Slashdot Log In
Do Software Versions Really Matter?
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 15, 2008 04:45 PM
from the blame-patrick-volkerding dept.
from the blame-patrick-volkerding dept.
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?"
Related Stories
Submission: Do software versions really matter? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Absolutely (Score:5, Funny)
Post 1.1!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You missed a perfect opportunity for "Post 1.0!!!".
Parent
Re:Post 1.1!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You missed a perfect opportunity for "Post 1.0!!!".
But I really want to post version 0.6.4 beta 1 and see how it all turns out. If it is a popular comment, I will up the version number and start charging for it.
Parent
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Funny)
"Why don't you just make 10 louder"
". . . . ?"
"This one goes to 11"
Parent
It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, you bought the software. That's what matters. You might not buy it again, but considering the cost and training and porting and whatever, you probably wouldn't abandon it.
Now, if your research showed there were two products that might do what you want: Foo v1.01 and Bar v6.0. Which one would you choose, based solely on version number?
The real point of the TFA is (the astonishment) that version numbers are no longer for the developers. They're now marketing tools, similar to a megabyte being 1,000,000 bytes (and far less formatted), or a 17" monitor really only being 15.5".
So, I see no issue with starting the version at non-1.0. I see no issue with not even having a version number, and just call it CE or Pro or 2008.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if your research showed there were two products that might do what you want: Foo v1.01 and Bar v6.0. Which one would you choose, based solely on version number?
But who would choose based solely on the version number?
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
PHB's, duh.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously. anyone who makes their software choices based on which product line has the higher version number at the moment is a moron and should be fired.
software version numbers should indicate release cycles, different revisions, and development stages (e.g. alpha, beta, etc.), and that's all. when you let marketing decide how to version a product then the version number loses all meaning. personally, i wouldn't trust a company that tries to manipulate consumers by giving delegating the versioning of their software to their marketing department.
if your product's target consumers are gullible or naive end users, then you might get away with something like this. but i imagine most tech savvy consumers would be turned off by a company that puts so much weight on marketing rather than focusing on their development process (which such manipulation of the versioning system undermines).
Parent
Mod parent up. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is begging to differ with you. Again. They're going to call the successor to Vista, "Windows 7." Not "Windows 2009", not "Windows AB", not even "Windows VII".
I'm quite surprised by this about-face. I thought the whole "Windows Server 2000" or "Office 2003" was a great marketing move. Look at the typical reaction: "Here I am in 2008, and I'm still using Visual Studio 2005 -- why haven't we upgraded to VS 2008 yet?" Yet those same people aren't complaining that their Windows XP installation should be replaced by Windows Vista.
Hmm... maybe it has nothing to do with the version numbers, after all...
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if your research showed there were two products that might do what you want: Foo v1.01 and Bar v6.0. Which one would you choose, based solely on version number?
This also reminds me of the OSX issue. I bet when Snow Leopard comes out, you'll once again hear the trolls saying, "Why are people spending $130 to buy a point release? You just bought 10.5, and you're willing to spend money just to get 10.6? Windows service packs are FREE!"
So how you number things seems like a valid marketing concern. If they bought version 1.0, they aren't going to want to spend money on version 1.01, or even 1.7. But take that new version, and without adding a single feature, relabel it as 2.0, and people will think it's valid to spend money on it.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
you'll once again hear the trolls saying, "Why are people spending $130 to buy a point release?
Oh the irony. Windows 4.0->4.1->4.90 weren't free upgrades, nor is 5.{0,1,2,3}.
Microsoft do, however allow a free major version upgrade. 6.0 to 5.1.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Tell Them to call it "Software X CIS". The CIS will stand for Confidence Inspiring String and we can all have a laugh down the road after the marketing people bite.
Tube-SOCKS
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, and moreso. The world of open source projects that are solid as a rock, but remain 0.x for years has conditioned me to believe that 1.0 *is* the polished, long-lived release. Not always true, but certainly enough to banish the stigma (if there was one).
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What does it say about the company's integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Version 1.0: Expect some bugs. Be more forgiving of those bugs.
Version >5.0: many versions have come and gone, removing all the major bugs. Be very unforgiving of any bugs.
Playing with fire.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Software Version Number Guide
1.x: First release from either a new company, or of a new product. If the former, it's probably innovative if a bit quirky (wait for 3.0). If the latter, check for a "Home" qualifier, or look for the "Pro" moniker, then decide and wait for version 3.
