Slashdot Mirror
Do Software Versions Really Matter?
An anonymous reader writes "I work for a rather large software company and I am currently working on a completely new product. So new in fact, that the official name has not even been decided. I had assumed that the version number for this product would be 1.0 (at most). However recently I learned that the Product Managers want to release this NEW product with a version number somewhere between 5.0 and 8.0 because 'there is a stigma about buying 1.0 products. People assume it's no good.' This latest Dilbert-esque comedy routine nearly sent me over the edge. So to gauge my sanity against that of the upper Product Management, I ask the community: Do version numbers play a role in software decisions, or have product version numbers lost all credibility and meaning? Would the community feel comfortable buying version '6.3' software (and paying tens of thousands of dollars for it) knowing that it was the first release of the product?"
Personally, I take to opposite view. If I try an application labeled something like version 6.0, for example, and it still has a lot of bugs in it then I'm likely to be a lot more pessimistic about the software. After all, version 6 software ought to have most of the bugs worked out by then. I would think poor quality at version 6 would reflect much more negatively on a company than at version 1.
We've all been conditioned by a source that will go unnamed for now that version 1 software is probably full of bugs, so it's not unexpected. It's also probably true that some people will avoid software simply because it's version 1. Yet, it's the same software whether you call it version 1 or 6, so it has the same bugs in it (e.g. the user who tries the software will experience the same problems, regardless of the version label). For a company to risk losing the good will of the customer on a marketing gimmick seems foolhardy to me. Trust is easy to lose, hard to regain.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Most users won't even notice the version number unless you put it in the face. Just call it FooBuster and put the version number in an about box somewhere.
If there's a version 6.3 of software in my field that I've never heard of, I generally assume it's some crappy shareware knockoff of what I'm already using.
If it's version 1.0, I want to see what was so important that they had to make a new piece of software (which is why I tried out Google Chrome).
Your employer basically just admitted to you that they're trying to deceive and mislead the customer.
The reason people feel more comfortable with higher version numbers is that they assume the code is more mature at version 5 than the first cut would be at version 1. Anyone with a serious interest who heavily depends on the software will see past this and look into the history of the software, especially where large amounts of money are changing hands to aquire the software. Your company on the other hand is hunting for schmucks who'll give them money without doing proper research. Not a good sign. That is not how you gain long term customers and cement a relationship that will result in further sales and on-selling. Your sales/marketting people probably already have their CV ready. So should you.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Who pays attention to version numbers on anything nowadays? I don't they've all because ridiculously named and hard to keep track of, ME, XP, 2K, MX, CS1/2/3/S, Gusty Gibbon, Feisty Fawn, Hoary Hedgehog etc etc.
What happened to the good old days when it really was just simple version numbers?
Can I leave this box empty?
Windows 7 is actually the .1 release of the third version of NT. (No wonder they finally gave up and just called the next version "Windows".) But then they started the NT line with the first release being "3.1".
Going back in history, dBase II was actually the first version of dBase. For just this reason: no-one trusts a 1.0.
In open source, it goes the other way - the project has to just about take over the goddamn world before they'll admit it could possibly be a "1.0" release.
Summary: version numbers are marketing just like everything else.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Maybe that is the reason they didn't name it an Xbox 2, when there is a Playstation 3 out.
God spoke to me.
What you're proposing simply won't work, and carries a huge risk of making you and your company look dumb. Also, without a plausible explanation why your 1.0 is actually labeled 6.3, the customers, sales force, and techs are all likely to make up their own. Many of them are not very appealing:
A) We actually stole it from a competitor and kept their version numbers
B) We went through six major version changes before arriving at a marketable product
C) We have been selling this product to a different market, under another name, for years
The '1.0' moniker is a label. It carries with it the meaning that something is new. Remove that label, replacing it with one that means something is NOT new, and people's minds will invent the reason why.
Unless of course you come up with a good story and get it straight ahead of time. This is well known as a basic tenant of dishonesty...
You have a lot to learn about business. As a Software Engineer, your best approach would be to make software products that your company can sell. That means you listen to sales and marketing, and anyone else who knows what its like trying to shift copy on the ground. When they say you have to release as version 6.3, that's what you do. If 1.0 doesn't sell, you're out of a job.
I remember long ago when Slackware jumped from 4.0 to 7.0, not because there had been 3 major revisions that just hadn't gotten released or something like that, but because Red Hat was already on 6.0 and Patrick Volkerding was tired of being asked why Slackware wasn't at 6.0 yet.
