Some people just don’t get it.  They are so caught up in their own blind ideology they won’t consider alternative views.

I’ve been looking for a reasonably-priced web-based project management system for quite some time, and yesterday I thought I found it: BaseCamp from 37Signals.  Problem is, after an email exchange with the founder Jason Fried, they don’t now and won’t ever (he claims) support a visual view of a project in the form of a GANTT chart.

Why won’t BaseCamp ever support GANTT charts?  Maybe it’s BaseCamp’s competitive positioning, or maybe it’s because of ideology; based on BaseCamp’s Manifesto, Jason just doesn’t believe in them.  From my email conversation with Jason, is seems to be the latter.  Plus, isn’t a manifesto ideological by definition?

Why do I need GANTT charts?  Because I’m a visual learner and I need a GANTT chart to be able to see the big picture related to a large number of parallel projects that all share resources. I need this so I can keep from missing deadlines when I’m bombarded with almost literally 100 choices for how to spend my time each day.  I even proposed I could try to put BaseCamp and DBI Technologies together for DBI to provide optional GANTT charting of BaseCamp projects via DBI’s Solutions::Schedule product, but Jason wasn’t even interested in entertaining the idea, even if someone else was doing the work.

It’s a damn shame to find a product like BaseCamp that does 90% of what I need but, because of IMO blind ideology, its owner Jason Fried won’t even consider adding a feature for which arguably 65% of people would benefit. Jason’s last comment to me was: “Look at it this way… Go use another tool, get the Gantt charts, but miss the other 90%. Which tradeoff is worth more to you?“  The sad thing is, if it were not for blind ideology, it wouldn’t have to be either/or. :-(

business, customerservice, webbasedapps

I have a new employee starting on Friday and needed a new computer. Generally I like to buy from Dell because they keep all system info online for future retrieval. So yesterday (Monday, June 21st, 2004) I went online to Dell’s Outlet and selected a pre-built system and requested it to be shipped Fedex Saver (3 day) on my account. (I know, I always do things at the "last minute", but that’s because prior to the last minute, something else is always urgent!) So if it shipped on Tueday it would arrive Friday, no problem (the new employee is technical and will be tasked with setting up their own machine.)

Well, I go online to make sure it shipped, and notice it is "in process" with an estimated ship date of July 8th, 2004 (13 days after I need it)!!! I left an email message just now, but my expectations they will expedite it are less than 1%, and I’ll probably have to cancel the order and find something else locally.

What reminded me to check the shipping status was an email from NewEgg, which is where I placed an order after placing my Dell order for a really nice monitor to go with the new system I ordered from Dell. Contrary to Dell, NewEgg emailed me a shipping confirmation with my Fedex tracking number showing that my order will arrive tomorrow, a day early!  I selected NewEgg partly because they had a really good price, but primarily because their CNET rating was very high, and boy did they prove why!

This whole experience reminds me of a similar one about two months ago when I decided to buy a digital camcorder. After searching CNET for the best combination of price and rating I settled on buying from PCandPlasma (has anyone ever noticed how ALL online and mail-order camera stores are located in New York City? But I digress…)

After getting the annoying but ubiquitous (from a New York City online retailer) phone call saying they need to talk to me before shipping my order, and then attempting to hard-upsell me on cheap yet expensively-priced tchotchkes (which didn’t upset me as I went shopping for a low price, and the low price stores all do it), I stressed to the sales rep at PCandPlasma that my order absolutely had to arrive within three days.

I got everything within two days.

But PCandPlasma didn’t have everything I needed in stock so I went over to SonyStyle.com to pick of the remaining items, most importantly a tripod. I placed the order online, and then checked it the next day.

It hadn’t shipped.

I called, and found that their staff really couldn’t tell me exactly when it would ship because had different warehouses and couldn’t easily tell what was where. Sony’s customer support rep told me she thought it would arrive in time, and that she would call me back to confirm (to her credit she was very nice, but she also didn’t call back.)

I needed on Friday as I was planning to travel on Sunday. Guess what? It didn’t arrive on Friday. I checked online and it hadn’t even shipped. So I emailed and requested the order be cancelled (I didn’t call because the prior call took 45 minutes on hold to speak to someone.)