2.x: It's amazing the feedback they've received through "anonymous, not personally identifiable" network connections. They've been really busy fixing bugs and adding enhancements. Unfortunately, they don't fix the bugs and functional issues that you've noticed.
3.x: Now we're getting somewhere. Many bugs are fixed, usability is improved, and memory footprint is still reasonable. Backup this version, this is the version you are looking for. Stock splits, investors take note.
4.x: Version 4.x is usually released far longer after the previous release than any other release. That's because Version 3 was such a kickass product, that everybody who wanted it has it, and sales have now dropped. But what a cash cow Version 3 was. Version 4 introduces the rental license, with mandatory bi-yearly upgrade deactivation with NannyAlert(tm). Stock has a mild bump up to 42% of what it was a year ago, then drops back to 35%.
5.x: Hmm, sales continue to plummet, so /obviously/ it's from piracy. Version 5 introduces per-machine CPU serial number locking (or a USB dongle), a new EZ-to-Yoose one-window interface, and a Registry Cleaner, "for Security". Walmart begins selling it. Fry's begins offering rebates.
6.x: You must be writing antivirus, portable document, checkbook-balancing, or tax prep software. Start looking at newer vendors or other products, because those offerings will be closer to Version 3 functionality.
14.x: Autodesk called, they want their CAD system back.
200x: For software companies, a year-based version number is the proverbial White Flag of Surrender. It's an acknowledgment that their development process is so encumbered by well, Process, their quality control so numbed by despondent QA testers, and innovation positively hindered by burnout and irrelevance, that any hope of a release more often than the vernal equinox is out of the question.
201x: First OS X release. In a Cider wrapper.
--------
On a serious note to the OP, I do see version numbers >5 as "has been". History has shown that innovation is long gone, and major releases contain minor enhancements ("Now supporting CSV and XML formats!") Why not exhibit some courage and make it not 1.0, but 1.0! and make a statement? Innovation takes courage. Deception is not innovation.
If I saw a new product, especially with a 6.x version number, I really would wonder where it's been. "It must have not sold very much before, I wonder if it's still crap?"
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Or Quality is Job Service Pack One (or Two, or Three)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Informative)
EVERY version of Windows has more bugs...
Windows NT 4 was much more stable than NT 3.x. Every version of Windows after ME was better than Windows ME. Windows 3.11 was better than Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.0 was a huge improvement over Windows 2.0...
I could go on...
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
EVERY version of Windows has more bugs...
Windows NT 4 was much more stable than NT 3.x. Every version of Windows after ME was better than Windows ME. Windows 3.11 was better than Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.0 was a huge improvement over Windows 2.0...
I could go on...
Sure you could!
But not for much longer.
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
3 * 5 = 8
Holy shit that's some bad math!
That's nothing. You want bad math:
Its not just "8" its ie8... and e is around 2.7 and i is the square root of -1... so
ie8 =~ 21.6i
FF3*5 = 21.61i ... ok, hmmm.. that's not really better is it... lets keep trying
FF3 = ie8/5
FF3 = (8e/5)i
FF = (8e/15)i or
F^2= (8e/15e)i
F = sqrt((8e/15)i)
F = sqrt(8e/15)sqrt(i)
F = sqrt(8e/15) * (1/sqrt(2)+1/sqrt(2)i)
F = sqrt(8e/15)(1/sqrt(2) + sqrt(8e/15)((1/sqrt(2))i)
F =~ 0.516 + 0.516i
(assuming you only consider positive roots...)
who knew?
Parent
Re:It's just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
Um, duh. Product better-osity varies exponentially with version numbers. Why else would a new products initial version number matter?
Jeez. Some people... ;)
Parent
Version 7 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Version 7 (Score:5, Informative)
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 ...
Parent
Why promote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Slashdot might not be the best place to ask (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Slashdot might not be the best place to ask (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Larry Ellison did this with Oracle (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
I'll have a Seven and Seven (Score:5, Funny)
This is like the one where they had to rename the movie "The Madness of King George."
Americans, the story goes, wouldn't be interested in "The Madness of King George III" because they missed parts I and II.
It worked on me. (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Re:It worked on me. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
On the other hand.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Dirty, dirty tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I was going to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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". [today.com]) 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.
You can number it wrong, but you will have to lie (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Alternatives.... (Score:5, Funny)
- 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
Reminds me of Slackware (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why Do You Care? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:My 1.1 opinion (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:just a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent