Slashdot Mirror
The Trouble With Software Upgrades
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "When software makers urge upgrades, it isn't always in users' best interest, the Wall Street Journal reports. Many upgrades bring advertising or other unwanted features; some iTunes users felt this way about a recent upgrade. But for many programs, downgrading can be a headache--Yahoo generally doesn't link to old versions of software, and Apple says iTunes can't be downgraded. Some websites can help with the problem. OldVersion.com, for instance, offers more than 600 versions of about 65 different programs. The site's 16-year-old administrator says, 'Companies make a lot of new versions. They're not always better for the consumer.'"
Here is a problem for most software companies, and one reason I would never invest in a publicly traded software company. It is also the prime reason that I sold off my portion of a private software company I had owned.
The problem? Obsolescence.
Software seems to be obsolete almost immediately after it is released. If a better product doesn't replace it, the product itself contains bugs that require a new release or at least a patch. The difficulty in pricing software is figuring out what percentage of the sale profit needs to be held back to cover long term support (updates and customer service).
One way developers are recouping the expense of upgrades is by offering yearly support subscriptions, but these are better suited for corporations who desire a fixed budget. For the home user, I'm betting most prefer to buy a program once and desire a lifetime of upgrades. Recently I complained (to myself) about needing to rebuy a program that had been updated -- until I realized I hadn't bought a version from the company for 4 years!
The end result is for the company to find others willing to pay for the upgrades. Users who desire something at a discount should be willing to at least admit that they're also part of the problem -- they tell the developers that they'll buy a product at a certain price, and they give the developers reason for finding ways to pay for that product in the long haul.
In all the software I use (a ton of it between my businesses, my home, my side projects, my church congregation tech junk, and my family needs), very rarely does an upgrade work against me. In fact, I'd say 95% of upgrades I've performed in the past 10 years made me more efficient, even if they incorporated certain things I didn't like.
If software wants to do something you don't want it to do, block it with your firewall. For me, that's the only necessary step.
The final part of the quote: "They're not always better for the consumer" needs to be looked at differently. Updates that allow the developer to continue updating and supporting the software ARE good for the consumer, just maybe not in the "now" but in the long run. The time preference of the developer might be different than the consumer, but they have to be similar or the developer won't last.
I seriously hate it when someone says, "Here's the new release, it's going in right away!" That's where the term "Bleeding Edge" comes in.
I typically upgrade when I feel I need to, i.e. there's some new feature which really is great or required for the work you do.
Lastly, this guy is 16? Props!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Upgragde does not mean better. WindowsME was supposed to be an upgrade to 98SE. Trust me, it wasn't.
The company I work for writes software. Trust me, I would not recommend anyone to buy the first release of any upgrade we offer. Wait until it gets about 30 or 40 builds and becomes stable.
I guess you could say that the reliability of software is like a wave: It goes up until a major release, then it drops down to the bottom and starts working it's way back up again. When the software becomes perfectly reliable and feature complete, it's time to release a new version, and down we go again.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
'nuff said
...when you call the outsourced, scripted tech-cupport center.
"Are you running the latest version?"
"No."
"Well, we need you to install it so we can diagnose your problem."
---
More often than not the upgrade is better, it's the 5% of times when it's a pain. Due to software development and support being a resource hog, vendors are quick to abandon older versions instead of developting patch trains for multiple releases.
not necessarily good for the customer.
Why do companies make new version?
1. To fix bugs
2. To introduce new features
3. To fix hacks.
Now, a bugfix is usually a good thing. If the bug applies to you (like, when your certain combination of graphics card, CPU and mainboard doesn't enjoy having unmutex'ed multithreading that works allright on the test setup... don't laugh). If not, the bugfix is nice but unnecessary.
A feature add on is usually pointless. If you buy some software, you buy it for the features it has, not for the features it might have somewhere in the future. I stopped buying software on promises, I buy it on tests and reviews. If it has what I want, I buy. If it does not, I don't. Simple binary logic. So when a new version has a new feature, most of the time I don't need it.
So what remains is the big reason that has NO benefit for the customer and ONLY benefits for the seller. To close holes that allowed you to do with the thing what its manufacturer didn't want you to do. This can be anything from a "crack" (yeah, like the new version can't be cracked... but that's not the point) to actual firmware upgrades of certain well known companies that also distribute rootkits that should make sure that you use ONLY games that they deem appropriate for the area you're in. We're not even talking illegal copies here, we're talking region protection.
So much for the global market.
So who benefits from version updates? You? Or the manufacturer?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"And rain is wet."
However at this time of the year it can freeze when it hits the ground, or other objects like cars and power lines. Then its not wet.
Winamp version 5.old users, unite!
I vowed never to upgrade after I found out that they took measures to discourage ripping of broadcasted mp3s.. ala streamripper. Nevermind I don't need ads, and the existing version works just great for my purposes. That was what, in 2000 or something.. I forget the exact details now.
Computers are about performing tasks, not running software. If it doesn't do new tasks, or old tasks (much better), why upgrade?
..don't panic
Of course, 3rd party stuff that replaced the functionality quickly surfaced, but it all feels very hacky.
On the other side of the coin, there's the dreaded feature bloat. Take Adobe's Acrobat for instance - every new version has come with extra features, and exponentially longer start times. Ugh.
