feels paranoid that the competition is catching up.

And let me tell you that the worst thing about being a support rep has nothing to do with dealing with retarded or frustrated customers. It has to do with dealing with retarded (sales) managers, and primadonna programmers who take it personally when you suggest that their code is flawed, or needs to even be looked at; and all the political fallout that results from that. You have to handle these people with kid gloves, all the while, commiserating with the customer to make them happy, and trying not to let that feeling rub off on you. The second you "go native", is when you get screwed.

I've been doing support for years, and I think I'm going to keep doing it. I do love it. I really don't see myself becoming some anal IT jerk who gets off on modeling his life on BOFH, and while it would be nice to be a programmer and try to code things "right the first time", trying to do that would shatter my illusion that it can actually be done right the first time. (I have a strong subconsious suspicion that in reality, that's impossible - in THIS computer industry).

Schematics and buying heaps of trash...

[sheldon]

My father used to work for Zenith back in the early 70's. He has an MSEE and designed audio amplifiers at the time.

Throughout my childhood we had Zenith televisions and radios. A 26" color console in fact.

Did he have schematics?

Yep, we had the schematics, he had the design specs. He knew exactly how this thing was built from his work at Zenith.

And the fact of the matter is... YOU HAD TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THAT TELEVISION WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!

I'm not saying it wasn't a good TV for the day, but once a year some tube would blow out, and we'd make the regular trip down to Radio Shack or wherever to get a replacement. This was pretty common for televisions of that day and age.

They finally replaced it with a Magnavox 26" which used transistors around 1980 or so. That worked for 15 years before the powersupply went bad and couldn't be easily repaired.

The point is, over the years the quality of the televisions improved to the point that you no longer need schematics... BECAUSE THEY DON'T BREAK ONCE A YEAR!

The same is true of automobiles. The VW Beetle used to be regarded as a wonderful car. Not because it was good to drive, not because it was comfortable to ride in... it sure didn't have a working heating system, etc.

The reason it was regarded as a good car at the time was because you could overhaul the engine on the side of the highway with a small box full of tools.

And once again... You had to do this because the blasted thing would break down on the side of the road once a year and require an overhaul. IT WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!

I don't have to do that with my car today. Yes I change the oil, yes I put air in the tires. But in 28 months of ownership I have not yet had it break down, stop working or otherwise require maintenance outside of oil changes.

As a consumer, I should not need schematics...

I should not need source code. Your product should work as designed. If there is an API call into the OS it should be well documented with defined inputs and expected outputs. It should work exactly as documented.

If I need source, if I need schematics, if I need service manuals... Your product is a hunk of trash and I don't want it.

Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash...

[firewort]

Ihave the Bell&Howell Television Heathkit manuals.
My mother and father built the family TV from them in 1974.

I own a VW Beetle, 1971 pan, 1968 body and an engine I built up myself. (and it's gone 60,000 and 3 years without needing the engine to be opened up. simple valve adjustment and oil changes are all. and if I hadnt been cheap, I would have gone with hydraulic lifters for the valves.)

My other car is a 62 Chevy Impala.

I've owned hondas and others but I want the schematics.

I learned to read schematics from the Radio Shack/Tandy electronic kits that had a bunch of components with springs for terminals, so I could easily connect and disconnect wires and learn what the components did.

The last stereo we bought that came with schematics was a radio shack am/fm tape reciever, in 1987/88.

I want the schematics, not because I want to use them, but because I want the assurance that 10 years from now when a small part blows, that I'll have a guide for finding it and paying $1.97 to fix it instead of junking it for a $300 reciever.

I may not enjoy pulling out the 'scope (another of my father's heathkits- wish they still made those!) to fix another cap that's gone sick on a logic board, or a chip in the chrysler fm radio that loses a channel- but I want to be able to in the event that this happens.

A world of closed boxes is not desirable. I want the option of reading the schematics, I want books published on how to fix dvd players in your own home, I want to be able to service the tivo hardware not just the software.

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Re:the source of this...

[Genom]

Yep. I did tech support for a year and a half at a dialup ISP.

• Low pay. REALLY low pay. The big bucks go to the sales people and management. Tech support got paid $8 an hour, on average, and most had to tie down a second job to stay afloat, while management and sales showed off their new cars, and bragged about their bonuses.
  
• High stress - getting yelled at ain't fun. Especially when it comes from BOTH sides - the customer yelling at you because their POS Dell Winmodem won't handshake on the 50 year old noisy power lines - management yelling at you because the customer is pissed off.
  
• No respect - management considers tech support the lowest point on the totem pole. Ask for better wages, or better equipment, or training, or anything else, and get denied out of hand. But when something goes wrong, who do they blame? You guessed it.
  
• More stress - busy time of year? Lots of people calling? Ask management for more people to throw at the problem, and get told that it's not manpower, but that you are the problem because you're not being "efficient" enough.
  
• Long hours during undesirable times - When is tech support most needed? When people are home. When are people home? Nights and weekends, or during really bad weather (blizzards, etc...). 'nuff said.
  

So it's really no wonder that the techs don't want to be there. Overworked, underpaid, non-respected employees have a valid REASON to not want to be there.

So they bide their time until they have the skills to move elsewhere. Then they quit, and move on to a job with better pay, better hours, better respect, and less "public" contact.

This isn't to say that tech support should suck - it's just saying that there are valid reasons why it sucks, and until those reasons get addressed, things aren't going to get better.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that the people you need to deal with, as support personnel, are generally VERY clueless - to the point that seemingly SIMPLE instructions are NOT simple to them. I'm not even going there. You've all heard the war stories before.

