Hype Vaporware, Go To Jail?

Tim Dierks writes "The New York Times (registration required) has an article describing a federal case against executives in Enron's broadband data division, based upon the charge that Enron claimed that a software platform was more complete and more functional than it actually was. It seems to be that if this case holds up, most of the software industry is guilty. Would the world be better off or not if it was illegal to overpromote the functionality or features of software?"

Comments

Does the world need more "legal fraud"

[ShatteredDream]

If you really have to ask yourselves that you have an issue with real morality.....

Re:Does the world need more "legal fraud"

[bmongar]

Hmm, to me it would depend on what the statement is like. For example a statement like "We are planning a word processor that can improve your sex life" and then the magical sex life improving feature gets cut is ok. But "We have a word processor that can improve your sex life" is a lie. I realize improving your sex life is an insane feature it is just an example.
As a developer I see features get cut because of feasability/time/customers weren't impressed with the feature in the vaporware announcements. So I think it is important to be allowed to talk about features you don't have.

Let's all go to jail then

[The Bungi]

Everyone is guilty of hyping unreleased stuff. From commercial software companies like IBM, Microsoft and Sun to open source projects. Virtually no one is innocent if doing that type of thing, if only to keep interest alive.

In this case I suspect the govt' is just trying to further stick it to Enron and set an example.

Re:Let's all go to jail then

[DickBreath]

Everyone is guilty of hyping unreleased stuff.

Well, I guess that makes it all okay then.

I hear this argument "Everyone in business would do what Microsoft has done" from a Microsoft shill coworker. My argument is always "Does that make it okay?"


Everyone in politics is corrupt. So it must be okay.

All of the copyright holders are persecuting search engine dude because his code could potentially tell you where to get mp3's. So it must be okay.

(From the 70's, that's ninteen-seventies, last century...) Everyone litters. So it must be okay.

All businesses would rather just dump their pollution into the river due to cost effectiveness. So it must be okay.

So it is that case that as long as it is in the name of profit, that it is okay to do wrong? No matter what? If everyone else would also do it for profit, then it must be okay? Why don't we just get rid of many laws then?

Future Predicitons?

[richjoyce]

IDNRTA, but is this applying to future predictions that don't hold true (ie. Duke Nukem Forever will exist sometime)? It seems Enron claimed that something existed at the time they said it, which didn't hold true. Surely companies should be able to state that their product will be at point b in production by date x, (whether they truly believe it or not) and then have it at only point a when date x rolls around.

Times said it's very hard to prove

[Phronesis]

The Times article suggested that the vaporware point would be very hard to prove. It is pitched as the weak link in the case, not as a groundbreaking strategy.

Also, just for reference, even if the prosecution succeeds, it just means that you can't lie to shareholders about vaporware. There's still nothing wrong with sowing FUD against competitors by making vaporware claims in your advertising so long as you keep them out of your stock prospectus and annual report.

Re:Vaporware is Critical

[butane_bob2003]

True, true. I can't abide by blatent lies though, it needs to be made known that 'features are in development', instead of promising things that might not ever solidify.

Look out (forever)!

[BrynM]

3DRealms is in serious trouble if this goes through, but I doubt a judge would hear the case of millions of bummed out gamers wishing for Duke Nukem.

It's interesting to see the possibility of a company called on vaporware though. Large companies get screwed all the time by sales people over-inflating the features of new versions forenterprise level software that they are shoehorned into buying in order to keep support of previous versions. Business is hurt by these tactics so much more than consumers, but it has become a (laughable) standard practice.

Now if only we could find a way to punish software that did get released and just plain sucks (Microsoft Bob anyone?).

Re:Duke

[Schnapple]

Well the critical difference, I think, in what will be considered "criminal" in the Vaporware world is whether or not there's money involved. It's one thing to put on a smoke and mirrors show in order to get more investors money - and then not spend that money on what was claimed to be invested in. In this case it's either that the above had happened, or the developers really were doing what they said they were with the investment money, and they have the bad luck of being at Enron at this point in time.

Regarding DNF, it's being funded out of 3D Realms' pocket at this point in time (following comments by George on Shacknews), so no one is being bilked out of anything.

