Are Unfinished Products Now the Norm?

Paul asks: "Long ago when digital synthesizers first became commonly available, I recall a reviewer lamenting how he was getting more and more products to test whose software was unfinished and buggy and would require updates and fixes (this, before the internet allowed easy downloads, would have meant a journey to a specialist repair center). The review also commented how this common problem with computer software was spreading (this was before Windows 95 was out), and asked if it was going to become the norm. These days it seems ubiquitous, with PDAs, digital cameras, PVRs and all manner of complex goods needing after-market firmware fixes often simply to make them have the features promised in the adverts, let alone add enhancements. Are we seeing this spread beyond computers and computer-based products; jokes apart, will we be booting our cars up and installing flash updates every week to prevent computer viruses getting into the control systems? Can anyone comment on any recent purchases where they've been badly let down by missing features, or are still waiting for promised updates even whilst a new model is now on the shelves? How can we make the manufacturers take better responsibility? Apart from reading every review possible before making a purchase, what strategy do you have, or propose, for not being caught out?"

If people will buy it....

[GrnArmadillo]

It's amazing how much effort you can save when you don't take the time to do the job properly. As long as people still buy your product, there's no incentive to actually fix it before it launches.

Software approaching the complexity of the organic

[greg_barton]

Software is approaching the complexity of organic life. You know what it means for an organic being to be "finished"?

So what if our software is constantly changing, and is thus "unfinished"? To be finished means it won't improve. Heck, the whole reason for the existence of open source is the "if it's broken, I can fix it" idea.

So, why do we need software to be "finished," anyway?

Re:If people will buy it....

[cptgrudge]

As long as people still buy your product, there's no incentive to actually fix it before it launches.

With respect to the car comment in the summary (though not exclusive), I've got one word:

Liability

Re:You're Looking at it the Wrong Way

[architimmy]

I just spent the whole last week at a software training session for a BIM product my firm is attempting to move from AutoCAD to. This particular product is already in release 9 and has been around for years. In fact it's one of a number of different packages that do the same thing. I remember using the same program years ago and thinking "this is just frustrating" because there were so many restrictions and limitations on what you could do with it. Needless to say, at release 9 the product is still buggy, still a bit limited, and definitely only just now reaching a point at which I think a commercial firm can afford to invest in using. That said however, this is the only software package out of many that is usable in professional practice. In defense of application developers, you don't often find people who have extensive enough professional experience to really work on specific practice oriented software. To deal with my example, developers don't exactly know what architects need, in fact many architects don't really know what they need either. The process of figuring this out and how to turn it into software requires unique people. When attempting to provide software that redefines the way the industry designs and constructs buildings you can't exactly ask people what additional features they'd want in an existing software package. That's working too much "inside the box." So one approach is certainly to start a product with the fundamental application architecture philosophy that it's going to be modular and flexible and go from there accepting criticism and adding and removing features as you go. It might take 9 to 10 releases before you start to get widespread acceptance and reach a point at which your software is even usable.

Re:Software approaching the complexity of the orga

[zappepcs]

That depends entirely on perspective. If entropy is seen as a relative process, software that is not being developed is going to suffer entropy as the world around that software is changing. So, in relative terms, there is software entropy.

Hypothetically, if your current 'perfect OS' software no longer has any development being done, when new storage devices or networking devices become available, that 'perfect OS' is no longer perfect. For this reason, all software will always be 'incomplete' in as much as the world around it changes at an ever increasing pace. Some software is outdated by the time that it is ready for launch as a beta product. For more on that, see the big software projects that some groups around the world have attempted, only to find that on launch it is not capable of dealing with recent changes in the world.

All software will always be no better than beta given that the above is true. This means that for businesses, good enough is as good as perfect as that is as close to perfect as it is likely to ever get.

Sure, there are cases where good enough really isn't; medical equipment, space travel equipment etc. but for the vast majority of software for consumers, beta grade is good enough and thus worth releasing.

Fortunately, some companies release beta software/apps and treat them as such by continuing to improve them before pronouncing the software is out of beta stage. When software is released as final product rather than beta, consumers get upset when they find out it's really only beta that they paid for.

But the point is, yes, software suffers from entropy and atrophy is relative terms.

Be a responsible consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we make the manufacturers take better responsibility?

If it doesn't work right take it back. If a manufacturer continues to put out a shoddy product, don't buy their products in future.

This is incompatible with the idea that you must have the latest game, the latest gadget, the latest console, etc. How many people on Slashdot know about Sony's abusive behaviour and yet bought a PS3 anyway? How many people here know about Blizzard shutting down Free Software competition with phony copyright claims and yet carry on using WoW? How many geeks despise Microsoft's abusive lawbreaking and went out and bought an XBox? The RIAA and MPAA are evil corporations, right? The DeCSS lawsuits are completely unjust, right? So how come you have hundreds of CDs and DVDs?

The fickle, greedy nature of Western consumerism causes this problem, and by giving in to your irresponsible impulse buying and fanboyism, you are part of the problem.

Re:Software approaching the complexity of the orga

[iPaul]

However, we routinely produce complicated systems that have excellant reliability. For example, glass displays on aircraft - which are quite common in commercial jets. They have to undergo a much more rigorous level of testing before they can be shipped because the liability to the manufacturer is huge. What's the liability if your Sony cam-corder stops working in the middle of your once-in-a-lifetime round-the-world vacaction, all because of a software glitch? The problem is not with the software, the problem rests partially with the people that make and test the systems, but mostly with the people who hire/fire developers, designers and engineers. They do silly things like higher cheaper, but less qualified engineers. They make marketings's brain-fart of the day the top priority. (I realize we're using the world's cheapest 16 bit micro-controller - but could you write the software in Java with a Gui so we can demo at Java One?) And they do things like sacrifice testing to make schedule. And they're also the ones that do things like set budgets and deadlines.

Re:Software approaching the complexity of the orga

[MoneyT]

How much does the glass display for an aircraft cost compared to your camera? How much of that cost is testing?

The easy answer

[earnest murderer]

Apart from reading every review possible before making a purchase, what strategy do you have, or propose, for not being caught out?"

Don't buy new products. Seriously, if it is worth buying it will still be on the shelf in six months. Even then I wouldn't buy it until I had read a few *user* reviews, immediately disregarding the top 10%. Check out some forums. Unofficial forums that is, publishers are notorious for nuking negative comments. I do not trust professional reviews. Ever. Even for existing software things can be pretty sketchy for a while. Consider how often Apple manages to botch iTunes, and that's their billion dollar baby. I know it's not what you wanted to hear, but you have to do your due diligence and be patient.

Frankly I don't see this problem going away until it is legislated away. If the bills concerning paid advertisements (i.e. the Sony PSP blog et.al.) have any teeth and clear consumer friendly rules, then reviews might have some value again. Not a lot, but some. Beyond that, liability is the only thing that's going to reign publishers in.

Re:A phillips DVD recorder

[John Hasler]

> Combine this disturbing trend with product reviews that are little more than a
> regurgitation of the back of the box.

This is because only those who can be trusted to publish positive reviews get pre-release samples to review.

> Along with some weird DMCA rules about what can and can't be reviewed on a
> product esp. vis-a-vis security.

There are no such rules.

> Now you have a situation where you can't even get real reviews of products,
> and no review is ever "not positive." It's just that some are more positive
> than others. So, here you are, trying to buy a $500 video camera so you can
> tape the birth of your fist child and you aren't even really sure that any
> of them work.

Well, you _could_ wait until the product has been out long enough for someone (such as Consumer's Union) to have purchased a sample off the shelf, tested it, and published a report. But then you wouldn't be on the leading edge! You'd be buying "obsolete" stuff! Intolerable!

Re:It's not just software or even electronics

[John Hasler]

> The old thing is virtually indestructable...

How much did it cost, in current dollars? How many of those do you think you could sell at that price? Would you buy one at that price?

Re:You're Looking at it the Wrong Way

[paeanblack]

I'd argue the opposite -- Theres no such thing as a finished product.

Of course there is, even in the software industry. Consider the software that runs the Voyager probes. It was completed 100% and shipped.

The issue is not that it's impossible to finish something, it's that 80% done is where the money is. Companies that go overboard on quality either go out of business or get relegated to serving a niche market. Quality is expensive and customers will repeatedly drop their cash on unfinished products that pass the dog and pony show.

Ask Harley Davidson owners

[SmallFurryCreature]

Around 1970 the quality of the bikes was so piss poor that factory new machines would often simply not work without extensive work by their new proud owner. So did the japanese with their fastly superior quality bury HD as it deserved too?

Hell no.

But bikes are an odd product. They are bought by 'fans' not just fans of a brand but fans of a the idea of bikes themselves. Having to spend hours working on your brand new bike to get it work is not actually a minus to a HD owner. A nephew of mine is a HD nut and once he finished a bike he loves riding it, on the look out for a new wreck, sorry, rare find to work on.

Most tech goes through this face. Long before polaroid made photographs a snap you had a large group of photographers making photos despite the hassle involved. It wasn't always that cars were black boxes that just start always when you turn the ignition and you never ever look under the hood. Early car drivers had to be their own mechanics. No, that is not right, that sounds like they objected to it. For early car drivers, it was part of the fun.

It ain't just tech, ever had a sister who LOVED horses? They actually enjoy taking care of them, shoveling shit and hauling hay.

Computers are just the same, early adaptors don't mind the nitty gritty, for them it is part of it. As my nephew likes scraping rush, my sister loves shoveling shit, I love messing with obscure setting and compiling my own kernels. Take those "messy" bits away and you ruin the whole experience.

The problem is when the "normal" people get involved. When a tech moves from the early adoptors to the mainstream. When it is no longer a "hobby" but becomes a necessity.

There is a reason we no longer use horses for transportation. There is a reason why no courier service uses HD bikes and there is a reason why MS tries to hide all the settings from the user.

The problem is that in a very real sense some tech moves into the mainstream before it is ready and/or the mainstream audience has the wrong idea about the tech.

If you owned a horse back when it was a mainstream form of transportation you had better accept that the horse had to be properly maintained, the movie idea of driving it hard across the desert into the town, jumping off and heading into the saloon just ain't "real". It requirs rubbing down, watering, feeding. They don't show that on tv.

They don't show you having to exchange the oil of your car, check its tires, replace the lights either.

The computers on tv? They have voice commands, can log onto any service automatically and always have the right file just a keypress away.

Reality is that computers just haven't reached a level of ease that suits the mainstream audience who just wants their product to run with zero maintenance. Is this wrong? Well, could you blame ford for not making its earliest cars as easy to operate as todays cars? Offcourse not. Tech has to develop. It has developped, compared to even the early home computers modern machines are a doddle to administrate.

You need to be your own "admin" of your system, know how it works, why things happen and how you can deal with them. Sure it would be nice if the system was advanced enough to just deal with it but that ain't the case. Yet.

Neither does your car, just ask your local mechanic how often they got to fix cars after their owner put in the wrong fuel. Why doesn't your car warn you before you put in the wrong nozzle? Because the tech ain't ready for it yet. One day it will, just as your car nowadays warns you when the oil is out (the oil light was once an innovation).

Same as your PC will one day warn you accuratly when you are about to download some dangerous software (No I am not talking about UAC or similar crap, that is closer to a sticker on your windscreen telling you to check the oil).

BUT not yet.

Early games required a lot more tweaking then they do nowadays. Believe it or not, once TV's didn't come with an AV button and you had to tune in you

Re: Voyager updated multiples times

[Anonymous Coward]

I read an article that the software was updated multiples times. An interesting point was the stuked bits in the processor registers (bit permanentely set to 1 or 0). NASA issued a software update to go around that.
More info here: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/thirty.html [nasa.gov]

You may want to look at the Postfix mail server, it went a long time without errors or updates.

Just take it back and get a refund

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK, if a product is advertised with certain features and those features either do not exist or do not work, you can return it for a full refund under the Sale of Goods Act. Items must be "fit for purpose" and advertising must be accurate.

That really is the best stratergy. If companies get too many returns, they will realise that their products are not up to scratch and either go out of business or fix them.

BTW, don't be fooled by retailers who claim you can't return things once the packaging is opened. The law appilies to everything, even software and things sold in those stupid "blister" packs you have to destroy to open. Just because the manufacturer made it impossible to find the defect without opening the product doesn't mean you can't return it. Even cars, which loose thousands of pounds in value when you drive them away from the dealers fall under the same law.