It's too complex

[Ed Avis]

The reason computer support sucks compared to sofas is that a computer system (including software) is much more complicated. If you want to offer a product that Just Works, and support that doesn't require either great expertise, guesswork over the phone, or dealing with thousands of trivial problems, you'd need to make the product much simpler.

Imagine a computer with three buttons: Send Mail. Read Mail. Browse Web. And a keyboard, a one-button mouse, and a big 'Go' button for when the message is composed. You could support that easily enough, except when the user goes to a website which itself is broken. You'd need to certify websites to some standard which says they will work with your software, and (trickier) that their user interface works the way the user expects. And of course you can forget all about third-party software.

Does a sofa have any of these problems?

Tech support and OSS

[MikeCamel]

What does tech support mean in an OSS world? Standing behind a product which you create, yes - but what if you didn't create it? There is certainly the opportunity to build a support business behind OSS products, but it's more difficult than you might think - look at LinuxCare and it's problems.

The "community" isn't enough for many enterprises and organisations, either. They need to be sure that they've got 24x7 access to tech support for the applications (and OSes) that they rely on, and until we have a robust model for providing that support, it's one area that will continue to hold back take-up of OSS software. None of the models we see at the moment see to provide enough yet: Linuxcare and their ilk are having difficulties (maybe because they cast their net too wide, and didn't concentrate on particular apps), IRC and web-based guru services aren't going to convince large businesses. The Sendmail model is an interesting one, but what about scalability? Could it handle Evolution, for instance, when that goes 1.0?

I think that this is an issue which we, as a community, really need to address.

Re:Weak argument

[Syberghost]

I think it basically comes down to the fact that the cost of tech support is not factored into the cost of most products.

That's because we're arrogant enough to assume our products are usable without support, and elitist enough to not care whether the people who need support get it or not.

They're "lamerz" or "lusers", and should "RTFM" before they call support, right?

Jon has, as usual, hit it right square on the head for the exact reason that he's not a part of our industry.

You can't see the forest because you're a tree.

-

And Too Much Is Expected

[SEWilco]

If GM Provided Tech Support.

The need for tech support

[Waav]

The comparison in the article of the sofa to the computer industry is ludicrous. The reason somebody doesn't have to "call up the store that sold you a sofa to ask where the legs are" is because people are well aquainted with sofas and how they work.

The problem with the tech industry is the lack of knowledge of the end consumer. It is the complexity of the technology that is causing the need for tech support unlike any other industry. You don't see a sticker for 24hr technical support on a couch now do you?

Until the end user is better educated in how computers work (read: take a fuckin class), tech support workers will be overworked and the quality of tech support will look poor because of the sheer volume they must process.

When I worked as a tech support person I received 30-50 calls per 10hr shift, the majority of which required long periods of time to resolve due to the damage originally caused by the customer's trying to do things they didn't understand the consequences of and then their infamiliarity with the technology when I was stepping them how to fix it. If customers were only contacting tech support for 'real' problems as opposed to ones caused by user error and lack of knowledge, the perception of quality of tech support (specifically in response time) would drastically rise.

Re:The need for tech support

[oddjob]

Part of the problem is that a computer is a tool that is being sold as an appliance. When someone buys a tool, like a band-saw for example, the customer needs the tool to get a job done. They expect to learn how to use it properly or lose digits. If someone buys an appliance, like a toaster, they don't expect to have to learn much of anything to use it. This expectation gives us those wonderful warning labels like "don't touch glowing wires with tender bits", but I digress... A computer is a tool, and the people who realize that RTFM. The rest see the comercials, think they're buying a toaster, and get pissed off when its not that easy.

From the front line.

[EasyTarget]

Speaking as a tech support engineer (and coming from a background of 10 yrs as a developer and sysadmin)..

The stupidity of some people in our industry (and I am talking about IT professionals here.. I support a large CM product) is incredible.

The people who really suffer are the clever ones, who have read the manual, checked the FAQ, understand the product in the first place, and only call when they have a -real- problem. By the time I get to them I am generally fried from saying RTMF 25 times and the speed and completeness of my response to them suffers as a result. Plus you have the disconnect between what marketing/sales will sell, vs. the actual capabilities of the product, guess who is expected to sort that one out (hint, it's not the salesman, he already has his comission).

I'm getting out of support and going back to sysadmin, at least I can call someone an idiot and then justify it face-to-face with their manager.



EZ

Customers even more clued-out than before...

[caffeineboy]

This seems to be a symptom of the increasing complicatedness of computers themselves, along with "features" that enable more and more things to break...

I am sure anyone here who has worked with end users has answered calls along the lines of "I have a foppy here that is too powerful for my version of the internet. Can you help me make my connection to hotmail faster? I think that there is a problem with the server."

There is just too much information and too many words being bounced around for the average joe user to handle... It has almost become the case that to operate a computer without hassles, you must understand how to build one. Can you imagine if Ford said that they expected everyone to know how to build a car before they could expect to be able to drive?

I had a friend call me up the other day who had gotten the "mystical spiral" on his screen from the haha@sexyfun.net virus... It was impossible for me to explain over the phone how to fix it, like this:

You have to usa a DOS boot disk to avoid booting into the infected win98

A what?

Never mind...

As things get more and more complicated with individual PCs, I thnk that there will be a lot of money to be made for the first person who starts an app-server like network in which there is NO maintainence to be done on the user side. If you do person-to-person support it is easy to see the gulf of knowledge that is creating the unquenchable demand for tech support...

Congratulations, you just reinvented the Mac!

[cyberdonny]

Not only can it be used by any idiot, but it's a nice piece of furnishing too, just like your comfy sofa!

Re:Yea...but...

