Does Your Vendor Issue Gag Orders? 210
Presto Vivace writes to tell us that CIO has an interesting article about customer "gag orders" that some ERP vendors are trying to impose contractually. "The effect: customers will be prevented from working with peers and others in the software company's "ecosystem" to help with technical issues or compare pricing options. 'In addition,' Wang adds, 'the customer now lacks the proper checks and balances in pressuring a vendor to deliver on promised capabilities or address severe security issues, and cannot go to the media as a last resort, if needed.'" What other questionable practices (and potential solutions) have others had to work with?
A different approach... (Score:5, Informative)
My ERP vendor takes an entirely different strategy of providing miserable tech support, denying the existence of obvious bugs, claiming the the 1960s technology on the back end is better than modern day RDMS, and having their tech support staff focus on minute tiny details that aren't relevant to the problem whenever you ask them for a solution.
I'd switch ERPs in a heartbeat, if the economy would recover.
Re:Let them sue (Score:4, Informative)
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CLM [thefreedictionary.com]
Which of these meanings of "CLM" did you mean? I presume career limiting move, but please don't do this to readers... making them look up CLM when all you need to do is write a few more characters to make your meaning clear?
Only a complete loon would agree to such terms (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if you're locked into their software already and these are the new terms for the next version which you have to have because they are dropping support for your present one, well, you were a complete loon to lock yourself in to begin with.
Re:Consumer law (Score:3, Informative)
This is not about "consumer" law. It is about contracts between businesses.
Why would anyone agree to it? (Score:3, Informative)
Where I am, vendors dance to our tune. Maybe it's because we're huge, but compared to the US we're tiny, but none of our vendors try that crap on us.
Jut the mere hint that we might think about going to a competitor, and they're scrabbling around on all fours, asking for forgiveness.
Don't agree to it in your contract and they have nothing on you? *shrug*
Old News! (Score:2, Informative)
This stuff has been going on for many years. In the mid-90's PeopleSoft had most if not all of the same clauses in their contracts. Highly configurable software and users were not allowed, under the contracts, to share configurations, add-on code, homegrown reports, etc. Any violations of any of the clauses, by contract, would result in termination of support, termination of license for use, and/or lawsuits.
Re:Customers force a need for these (Score:2, Informative)
you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already. Whilst this is going on, the company has to take the focus away from looking for new contracts to work with them.
This is called the sunk costs fallacy; if you're being jerked around by some customer, your best bet is to fire them and go look at other contracts. It's also handy to specialize a bit so your costs for the bid are spread across a number of clients.
Re:Let them sue (Score:5, Informative)
So, at best, your $1 candy bar cost the merchant 77-80 cents in just transaction fees, in addition to the 50 cents or so they paid to actually purchase the bar for you to buy... In other words, he just lose about 30 cents to sell it to you... In addition to that, there are fees just to check your balance for the day, fees to request a payment from your processor, etc. Debit cards are slightly cheaper to process, but overall, the break even point for the restaurant I used to manage was about $5 per transaction. Guess what we set the minimum transaction at?
We only started taking cards because so many people don't carry cash these days, so we were turning customers away. Most are quite understanding about the minimum transaction once we explain why we have it. We do make exceptions for regulars or if someone just bought $30 worth of food and forgot to order some fries or something. You might not like it, however, we can't stay in business long if we're losing money on every transaction, so where are you going to buy your candy bar from then, your high horse?
Re:Let them sue (Score:3, Informative)
We pay 3% flat rate across the board. No transaction fees. I've received a lot of processing fee quotes and never once have I seen one with rates like that.
Re:Why would any one? (Score:3, Informative)
Why would any major company agree to such arrangements?
Why indeed. Just the other day I was talking to a guy who works for a large company that forbids any use whatsoever of open source software, on the grounds that it would somehow leave them exposed to some kind of legal repercussions. One can only wonder if any of their lawyers and managers have even looked at the EULA crap they actually do agreed to, or where their odd misconceptions of FOSS alternatives came from.
Re:Why would any one? (Score:2, Informative)
Why would any major company agree to such arrangements?
You have been using the vendor for years. All of your data is tied up with them in THEIR proprietary format. Moving to a new system is impossible with new OMB rules for capital investment and you are negotiating a new contract. I have been in this space for 12 years dealing with the ERP vendors (the big THREE) .. let me tell you, they are all rife with bugs, poor performance, $275/hr and up "supporting contractors".. it is a nightmare.. to the tune of 100M a year or more in some cases per AGENCY... fortunately, we can and do talk in the Fed (not as much as one would hope) but sometimes it is a "hogtied" scenario and its that or nothing, and nothing isn't an option.