So many reasons not to upgrade. If you have a computer used for recording, you quickly learn to never fix what ain't broke. I am one of the few using SP2 successfully with my audio hardware, which is no longer being made. Of course, Windows doesn't make things any easier to back out of an upgrade.
Mac = rename old version, test new, toss new. Windows = huh? Some files could not be removed? Why doesn't this work anymore? I uninstalled it. Aw, hell. System restore...damnit! Time to nuke, and reinstall. Repeat. Oh, no...
If software wants to do something you don't want it to do, block it with your firewall. For me, that's the only necessary step.
What about when it does LESS than the previous version?
My box got infested with the Sony malware, thanks to my daughter. I'd stupidly lost the driver disks for my video card and audio chip, and there were no versions on the internet I could find that worked with 98; all were for XP.
I've found absolutely zero increased functionality with XP over 98. None whatever. (If one of you kind souls would point something out that XP will do that 98 wouldn't, please point it out... and not Microsoft's laughable firewall, I use Zone Alarm).
There are programs that ran just fine in 98 that XP won't run. And what's an OS for? Running your software.
However, I can no longer burn multisession CDs, which really pisses me off. I record friends' music, then put it on CD with MP3s in the extended portion.
Not any more. Thanks, Microsoft, for taking my hundred dollars and leaving me with LESS functionality!
Apple are very unfair to their users when it comes to iTunes software updates. In some cases, the update is necessary for a particular feature to work, or for iTunes to support the latest iPod. The updates also change what users are allowed to do with the DRM songs that they have purchased from the iTunes Music Store, though.
So, when you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, you might THINK you know what you're getting, but Apple seem to feel that they have the right to change the deal AFTER you have purchased the song. It applies to all of the songs you have purchased, not just the songs you purchase after Apple change their minds about what they want to let you do with your/their music.
I think this is what will become a classic case of a company abusing the power that DRM gives them. Consumer groups should be all over this, because Apple ITMS customers are not really receiving the products they paid for. I don't really believe a silly EULA means that Apple's customers have signed away all of their rights.
Ouch, that sux... BTW now might be a good time to hit management up for a testing environment. :)
OMG, the internets are a great resource for bomb-making, and finding whores, and pirating software and music and movies.
Whats your point? Oldversion.com is a tool with a very legitimate use. Just like anything else, it has the potential to be used in nefarious ways.
BTW, Congratulations on no longer being a criminal.
But they would have to prove that you downloaded it from them, and clicked "I agree" yourself, right? You aren't bound by another party's agreement if you downloaded it from a third party, who didn't offer the same download agreement.
I think part of that comes from the constant news about how we need to update our software because of virus X or worm Y or some other vulnerability Z. People have been conditioned to believe for example that weekly updates to Microsoft Windows is a normal and good thing.
There are people who do fall too easily to the marketing hype of a "new and improved" version though. Part of the marketing strategy of using the year in the name of a product is to make it feel old to a user, even if it hasn't necessarily outlived its usefullness.
"22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
I think part of that comes from the constant news about how we need to update our software because of virus X or worm Y or some other vulnerability Z. People have been conditioned to believe for example that weekly updates to Microsoft Windows is a normal and good thing.
:)
I think you hit the nail right on the head here, Microsoft has do a great deal to condition the response from users. For any of us that provide informal "tech support" to our friends & family (or as a full time job) know that it can be somewhat of a difficult proposition to explain "Yeah you need to keep up to date with Microsoft updates, but as far as your applications, check with me before you upgrade any of them it'll save you some potential hassles", to which the standard reply generally goes something along the lines of "What do you mean by applications?".
I think it's more that the people who read the WSJ quite possibly don't know this. My parents or my brother wouldn't. Most casual users wouldn't. Sometimes what's obvious to one person highly entrenched in a "culture" isn't at all obvious to someone outside of it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Nope, you're bound by copyright law, which says that you still can't redistribute it.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
On the other hand, how long should a vendor have to provide support for a piece of software? Should Broderbund still have to provide phone support for The Print Shop v2.0 (1994)?
If software companies can't end-of-life products, and have to support them indefinitely, the cost of vendor support becomes insanely high.
In the US auto industry, car manufacturers are required to produce replacement parts for a model for seven years.* Perhaps a regulation of that kind would be good for software/hardware vendors, too.
*Except Yugo, what with the giant war and everything.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
One major reason for upgradeitis is that many programs will flash "upgrade now" boxes so often that it interferes with program function and annoys the heck out of you. Sometimes you have to upgrade just to get the darn things to GO AWAY. Cases in point: Windows Media Player (newest version is the worst ever BTW) Adobe Acrobat
Features and bugs = carrot and stick. Every version is to give you enough new buggy features to make you want to upgrade to the next version after that. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really shouldn't be in IT or sales in general.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I used to love my Quickbooks. That was 10 years ago. Now, every new version adds more advertising built in then the last, puts more stuff in web browser style (or actual in some cases) interfaces, and starts costing more money.
Worse, they don't support common file interchanges and actually make it as hard as possible to use them, instead forcing me to pay THEM for the privilidge of connecting to my back. They also charge my bank, or charges me too! All this, for what should be free.
What stinks, is that MS Money small business is unusable (and talks to me -- which is even worse) and the other products out there are insanely expensive.
I've looked for one that runs in linux natively, but not found anything workable yet (I'd still love one that did).
Grrrrr. I've gone form loving to hating Intuit in just 3 years. What a shame.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln