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?"
Let me know when you hit 7.0
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.
A lot of us are probably using Open Source software that's been released and relatively stable for years but is still only at version 0.2.07 or somesuch. We're not exactly representative of the general public.
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?"
Way back in 1995, I upgraded my version of Windows to Win v95 from Win v3.11. I thought "oh man, there's been 92 upgraded versions of this software! I better get with the times!"
The Internet is generally stupid
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
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...
- Release it as a beta, and never let it out (Charge for the "beta.")
- Use the year as the version
- Use a chemical element or gemstone as the version
- Use an animal as the version.
- Use two random consonants.
- Periodically drop the most significant digit
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
You missed a perfect opportunity for "Post 1.0!!!".
I'm a little bit older, so to me the suffux "2,000" sounds all futuristic and spacey, despite the year 2,000 happened 8 years ago.
Because I'm older, I probably would be in the position to purchase software, so such gimmicks would probably work for me.
Of course, if you really want to get my attention, you need to add a prefix to the software title. Let's say you're developing software that integrates certain proprietary database formats into a universal format, and you call it "Spectraview" or something.
Spectraview 1.0 sounds kind of low rent.
Spectraview 2000 sounds shiny, as if it was developed with NASA technology.
But add a prefix, like somebody's name, and you get something like "Tom Clancy's Spectraview 2000". Which sounds pretty darn cool.
You can tell your marketing guys this. Claim the idea as your own. I don't care. I'm still waiting for "Jane Austin's MS Paint 2000" to be bundled with the next version of windows.
The Internet is generally stupid
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
God damn, I thought people in /. would know better...
1. WinNT 3.51
2. WinNT 4
3. Windows 2000 (5.0)
4. Windows XP (5.1)
5. Windows Vista (6.0)
6. Windows 7 (7.0)
Open Notepad, go to Help - About and you'll see those version numbers. Windows 2000 was 5.0.2195, XP: 5.1.2600 ...
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
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.
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.