[MarkKomus]

Well we can always hope that the companies that provide the best service come out on top, but that isn't always the way things work. Just look at how many small speciality shops, that know their stuff and can offer great service, run into problems when Wal-Mart moves in and starts selling the same items they do. While the small shop may be able to sell 500 items a month Wal-Mart can sell 500,000, and therefore sell them at a much cheaper price. It would be nice if people realised that paying for the extra service at the small shop is worth it, but it has been shown time and time again people will go for cheaper.

Re:why tech support sucks

[rob colonna]

Actually, i started as a BSAE doing tech support for a big software company, and am still doing so. There is no promotion path to doing something 'real' in this case; the job itself is its own reward or punishment. Sadly, it is usually the latter, but occasionally i do get to do something pretty damn cool, and that's what keeps some of us here, particularly those of us who know what we're doing. At the same time, with just under a year in service, i am practically a veteran.
i'm convinced there are few jobs as thankless as technical support. Nobody you talk to is glad to hear from you, even when you have a solution for them. If the company you work for has in any way wronged that customer, you will hear about it. In my particular form of technical support, it often involves cleaning up colossal messes the customers have made of their own files, due to not understanding the (admittedly complex) software. But that's my fault too. All of it.
I have been insulted, sworn at, i have had my intellect questioned, and heard every possible form of invective that doesn't involve my mom.
Maybe technical support does suck. Maybe all of it adds up to be poor service. However, just because you only talk to people that tell you to reinstall windows and reboot, doesn't mean that all tech support people are incompetent. Sometimes they're hardworking, knowledgeable people that bend over backwards and work weekends to help you. So don't pay them back with your anger.

Tech support doesn't have to suck

[marian]

Believe it or not, tech support is my chosen profession. I *like* helping people fix their problems. Fortunately for my sanity, I've gone from taking calls about why a cheap PC that someone bought for their kid to have for Christmas doesn't work out of the box, to managing a small group that supports extremely high-end storage on *nix servers. The difference is profound, both in the type of support offered, the business model behind the support, and the level of expertise exhibited by the end users. All of these things are important when you talk about tech support's deficiencies, or lack thereof.

The business model for the world I live in is that you pay to play. Yes, the product comes with a one year warranty, and we will cheerfully help (on the phone) anyone who's ever bought our product if they call during business hours. But that's where the good part ends, unless you've purchased a support contract. The company I work for has set up my group as a profit center. They pay us very well, and we work as hard as it takes to keep all of our customers happy. But good support (from the vendor's point of view) can't be overhead costs. Having former *nix admins man your support center is really expensive, and that's what it takes to do the type of support we provide. This cost is passed on to the customer. But in turn, the customer expects (and receives) a very high level of response.

Since the stuff we sell is fantastically expensive, and gets attached to very high-end big iron, the people who call us are never without a clue. We're pretty confident that any time the support hotline phone rings, we won't be walking someone through how to move a file off a CD and into their file system. Yes, they can still be irate, but that's a reality of the support world. But the frustration of trying to help people who really need an education, rather than tech support, doesn't come into it.

All of these things add up to a great support group, for our customers, the company I work for, and the people who actually provide the voice on the other end of the phone. Take away just one part of it, and tech support goes back to being the nightmare job that NO AMOUNT of money will make worth doing.

Re:why tech support sucks

[StoryMan]

It's important to make the distinction, I guess, between two kinds of tech support:

(1) fixing a faulty product and

(2) explaining the complexities of a working product.

Case (1) is problematic because it's not always the case that the product is at fault when a fault occurs. (The OS, for example, can cause a working product not to work.)

Case (2) is problematic because a complexity -- or subtlety, however you want to spin it -- is sometimes misdiagnosed as (1).

One could (and while I do, I don't like it) make the logical leap that what Microsoft is doing with their attempts at a "closed" computer -- by, among other things, not allowing user installable cards and by forcing MS approved drivers -- is to make sure that case (1) no longer exists.

This is (in one -- and really only one -- sense) laudable. MS is acknowledging case (1) and is attempting to fix it. Of course it goes without saying that their fixes cause all kinds of problems not directly related to technical support. (Privacy problems, I suppose, top the list -- not to mention monopolistic concerns.)

The problem with this sort of approach -- apart from privacy and monopolistic business practices is that by fixed case (1), they'll cause case (2) problems to sky-rocket which will (I assume) cause a new case to be created -- case (3) customer ill-will which could obviate concerns for case (1) and case (2) since some pissed-off customers will ditch your product entirely.

What do you expect for $49 ??

[pjrc]

You buy a CDROM drive for your PC for $49. That $49 buys you a metal box, with a plastic front side, moving tray, connectors on the back, and inside there is presumably a motor, a laser, some optical sensor, gears, motors, and lots of circuitry. All the physical stuff probably costs at least $15-25 (maybe more) to mass produce? There's got to be some profit for the manufacturer, a distributor, and perhaps even some for the retailer who sold it to you. It cost those folks something to package and ship the product from whereever it was made to the store or internet/mail-order house where you bought it. If that $49 CDROM really cost only $15 to manufacture, and $25 of your sale is profit to be split somehow between the manufacturer, distributor and retailer, then perhaps $9 could be for tech support costs. (in reality, the portion of the purchase price that pays for tech support is probably much less).

Now in truth, many people who buy the product won't need tech support at all, but still, take a look at the price of computer hardware and ask yourself how many minutes of time you've paid for of that technician's time.

The fact of the matter is that the computer market is very competitive, and most consumers (home end-users) shop almost exclusively based on price, or at least getting a "good deal" is among the top concerns. Businesses are usually a bit wiser, taking into account the fact that it's expensive if things don't work, but again, price is still a major concern. Time and time again, better but more expensive has lost the battle against cheaper and "good enough"... at least in computers.

