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?"

Comments

Larry Ellison did this with Oracle

[Anonymous Coward]

See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9814858-7.html

When Oracle began selling its first commercial SQL relational database management system in 1978, which version was first officially released?
A: Version 1.0
B: Version 2.0
C: Version 3.0
Answer: Version 2.0. There was never a 1.0 version. Said Ellison: "Who'd buy a version 1.0 from four guys in California?"

What are you really doing?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The name of a product is a marketing decision, period. The version numbers that make sense to you as developer of the product, at best, mean nothing to the buyers of the product. At worst, well, your own example about "1.0" is perfect.

You need to have some internal scheme for keeping track of builds and versions of your product for release management and support issues, but there's no sense in having engineers decide whether a given release is 2.5 or 3.0. Let marketing pick the name that's most meaningful to buyers.

Re:It's just the opposite for me

[It doesn't come easy]

Actually, I agree with what you say and of course any honestly numbered software will indeed exhibit the trend you describe. I have also seen software move from version x.0 to x.1 and get worse in the process.

However, the question was version 1 verses a higher version (such as version 6). It was not concerning version 6.0 verses 6.1 or 6.2 for example. Of course, they seem to be considering taking the fudging one step further (instead of version 1.0, use version 6.3), so what you say is still relevant from the perspective of fooling the naive customer. Still not a good way to start off a business relationship.

Re:Why Do You Care?

[digitalhermit]

Sort of depends on who the customers are.

There was once this software company that wanted to redo its image. Its primary market was supposedly average folks. So they made an ad campaign that relied on some aging comedian and the former CEO of the company and talked about shoes. At the end of the ad, the CEO wriggles his ass at the audience. It didn't go over very well.

Sometimes marketing folks do know their target audience. In the case of another computer company, their target audience was primarily creative folks. I.e., the people they were marketing to were just like the marketers themselves. So there was obviously a lot that the marketers knew about what would appeal to their audience.

The problem with in-house marketing is that you tend to forget your customers. If you have a great product you can probably sell it to anyone. If your product is a relative commodity, then marketing has to be spot on.

Look at GM, for example. Their management seems to believe that their target audience should be people who grew up in the riotous Sixties (based on their current throwback, er, retro designs). So they have a lot of vehicles that look like they were plucked from Bullit or old Starsky and Hutch reruns. To sell these vehicles to the 20-somethings and 30-somethings that are driving now, they need to make a 40 year old look seem fresh. Tough job.

Re:It's just the opposite for me

[dryeo]

Funny enough, one of the causes of the Microsoft and IBM divorce was Microsoft demanding to move the video subsystem to ring 0 in OS/2 v1.3. IBM refused in the interests of stability.
I was always kind of surprised that it took so long for Microsoft to sacrifice stability for speed with NT. I was not surprised at how long it took for them to realize they were wrong.