To answer the original question, version numbers don't mean much. They can give you an initial clue, but you've got to look at the history of the software to know the truth. Sometimes there are huge version jumps just because, sometimes there are major changes but only a change to a minor revision number.
I concur with leaving in the About box, and nowhere else. The only people concerned with looking for a version number would be those who need to know if this is an upgrade from their current version.
I'm going to assume you're an Engineer. (Since you're a Slashdotter and refer to "the Product Managers".)
I think it's swell that you're all involved with your project and everything. That said, do you like it when management and/or marketing types get all in your shit about how you do your job?
Honestly, those cheese-eating motherfuckers probably really do have a better idea than you do about how to sell this stuff. Let them. You'll all feel better if you do!
-Peter
Why use software X version 1.0 when I could use software Y version 6.1?
Some people just see the bigger number.
And those people are called PHBs (or CEOs), and sadly they sign the checks and often make the decisions. Of course by the same token if given the choice between software X 1.0 by company Z which just took the CEO out to an all expenses paid lunch at some fancy restaurant and gave him a shiny handout claiming the software would do everything he ever dreamed of, and software Y 5.4 by company T that their IT staff says is the better application but the CEO never heard of, odds are their getting software X 1.0.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Interesting coincidence, yesterday I was reading that Adobe Premiere Elements 7, released this month, is the successor to Premiere Elements 4. It seems Adobe wanted the version number to be the same as Photoshop Elements so that it wouldn't be deemed inferior, also because they're trying harder to get people to buy the two softwares in one purchase.
Personally I think it's pretty ridiculous. Integral version numbers are supposed to be indicative of development milestones, not to rate the product. However, the higher a version number, the higher the chance to be a well-established software. I think this is what they're getting at. They're basically lying on the age of the product to get more respect, like an underage boy with a false ID card hoping to get in a strip club.
That's cheating and should be dealt with accordingly: "Adobe, go to your room! No more Elements for 3 years!"
This isn't really quite as dilberty as the poster indicates. This is a symptom of a more general problem, which is that non-OSS software almost always sucks, because the economics dictate that it has to suck.
First of all, let me throw one big [citation needed] on there. Your whole argument starts with the fact closed source sucks because it's closed source, and open source doesn't because it isn't. You hint at something about economics, but that looks like hand waving to me. With an opening argument like this, the rest of your post is surely going to be just as fun...
If it was OSS, users could install it on their machines, try it out for a while, and decide whether it was any good or not.
Closed software does not automatically mean you cannot try before buying. Quite a few closed source applications have free trials or even free versions. And there are surely Open Source products that are not free. For example non-commercial clauses. I think you are making the mistake of confusing Open Source with free. Which actually makes you a fairly uneducated OSS Zealot to boot.
(Note that this still works fine for commercial OSS. E.g., people can try Ubuntu before deciding whether to deploy it widely in their organization and then pay Canonical for support.)
Again, you are mixing up OSS with free. One could imagine Windows having a free trial. You should think about if yer really talking about OSS or cost.
If it's not OSS, you don't typically have any way of knowing whether it's good or not. Sure, you could read reviews, talk to friends, etc. But that's sort of like deciding to buy a car without having a chance to test-drive it, just based on your buddy saying he has one and he likes it.
So wait a minute. More hand waving here. How exactly do you know if software is good or not by the virtue of it being OSS? There's the tired of argument of 'Well you can read the source code!' Yeah right. How did you decide FireFox was good? Did you read all the source code? And even if you are crazy enough to do that, who else is? No, you probably heard about it word of mouth, just like you would with closed source software. I think again what you meant is, 'If it's FREE you can try it without paying for it.' However, see above.
The worst piece of non-OSS software I ever owned was Adobe PageMaker 6.5, but the only way I found out how bad it was was by writing a book using it, and finding out after I'd gotten pretty far into the project that PageMaker was gradually starting to corrupt my files, and was also crashing often enough to cause me real problems. It would crash one day, and I'd lose my file. So then I'd open the file again to page 93, which I'd been working on, and it would crash again because page 93 was corrupted. So then I'd get the file back off of backup. But then I'd click to page 87, and it would crash again. So the backup was no use either, because it was corrupted on page 87. In this example, there's absolutely no way I could have tested the software sufficiently before buying it to find out that I was going to have these horrendous problems.
So how long should a free trial be? I think what you want, again.. is free software. You -never- want to pay for it. Maybe you'll make a donation later after you've used it a few years. Maybe. And as for the long sob story about losing your data, if it's closed or open source, could have the same bugs, and still lose your book. I don't see how this is, again, any sort of argument for OSS.
Because users usually can't evaluate the quality of non-OSS software very effectively, there is absolutely no incentive for non-OSS software houses to work on quality.
Wow. I'll have to remember that. As long as I keep my code closed, I can write crap and people will buy it. Oh
I was going to ask the O.P. the following questions. How does a salesperson respond when a prospective client asks:
1) "What are the new features in this version as compared to the previous version?"
2) Or, "We want to compare the new release to the previous release. How can we get a copy of the previous release?"
3) Or, "We'd like to contact current users of the package. Can your company provide a list of current customers whom we can contact?"
4) Or, "Please provide a list of all of the service packs and patches released for the previous version, the time from when the problem was identified to when the update was made available and whether the update resolved the issue."
I could go on but I think everyone sees a pattern here. Making the first release of a product version 5.0 or some such nonsense works as well as most lies. The only way to maintain the lie is to tell more lies which then beget a need for still more lies. Eventually, it all unravels although current management may be under the impression that they can take the money and run before they're found out.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
If it starts with 6.0 and I happen to know it is a new product I begin to doubt anything else you claim about the product. I expect those I do business with to display a high degree of integrity and this displays the opposite. Customers do not like to be lied to.
If it's version 6.0 and it's buggy, you've just shot yourself in the foot and no one will want to buy future releases of your product. If it's v1.0, then there's more leeway given. Version hopping is for those who have learned enough to be dangerous. Those who don't know are blissfully unaware of the version of their product. Those who do have the knowledge don't upgrade just because there's a new version. It's those in the middle that equate newer with better - and they quickly learn their lesson as their wallet is emptied. This is a prime example of a business that's more interested in immediate profits than it is in retaining a loyal customer base. I'd suggest looking for employment elsewhere.
What would YOU do when you tried to research FooBar v6.0 ... and could not find anything at all about v5 ... v4 ... v3 ... v2 ... v1 ?
My first thought would not be that Marketing had fucked with the version numbers. It would be that that company's past product have sucked so badly that NO ONE would use them.
If I cannot find a SINGLE user who is happy with v5 what does that tell me about the likelihood that v6 will be decent?
And when I find out that v6 is really v1 ... but Marketing wants to fuck with the numbering to FOOL people into buying it ... no way. I'll go with a competitor's product. That's just too many warning signs for me.
There's actually 2 versions of a product. One is the marketing version, this can be anything FooBar 2008, FooBar 8.04 (representing months) FooBar 2008 sp1 patch2 etc.
The other version number is really required for support. This needs to be able to specifically identify the build/patches applied to be able to provide the customer with help when they run into trouble. It can even be a build number. It's not sprayed all over the product as that is what the marketing version number is for. But maybe there's a particular screen or command line utility that provides this information.
The beauty is that if you recognise both, then you don't even need to enter into the marketing debate. It's nice to be able to say, "You can call it whatever you want, we just need to know x months in advance so we can put it in all the right places before testing".
If you want a specific example of this, look at Internet Explorer. It's marketing version is Internet Explorer 5 or 6 or whatever, but if you go to Help/About you will see a version number 5.02.0123773 which is probably a build number or something.
hth
ws
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Having said that, I'm afraid that Upper Management will soon be engaged in a massive rebranding exercise as they find that the market shuns a certain software product from a particular company that displays "1.0 quality" when the version number reads 5.x or something. They will probably have to completely rename and rebrand the product and perhaps even see damage to the name of the company as a whole.
I'm sorry to say that that it looks as if that's the way things are going to be. You see, rebranding products is something that Management understands, and they might just be happy to look forward to an exercise that falls squarely within their core competency. I don't think that damage to the name of the company will impress them however, since that typically is a long-term thing. Longer than their likely tenure with the company in question anyway.
Having said this, it's not unlikely that you will see an urgent demand for bug-fixes (apart from the usual demand for additional features) as the product meets headwinds in the market. There is a chance that this will enhance your job security, highly desirable in an economic downturn, so don't look down your nose at it.
What you might do is start thinking about what type of defects the product is still likely to exhibit (despite your best efforts during development, testing and debugging), what additional features are most likely to be demanded, and start thinking about how to go about fixing those bugs and implementing those new features plus how much time / effort that would take. Then when the defects emerge you can impress your boss with a calm but supportive attitude, and well-thought through plans that offer him alternatives and allow him to offer sensible options to higher management.
Besides which, it's not unheard of to run a book among your co-developers with bets on what general type of errors will be found and what priority Upper Management will attach to them. Only, be sure not to let Upper Management catch on, as they will then insist on placing bets themselves and will adapt their priorities in a way that will make their own bets come true. Be warned!
Or just use the year!
You shouldn't ABSTAIN from version numbers because they DO have meaning, but I don't see any reason it needs to be emphasized--especially for a first version.
If the point of "let's not call it 1.0!" is to avoid a stigma associated with that version number, simply release "WizzoProg." Stick the exact version number in a Help->About box someplace. If they need to call support, the version number is there--but by that time they've already purchased the product. At the very least they're almost certain to give it a real shot and make up their minds based on the actual quality of the program since they've already laid down their money.
After that point, you can release "Wizzprog 2" to show progress if you're inclined to do so.
This is nothing new.
Remember dBASE I? Neither do I. dBASE II was the first one you could buy.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Obviously people will want to claim that they are not influenced by silly and trivial things while operating in a business capacity. But the sad fact is that people do tend to buy for irrational reasons and they also do not buy for irrational reasons. There are all kinds of ethnic and almost spiritual locks between people. When I worked in sales I often new I had a big order as soon as hellos were exchanged with a potential buyer. Often sales have nothing to do with the price or quality of a product. To stay alive companies need to use whatever edge they stumble upon that is not immoral or illegal to push sales.
While version 1.0 does have a stigmata 5.0, 7.0 or 13.0 also have stigmas of their own. Market research has shown that software with lots of numbers tend to scare off customers also. Most customers will shy away from them because they feel you'll be coming out with a new version soon, and drop support for the one they want to buy. This is why several company's have dropped revamped their numbering system (eg Adobe photoshop CS instead of 9.0). I suggest not advertising the version number of your software which is fairly common, and will make to look like less of a fool if your potential buyers actually research before they buy.
If you have a strictly linear update model, you can get away with just about any numbering scheme you want. This is a rare situation. Usually you'll end up maintaining multiple releases, such that version 6.0 is not a strict superset of version 5.4 in terms of features and bug fixes. If your customers are smart, they'll see through any numbering games, so you should just be honest with them. If your customers are stupid, make sure you get your bonuses in cash, because there's no telling if the gravy train will last long enough for your options to be worth anything, because you're completely at the whim of the marketing gods.
It may be worthwhile to call your first beta version 1.0, and work up to a 2.0 commercial release, to appease some PHBs, but if your customers distrust you so much that management is seriously considering calling the initial release 8.0, lying to them so transparently will only make the problem worse.
Rather than making shit up like this, just call it Widget Tycoon 2009, and use build IDs for patch levels. If all goes well, you might even be able to get your customers to pay to upgrade to what would otherwise be point releases every year or two. Who wants to be running Widget Tycoon 2009 in the year 2011?
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
These sheninigans have been pulled by software companies for over a decade. Frankly, I doubt anyone puts any credence in a version number anymore -- as the whole process is corrupt.
It used to be that 1.0 was the first version (or perhaps, even a sub 1). Now, 3.0 sounds low, so, we start at 6 or 7 (nice numbers, right?).
This disrespect to convention, has made the whole version numbering irrelevant. On top of that, some companies don't use version numbers but use names, letters, or other such monikiers.
So, who cares? Call your product Foosoft blue.
Who's going to be making the purchase decision on this turkey? Power users? Clueless end users? Developers? MBAs?
Generally speaking, the more technical a person's mindset is, the less stock he'll put in the version numbers.
If you're selling to developers and high-end power users, you can call it version 0.1, and they'll probably just think you're cool. But selling to technical types is a double-edged sword, because you've got to give them technical information about what it does and why its features and capabilities are superior to other products that do the same thing, or they won't be interested. Also, if they do buy it, they will keep wanting you to make the product more customizable, so they can reconfigure it to meet their needs better.
If you're selling to people with an MBA and no technical knowledge, on the other hand, the version number *does* matter. It's not the most important consideration, but it matters.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Thinking about it calmly for a minute, a software with a version number of 9.x could mean one of two things: Each major increment has introduced some major new feature and so is a sign of a rapidly growing product which the developers care about... OR that the other 8 versions had so many bugs the thing is about a stable as the economy.
Version numbers are a double edged sword, be careful how you get cut by it.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Use version number for its purpose and keep them meaningful.
Just don't let marketing mess up with the meaning of version numbers, and don't mess up marketing decisions forcing to include the version number in the name of the product. Keep the version numbers to track the product development life cycle and label your first release to the market "Product [whichever-magical-word-marketing-guys-decide]".
Why not call your product "software name 2009" You can use that naming convention for a long time until your product reaches maturity. Don't make available anywhere the version number and put out a press release talking about how long the company has been in business and how much expertise they have in the area that this software is designed for.