Just like everything else, you get what you pay for, and indeed in the computer business, very little is paid for tech support.

Weak argument

[Frequanaut]

"But the very phrase "tech support" has become an oxymoron, an indictment of an arrogant and elitist industry. "

How does it follow that the lack of tech support is due to arrogance or elitist? I think it basically comes down to the fact that the cost of tech support is not factored into the cost of most products.

To praise microsoft for their level of support while paying for it, and condemning those who offer it for free, but don't charge is ignorant.

Re:Weak argument

[Golias]

but it is incredibly elitist to assume that anyone who complains about poor customer support is a "clueless luser".

I know I am splitting hairs a little here, but I did not say that all complainers are clueless. I said that as you hear more and louder complaining about support headaches, the probability that the person is a clueless luser begins to approach 100%. :)

I think most of the problem is one of expectations. A good example is how people react to air travel. When I fly, my expectations are fairly simple: "Get me there, don't kill me, and try not to lose my luggage." Most of the time, the airline pulls that off and I am happy. People with higher expectations ("don't make me wait more than an hour, feed me a meal I like, let me drink as much as I want, don't sit on the runway waiting for clearance to take off for a long time, etc.) are never happy.

The same is the case with tech support. If your expectation is, "I will submit a detailed description of the problem, which will probably be read by a rookie tech who knows less than me about this application, but eventually they will get the message that something is broken," you will be satisfied almost all the time.

If you think "I will leave a voice mail saying 'your shitty software keeps crashing on me' and they will send an on-site tech who will debug and recompile the program for me before I hang up the phone," guess what? You will not be happy, and people like me will get the pleasure of hearing you piss and moan about "poor support" over lunch, chuckling silently to ourselves that we are hearing about an "id10t error" from the perspective of the failing keyboard interface. :)

Re:Weak argument

[MadPhatTim]

Wrong. Aside from doorstop and paperweight manufacuturers, no industry makes a product that does everything out of the box without any consumer knowledge.

• When you buy a car, do you expect the dealer to teach you to drive?
• When you buy the latest issue of your favourite magazine, do you expect the publisher to teach you to read?
• When you order a steak at a restaurant, do you expect the waiter to teach you to use a knife and fork?
• When you go on a trip to France, do you expect the airline (or maybe the French government) to teach you the language? Or how to pack?

Using a computer for basic tasks like word processing, email, connecting to the Internet, etc. requires some basic skills. Consider that people spend months or years to learn skills like driving and reading, but expect computers to magically do everything right away. If consumers took responsibility for learning basic computer use, I bet it would eliminate more than half of all tech support calls. Either that or realize that companies will need to charge more to cover the costs of all this hand-holding that Katz demands.

I do want manufacturers to post good documentation on their web sites, write good user manuals, and create good interfaces. I don't want them charging me more money to subsidize the personal tech support required to teach other people skills that they should be learning on their own. I don't know much about cars (I'm not "part of the industry"), but I don't call Ford every time I need to fill up the gas tank.

Re:why tech support sucks

[Theodore Logan]

Not to troll or anything, but I've never heard of any university graduate that has to do tech support. Where I come from, dotcoms are desperate for programmers and would never even consider throwing someone that actually has a degree into the tech-support pit.

However, the conclusion that people who do tech-support don't really want to be there and therefore may not always do their job very well is probably correct.

Look at bad tech support in a larger perspective

[vergil]

I tend to view bad tech support as one manifestation of how some software publishers prefer to foist the burden of dealing with problems caused by their bug-ridden code and shoddy testing onto the consumer.

UCITA is another example. It's no surprise Microsoft fields lobbyists to tout the virtues of UCITA - a law that permits software publishers to sidestep fundamental warranties (like the implied warranty of merchantability, which simply means that a purchased product should act as it is supposed to) and disclaim liability for damages caused by software sold containing known defects.

Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell

What about the poor workers?

[Glowing Fish]

On 2nd thought, this post leaves out one of the key casualties of the entire tech support world: The Workers (and on May Day, too).

A lot of people who have contact with tech support workers will say that tech support workers don't deserve mention, since they are weasally liars who don't care about one caller to the next. And in some, cases, that would be correct.

But before you look down on someone who is answering the phone for ripping through a script, lying, and then hanging up on you, keep these things in mind:

1. If a tech support worker skips a part of their script, even a part that they and the customer knows is totally ridiculous and inappropriate for the question at hand, they can be reprimanded, punished or fired. Most tech support workers know that what they say is ridiculous, but they must stick to the script.
2. If you are feeling rushed, you probably are. Most tech support workers are held to arbitrary time average call times, which are usually in the 10 minutes or slightly higher range. And the way that the outsourcing (almost all tech support is outsourced) contracts work, techs are taught that it is better to make a customer make 4 or 5 10 minute phone calls throughout the day, rather then one 15 minute call at once...even if the 15 minute phone call takes place during a time when there is no calls on queue, and the 4 or 5 calls might take place during a time when there is a half hour wait to get a tech. Do good techs know how ridiculous this is and try to take care of each call as needed? Yes, but then they can get fired for it, leaving only the bad techs behind.
3. Are technical support workers inexperienced and ignorant of the programs that they are supposed to be supporting? Yes they are, and the reason for this, is, that many major tech support firms, at least for consumer level call center workers, will hire people "off the street" with no computer experience. They then put them through 1-6 weeks of training and put them on the phone. This can't always be avoided, however, since expereinced computer workers, even at low levels of knowledge, will probably be making $15 an hour or more, and most tech support positions start around $10. If people want to be able to call tech support, they will have to either pay for it or talk to someone who does not have a lot of training.

So, there is a May Day lesson on what tech support workers go through, and why they are the way they are.

Re:why tech support sucks

[the-banker]

This is an interesting comment. Nine times out of ten, you are the company that sold a piece of hardware/software to my mother/friend/relative and promised it was plug and play and 100% compatible (and inevitably leads to me trying to bail everything out).

Hey, I am sorry your life is tough dealing with people that aren't computer-savvy, but you chose that line of work.

Now, from the perspective of someone who _can_ use a computer with a high degree of cometancy - tech support is getting worse. Everytime I deal with a help desk, it is a nightmare. My cable internet service will have problems - I'll tell the guy, "You're smtp server isn't responding." He asks me to check whether I have File and Print sharing enabled - heh - nope - not using Windows. I repeat myself, he wants to look at DHCP settings. I repeat that I can access every other host I try, but not the smtp server, he says he will put me on hold and elevate the call to a "Level 2". I mean come on! Its like pulling teeth.

I had an issue with a friend's Iomega USB drive and Win2K. Iomega brshes me off as a 'hardware conflict' - ya whatever. The other 3 USB periphs work fine.

My point is simply this: you sold the product, and you are responsible for supporting it. If you don't like it, quit. The majority of techs I deal with, however, are undertrained, underequipped, and not very willing to help. Most of the time I find better help in the newsgroups, and frankly, community based support is a large factor in my use of linux at home.

You get what you pay for

[John Jorsett]

People ought to understand that the reason a near-identical computer costs significantly more from one dealer than another is at least partly due to additional support. If you opt for a bargain-basement price, you're not going to get much (or perhaps any) support. That's your choice as a consumer. If you buy a cheap computer and then find out you need help with it, you can always find someone who will do it for a fee. And if you get shafted by an "arrogant and greedy" company that promises but doesn't deliver, you have only yourself to blame; with the net, there's no excuse not to research the reputation of the vendor you're considering.

Customer Support.

[liposuction]

I think that maybe we ought to look at who is on the front line? Would you work in a customer support situation for $6.95 an hour? How about $7.95? All too often people complain about the lack of support, but fail to realize that there are tons of factors that drive human-beings out of customer support jobs. I hated taking calls from people who never thought of me as a human and started screaming at me for something that wasn't even my personal fault. Consumers need to realize that people work these desks, so that at the end of the day, the last thought that a customer support rep doesn't have is, "I don't need this..."

Re:Customer Support.

[shyster]

ahhh yes. Most people do realize that you are human, but we don't understand how you can just sit there and tell us "I'm sorry sir there is nothing I can do to help you, good bye." When *you* can't do anything, I want you to do your job and HELP. Find someone else that CAN and WILL help. If your supervisor can't, tell him to find someone that can. When I sit on hold for 2 hours (Verizon needs help) I expect some results. I don't expect to hear bullshit excuses, run-around, etc. There is absolutely NO reason that someone cannot find an experienced tech rep that can help w/ANY problem.

As someone who has worked tech support for Dell (outsourced, but the same program, and you'd never know we were outsourced except for our smaller paychecks) let me clue you in.

First off, the 2 hours hold time really is not our fault. We know you're there, but so are 1000 other people, and they called first. We take them as they come in, and either you get someone who's just looking for good call times who will blow you off (which gets you on the line faster to be blown off) or you get someone, like me, who doesn't really care about call times but will try to fix your problem (but, then, of course, that means you'll have a longer hold time). Those are your two choices...there are no others. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Secondly, is that a lot of folks call tech support with basic (l)user questions. I'm a sucker for them, and will try to answer them as best as I can. Of course, these folks aren't the best equipped to handle the answers, so I usually end up having to rephrase my answer a few times. Once again, this is going to lead to higher hold times. Sorry about that, but if it was you or your grandmother on the other end of the phone, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me helping her out.

Third, when people yell and scream and bitch and moan at me for something which I have no authority to change, well, that takes time too. Just get down to the problem and I'll try and help you. Bitch and moan, and I'll sit back and read /. until you calm down, or, in extreme cases, I'll "accidentally" hit the disconnect button.

And, if I say there's nothing I can do for you. That's it. There's nothing I can do for you. Mgmt and/or Level 2 techs aren't going to help you either. I'm not Michael Dell, nor do I get a personal audience with him. There's no way in hell I'm going to get Dell to change their policies. Live with it, or complain to Customer Service. Tech Support is there to fix computers, not to handle complaints.

Fourth, you must understand that we provide a limited support. Don't expect me to fix WinAmp. Don't expect me to teach you how to use a spreadsheet. If there's something wrong with your hardware, I'll find it. But you may need to reinstall. Sorry, but that's a valid way of diagnosing software problems.

As for finding someone else to help, you've got to realize that in a room of 300 techs there's 300 people on the other end of the phone as well. If you've been on hold for 2 hours, that means every tech is busy as well. So, what do you expect me to do? Walk around and ask all the techs if they know how to fix your problem? Perhaps I should just stand up and make an announcement? We don't have time to discuss things, except perhaps for the 10 minute smoke break we get every 2 hours. And, yeah, everyone really feels like talking about your problem at that point...no, really, we do. Riiiggghhhht.

Oh, and my supervisor is a manager. That means he's a paper pusher. He monitor's call times and queue loads, etc. He has no technical knowledge, and couldn't help you even if he wanted to. Which he doesn't, and I can't make him.

All in all, I'd say I'm a pretty good tech. I help people when I can, and if you want to bitch and moan, go right ahead, I'll just sit back and pull in my $10/hour to hear you complain. Cuss me out if you want, I really don't care. Not that that happens often with me. Within a year of working there, I've had 2 job offers, one invite to a woman's house boat, and 3 gifts mailed to me. But, hey, I guess I'm the exception.

Re:why tech support sucks

[Golias]

Like most of the /. crowd, I once cut my teeth doing phone support as well. I came away from it with an observation:

Too many people don't know how to use the tools required to do their jobs.

Bus drivers know how to drive, lumberjacks can operate chainsaws, but our business culture is jam-packed with office secretaries that can't even do a simple "mail merge" with MS-Office.

The companies that think they have the best helpdesks are the ones who invest in proper training for their employees. They sit their new hires down in a class room, and make sure they know the OS and all their common applications.

Companies that don't do this end up with helpdesks that spend 90% of their days training people while they are on the job (usually, when they are 10 minutes from some crucial deadline or another, too). The help desk gets all the heat, but it was short-sighted management that created the problem.

The very best companies put support much higher on the foodchain (and the org chart), and pay their support people accordingly, while insisting that RTFM is not only a valid answer in some situations, but demand that their support people give it when appropriate, so they are not wasting time that could be applied to real problems. Alas, such companies are very rare.

Re:the source of this...

[ScuzzMonkey]

I'm sure that's part of it, but I think the real issue is that it's just not a priority for the companies involved. You're absolutely right, who wants to work in customer service for a living? But there are plenty of industries where they are able to staff support services with helpful, cheerful people, and there are some companies in this industry that do it--Dell comes to mind as a place I've called and never gotten a grumpy or flat-out dis-interested rep. It's not just the staff--it's the people who ought to be motivating them.

I think it's more symptomatic of the software life cycle than anything; in my experience, hardware manufacturers tend to provide better support (Dell, IBM) than software makers. My take on this would be that it is because hardware (especially big ticket items) last longer and are more likely to be replaced by a similar model from the same company. People tend to stick with what they like. Software, OTOH, is probably up for replacement in a year or two, and the publisher would rather sink money into marketing the new product than supporting the old.

A former `guru' speaks...

[Cat Mara]

I used to find myself in the position of being a guru to friends, family, and neighbours. I'm very reluctant to do so now.

The big problem is complexity, as a lot of other posters have pointed out. Hardware is sourced from all over the place; the system manufacturers go for the bits that give them the biggest margins, and damn the quality of the accompanying documentation and drivers. Then there's the software. A lot of modern software is unforgivably arrogant, sending its tentacles into parts of the system that it has no business going near and demanding the lion's share of the computer's resources. The result is machines that are constantly teetering on the brink of meltdown.

Now, I'm in this business because I like messing about with computers, but I got sick to the back teeth of sitting in friends' and neighbours' bedrooms, interminably rebooting their balky machines, hunting for drivers, and re-installing Windows, while the person I'm supposedly doing the favour for hovers over my shoulder, sending out vibes that this is all somehow my fault. Eventually, I had to stop. It wasn't worth the heartache.

What pisses me off about the whole thing is that people like me are in a way responsible for this whole cock-up. We're the early adopters who played with the first personal computers in the '80s and told anyone who would listen that computers were The Next Big Thing. It was our evangelism that made the fortunes of companies like Microsoft and IBM. And it is our unpaid tech support, in our roles as gurus, that sustains their fortunes. Think about it: each time you unwedge your next-door neighbour's Windows box, that's one less irate customer onto Microsoft or Corel or IBM, flaming them for the fragile, barely-usable crud they have been inflicting on customers for years. Of course, the execs of these companies have built themselves a nice thick insulating layer of minimum-wage phone jockeys between themselves and their customers so they never have to listen to the anguish.

So, if any friends, neighbours, or relatives ask me to look at their computers anymore, I decline politely. If they persist, I ask to be paid. People do get snotty at that, but I'm fucked if I'm going to let the assholes in Microsoft or Compaq off the hook by providing free technical support for their customers.

Gurus of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. And, um, most of your friends. :-)

who needs tech support...

[Evil Grinn]

...when we just got our usenet archies back?

Seriously, I've solved a lot more problems in my career by searching the 'Net than by calling any phone numbers. And I bet most /. readers have similar experiences. The geek community already supports itself better than any helpdesk could hope to achieve.

Of course, we don't represent the typical case here, either. The ordinary home user wants real, live, effective human support. I'm just not sure how they're going to get it. I don't see the industry changing its tech support ways any time soon.

No way

[Verteiron]

I think the blame here is mislaid.
Manufacturers' support is usually very, very good. It's the resellers that provide the bad support. Lots of OEMs are required to provide support for Windows because they preinstall it. This is where the support goes to hell. Think Best Buy. Think Office Max. Have you ever known anyone who's had a pleasant experience with Best Buy's customer service? If you buy a system from them, you have to go to them for support. If you buy a system, say, direct from Dell, guess what? Dell's support is phenomenal!

luserz.

[saintlupus]

That's because we're arrogant enough to assume our products are usable without support, and elitist enough to not care whether the people who need support get it or not.

no, it's because companies are cheap, and don't see customers as people. rather, they are simply a number at the bottom of an excel spreadsheet somewhere. the quality of the service doesn't matter, it's how low you can bring the end user price to sucker them in.

case in point...

i used to do Verizon DSL tech support. It was a miserable, thankless job. the day after our 500,000th customer signed up, the entire call center i worked in was laid off. why? because we had the highest-priced, best trained techs in their support hierarchy. but now that there's half a million customers, the service doesn't count any more. no matter how many cancel the service, they've achieved a critical mass that keeps them from losing money as long as they can keep suckering people in with the low monthly price.

and as long as they can pay undertrained phone monkeys half what they paid us, the monthly price stays low.

_that's_ why tech support sucks. because people are too fucking lazy to tell a company to go screw and hurt the bottom line - they'd rather bitch about it on slashdot.

--saint
----

Re:why tech support sucks

[terrymah]

Haha.. that's ironic you should go on that little rant. Every single person I've ever known that has worked in tech support has suggested at one point or another (either in jest or totally serious) that people should be licensed to use computers.

In all fairness though, Katz is right. You just have to keep in mind it goes both ways: Tech support agents may be rude, apathetic, and overall uncaring, but they got that way by talking to retarded customers day in and day out for month after month. A new tech support agent on the phone who hasn't been "broken in" yet isn't like that. He/she might be an idiot, but at least they're customer service friendly...

Now that I think about it, in addition to taking into account the low pay, terrible working conditions, and unbareable monotomy - I think the equation you need to keep in mind with tech support is that Competance is inversely proportaional to Customer service. The reason behind this is because as the agent gets more experienced and knows more and more about the product, he or she starts to hate the "stupid customers" more and more. When they start on the phone it's the opposite, new agents are sort of scared and intimidated by the customers.

Ah well. And to what someone said earlier about promoting the talent out of tech support, that's the way it worked at the place I was at too. Instead, it wasn't into design jobs.. it was into management or IT. It's all about getting off of the phones.

You get what you pay for.

[guku]

As with most things in life, you get what you pay for. Do people really expect teir 1 support with their $299.99 Windows box from the local mega-warehouse-electronics store?

The way I see it, you have two options with tech support. Pay for it or shut the hell up.
-----------------------------
kaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeha!
-----------------------------

The devolution of Tech Support

[myschae]

I used to work at a major company (which shall remain nameless) in their tech support call center. When I was initially hired, they were still a very young company with rapidly growning market share. The attitutde towards tech support at the time was "We want the customers who invested in our product to be simply delighted with their experience. Of COURSE we'll support and stand behind what we've designed." Besides, tech suport calls provide valuable information to our Q/A department for future releases. That attitude lasted for a couple of years but then.... market share started growing.. and growing.. and growing. And keepint pace with all of that was tech support costs. So, the management stepped back and took a good, hard look at the bottom line. Ok, here we have major market share - but there's this huge sink hole in our profits called tech support.. what to do? Well, the logic went something like this: We can either 1.) raise the price of our product to cover tech support costs or 2.) Charge for tech support. Well, if after examining the options, it was decided that since only a fraction of the customers use tech support - let's just charge those that use it for the service. Rather than impact the entire customer base with a higher product cost. Not to mention, keeping our price down will keep us more competitive in the market place, right? But, let's still recognize that tech support is a valuable part of our Q/A process and a data gathering tool for our future product development so let's still expect to loose money, just not as fast. So, you transition to seperating your customers into those who are willing to wait for free support (cause we're still not willing to turn people away .. at least for now) to those that are 'in a hurry' and want 'priority' service. Well, then after a while you realize that you have to charge all of your customers. Hrm. No big deal. We still have support available after all. Then... what if we could break even on tech support? What if we could turn tech support into a revenue generating operation for the company. All thought of tech support as a valuable resource and information gathering tool gets tossed out the window. Now, we bring out all of the call center managing techniques and seminars and send managment to them. Tether the techs to their desks and fire them for being out of compliance (being one minute late more than three times in a month) Curtail training to cut down on staff - disregard any requests for career paths.... And then look surprised that the workers and the customers are miserable. Most call centers use an algorithm that can predict call arrival patterns and answer times to the half hour based on previous data. It only takes 5 people out of schedule compliance to dramtically increase your queue times. So, most call centers staff and manage to those numbers. From one who has been there, let me tell you that tech support is a tough job. Anyone who still believes there is no such thing as a stupid question has never worked Tech Support! You are given a 4-6 week crash course in the product (many of them have had little prior experience) then thrown to the customers who have managed to get themselves in situations you can't even concieve of getting into. All this and you have no time to stay current with product upgrades and updates because you are held to draconian time schedules and compliance from call center monitoring software. You probably do not have time to research or keep up with the product you are supporting. Most customers understand that you might not have ALL the answers to everything but are you even given time to find them if you get stuck? All this said, it's not that I am offering good excuses for support to be awful. Frankly, I think the crucial decision was made way back when it was decided not to keep the support bundled with the software. From there it's been a slippery downward spiral. Tech support should have been kept as part of the Product Development/Enhancement/Improvement cycle. Customers and Tech Support were all much happier when it was there. And, I think that customers would be willing to pay more up front for the product if it was well designed and fully and adequately supported. There is a huge difference between the two mindsets in a company, in my opinion. Just my 2 cents worth.

It's not just IT

[infinite9]

No other business would survive a month operating this way.

Don't bet on it. Customer service, over the last 10 to 20 years, has taken a nose dive in nearly every type of business I've come in contact with. I'm trying to refinance a second mortgage and keep having problems. 30-45 minute hold times only to be connected to truly clueless people. One woman heard my question and simply bounced me back into the hold queue. One person told me the underwriter wanted more info and that I needed to be transfered to another person. The person to whom I was transfer promptly informed me that the loan was declined. A call a couple days later revealed that my loan was still alive and well. The type of loan was wrong as was the duration. And the person I was talking to couldn't handle 3rd grade math without a calculator. No one will call me either. I have to chase them. Do they really want my business?

I'd say at least 30% of the bills we receive have errors in them serious enough for us to track them down. Especially health care-related bills where the health insurance company has lost it's mind. Our insurance company swears our perscription card works, but tell that to the pharmacist who says it doesn't. And they dropped my wife for no reason, without warning, and with no explanation. When we called and asked, they simply said they didn't know why and couldn't fix it.