Besides, Battlecruiser 3000AD was Vaporware for like eight years, so as you can see there's worse things than never being released.

Nice in theory.

[tjrw]

Sadly, in practice, all I foresee out of that is lots of lawyers stirring up trouble and making lots more money, and very little improvement for the end-user.

Let's face it, part of the reason we have so much shoddy software about is because we, the end-users, encourage the behaviour (yes, I'm a Brit), by buying from whoever is first to market, rather than waiting for someone to release a quality debugged product. So, the people who cut corners are often rewarded and those who try to do "the right thing(TM)" are punished.

Hey.. Honesty is the best policy...

[jbuilder]

Look at the history of the softare industry and you'll see that honesty is the best policy.

Case in point -- Phillipe Kahn decided to "open the kimono" a bit and show off Paradox for Windows 18 months before it was ready to ship. Stock values went through the roof and people thought it was going to come out practially at any moment. Especially when he said it would be shipping in six months (18 months later it finally *did* ship).

If they'd only known at the time just how rehearsed all of that was. When they realized Paradox for Windows *wasn't* going to ship any time soon, stock values dropped sharply and Borland was investigated to see if any wrongdoing had occured. Fortunately what had been decided was that Borland's board of the time was just stupid in showing a product too soon. R&D knew it wasn't ready, but overzealous management thought that R&D was just being too cautions. Next time, listen to those who are being honest with you. Don't listen to just what you want to hear...

Today Borland (and many other software companies) all have the same policy; "We'll show it to you when it's ready. When will it be ready? When it is, that's when."

Personally I think *every* software vendor should be honest in the cost and timeline of something. And the same holds true for other vendors as well. Look at King County, Washington and the now demolished King Dome. They took the lowest bid on the dome from a company that simply couldn't deliver based on the the timeline and cost to contruct the dome. The result - Seattlites for *years* had to content with something that was dark, dismal, looked like a garbage can, and is still *being paid for today* even tho it's been demolished and replaced. If they had gone with an *honest* vendor and an *honest* price, who knows - it might still be standing today....

Now should you, as a software vendor, be held civially or criminally liable when you are less than honest about what you can deliver and when? No. I think you should be punished accordingly - your business should go elsewhere and you should simply cease to exist when your customers disappear. That's what's happened in the past and it's been effective. Many of the companies that couldn't deliver on their promises have gone. Or they *learned* (as in the case of Borland) and have gone on to thrive.

There is a difference...

[raehl]

Between saying you expect to release a product with certain features on a given date and not making it, and saying that you have a product that has certain features right now when you don't.

A release date is a plan. Plans change. A statement that you have something you don't is a lie.

Vaporware used to find demand

[pcraven]

I worked with a product manager who thought it was a cool idea to release an announcement that we were taking preorders for Product X. If there were enough preorders, we'd make the product. Otherwise the product wasn't worth the business.

Free market research. But that company is all but out of business now.

Re:Vaporware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHonesty is Critical

[mykepredko]

Nobody would argue that it is critical for companies to announce where they are going, both for developers and customers.

However, I have a big problem when a company says something exists or can do something when it doesn't. This is fraud.

I don't see any issue for noting on advertisements and product packaging that a product will be able to support a given feature with an expected firmware upgrade or additional feature/download/whatever. The Internet is ideal for telling customers what is happening with their product and when/how/where updates will be available which will add the missing features.

The carrot and stick for Vendors? I know that in my own case when I've bought something that didn't work as advertised, I make sure that people hear about the issues - while they sold one to a sucker (me), there is a net loss of all the people I can influence.

myke

Re:Won't somebody think of the Programmers?!

[Todd Knarr]

As a programmer you make sure you document what you promised and on what schedule. And you make sure you can deliver as promised. Then when sales starts promising more faster and gets nailed by this, you can produce the documentation showing that you were delivering on your promises. Then it'll come back on Sales for promising more than they were told would be delivered. And it'll probably be worse for them, because your documentation trail will show that they knew they were over-promising and courts tend to be harder on people who deliberately write checks they can't cash.