Did you know that I have twelve aliases accoring to the credit reporting agencies? I do! They're all various misspellings of my name. (I have a very english name with an obvious spelling). And there's wrong/old information on my credit reports. Luckily, I've fixed 95% of it now. Have you ever tried calling a credit reporting agency?

Even the state of Indiana tried to claim that we hadn't paid our taxes last year. We sent them a copy of our return and a copy of the canceled check, return receipt of course. Then they claimed we never sent it. We faxed them the return receipt. They quit complaining.

I can't even get a person who speaks english at a fast food drive-thru anymore. Tomato != Mayo.

I want ketchup. Que? Ketchup. Que? Ketchup!

Re:why tech support sucks

[rgbscan]

I'm reading this at work. Been on this call for going on two hours now! Why? This lady decided to go on a spring cleaning binge and delete all those pesky dll's she was sure she would never need. The best part is she's pissed at ME. Been complaining the whole time about how she's always having to call tech support. Seriously though, I believe some of the blame relies on the customers shoulders. I don't think theres anything in a persons daily life that works correctly without you having knowledge of how to use it. In another context, owning a car requires a drivers license. You also have to be aware that regular maintainence is also needed. You can't just show up at the dealer, take the keys and be good to go. Pretty much every guy that is fairly handy can chagnge his own oil/battery/tires or what have you. The use of an automobile has a prerequisite of at least basic automotive knowledge. I always pay to have my oil changed, but I could do it if I needed to. While I'm not suggesting requiring a license to use a computer (but man would my life be easier if this was true), I do believe that we can't keep pushing boxes as consumer friendly. There's still a geek factor to them. Even I call tech support from time to time (who knew acrobat won't install correctly if win98 user profiles are enabled). I think I'm talking in circles again, but it pisses me off that customers continue to blame tech support for thier lack of knowledge. The consumer continues to get dumber and dumber while demanding more support/service/hand holding. This is true in all industries. All you need to do is work for a department store at the christmas returns desk. "Yeah this sweater doesn't fit and I don't like the color. Even though I stained it with coffee and have been wearing it the past 3 weeks, I DEMAND a refund!". and you know what? the store manager will come out and do exactly that? why? to provide good customer service. Management is trained to "do what it takes and go that extra mile" to absurdity and the consumer knows if they complain enough, they get thier way. Chris

why tech support sucks

[s20451]

Freshly minted BSEE grads from universities are normally stuck into either tech support or sales as their first, entry-level position.

Naturally, nobody does four years of engineering with visions of answering phone calls from people who can't figure out how to plug in their mouse, so these people try their darnedest to move out of support and into design-level jobs.

The talented people in tech support generally get noticed - and promoted out. The less talented generally get stuck in tech support. The Peter principle at work.

Re:Yea...but...

[Guppy06]

"Just look at how many small speciality shops, that know their stuff and can offer great service, run into problems when Wal-Mart moves in and starts selling the same items they do."

I take it you've never had to return something to Wal-Mart. It's a remarkably easy process. Their customer support desk is right by the front door, return something for almost any reason, and they'll give you cash if you have a receipt, and exchanges without one. They operate under the philosphy of "keep them happy, and they'll keep spending their money here." They can afford to "lose" money on returns.

On the other hand, I know of several small shops I've been to where the guy behind the counter has an "us versus them" attitude towards their customers, where you have to prove that the problem is the fault of the store's, because they can't always afford to give you a refund.

It's true that there are some exceptions to both scenarios, the fact remains that the bigger the store and the more sales they have, the more they can afford better customer service. One return out of 100 hurts more than 100 returns out of a million.

inconsistent expectations

[redcup]

I worked for 2 years in tech support, both answering phones, making house-calls and untimately as a supervisor. This situation is not as simple as the post makes it sound.

A major problem in tech support is everyone that calls is unhappy. Few are understanding that you are doing your best to fix their problem. It is not my job "to be yelled at because you are frustrated." It is not the support staff's fault the user messed something up, the programmers did something wrong or the testing staff wasn't thorough. That being said... it is not the job of tech support to teach users how to "right-click," copy files or even "double-click." I tend to believe the humorous tech support horror stories, mainly because the solution to one of our user's problems was "turn the computer on."

Overwhelmingly, many of the calls we handled involved items the user could have gotten step by step instructions for fixing if they had looked at our web pages. We asked each caller if they had checked out FAQ. Many said no, some lied and said yes. A few had honestly tried those solutions and they hadn't worked. The bottom line is many users want the solution spoon fed to them instead of typing the error into a search engine or checking the FAQ of the software or hardware vendor first.

Why is tech support "lacking?" User expectations do not match what it costs the company to provide that level of service. Between training, man-hours (*the biggie*), technical resources, tracking and auditing, etc., tech support is extremely expensive. There has been a dramatic push in recent years to move toward web based support, but as I said above, that leads to unhappy users who feel abandonded because they don't want, or are afraid, to look into the problem themselves.

Companies that charge for tech support are doing it right. They put the burden on the users that don't look up problems themselves to pay for their own "in-person" support. Of course, there are plenty of companies that Make crappy $oftware and charge for tech support. They suck.

RC

coming from an insider

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

i do tech support for a computer store and i am constantly being harrased by companies for issues that are not our problem. As these corporations have little or no in house techs, due to downsizing and or outsourcing, i become the guy who has to answer questions liek why cant i print. also, i am expected to do this for free as our store sold them the pc. This takes away from my valuable time surfing for pr0n and other things. what i think is the problem here is that not enough companies want to hire their own techsupport people. dont blame us techs... you wouldnt want to talk to end users all day eather.