As an aside and not directly related to the core theme of this post, on the next day, Saturday, I went to local Wolf Camera to pick up the needed tripod. (Unfortunately the saleman there didn’t think to upsell me to a tripod with fluid head for video, even though I asked if the one I selected was okay for video. Who was I to know at the time what I really needed? I didn’t learn that until during and after the trip! Funny thing was he was on commission and the tripod I ended up getting from another salesman was $180 instead of the $30 I bought from him. Duh!)

When I got back from my trip, I found that my Sony order has been delivered on Wednesday. Not only had there not been any chance of getting it by the prior Friday, they didn’t even pay attention to my request to cancel! So I had to then go to the trouble and expense of sending it back (to be fair the accepted the RMA with no hassle though I wonder if PCandPlasma. But then I’m only conjecturing because of the hard-upsell.)

So the bottom line is this: If you want and/or need fast service, forget the big guys. They are either too big with disjoint processes that can’t serve you well if they try, or they are simply too big to care. Go with the small scrappy companies for whom your business is their lifeblood. They are the ones who will bend over backwards to make sure you get what you need, when you need it.

business, customerservice, dell, sony, video

At this point, because of my posts here, here, here, here, and here, and the fact my company is a reseller of components at VBxtras and Xtras.Net, you probably think me to be a shill for the component industry.  Unfortunately, I’m far too idealistic for that to be true. :-)

I think ComponentOne was justified in how they handled Robert McLaws’ situation, which is not what I get from reading Robert’s post, but from a public relations perspective I think they bungled it.

First and foremost, I think Mike Sax said it well: communicate policy before the customer purchases.  In Robert McLaws’ case he got ComponentOne’s software for free included in the Microsoft VB.NET Resource Kit.  ComponentOne should have made it abundantly clear to anyone using the software that it was provided as-is and that any bug fixes would require a subscription purchase.  My guess is via oversight they probably did not ensure the policy was known to everyone using the software (i.e. a good way would be a nag screen that makes it clear and requires the developer to acknowledge by typing “yes.”) That would have set the expectation.

However I will beat on Robert a little bit here. Even though ComponentOne should have set expectation for their own benefit, Robert should have done his due-diligence before including ComponentOne’s software into their app. By not proactively doing so he created a project “risk” and as such some of the blame should fall on him. 

Please note the prior paragraph points out that buying and using component software has risks and as a developer you should fully evaluate those risks before choosing to include a component in your app. (You didn’t expect a component reseller to make that point, did you?  Remember, at the very heart, I’m still a developer. :)

Back to ComponentOne: They should have thought through the issue a lot better than they did (though hindsight is easily 20/20. The real question is: How will they handle moving forward?) Telling customers who experience problems with their free version they need to pay for an upgrade sounds like a PR nightmare waiting to explode. 

After much thought, what ComponentOne should probably have done was offered Robert an option to get the current build for free OR a subscription for ½ price (assuming they allow their resellers to participate in that too. :-) and ask Robert not to publicize the offer lest everyone learn all they have to do is report a bug in order to get a free update.  Then ComponentOne should have ensured their policies were always made clear moving forward.

However, I’m going to give ComponentOne the benefit of the doubt and not because I am a reseller of their product but because that is how I like to treat others; innocent until proven guilty.  My guess is that ComponentOne’s management didn’t perform “an edict from above” to stonewall Robert regarding his needs, but simply didn’t have a good way to bubble up his issue for a decision in an instantly actionable way. The employee to whom he spoke was probably just following written policy that had not contemplated Robert’s situation.

Or maybe I’m wrong and ComponentOne’s management just set out to screw all current and potential customers.  But somehow I highly doubt that.

What I will do is forward the URL to these posts to my contacts at ComponentOne, and we’ll let them address the issue if they would like. In that manner, maybe I can do what my company always tries to do and that is bring developers together with vendors for the good of all.

business, customerservice, mikesax, people, robertmclaws, tools, xtras

When I started VBxtras in 1994, it was partly because I felt component software was too expensive and I wanted to do something about it. Why? If I couldn’t afford to use it as an independent developer, it was too expensive. I sense Robert McLaws has similar views to the ones I had in 94 as I generally sense that theme in his recent posts and when reading his company’s website.

Today I still don’t like it when software is too expensive for me to afford (we work on a shoestring budget here as being a component reseller is not the most profitable business one can pursue), but my 10+ years in the business now has me seeing the issues from multiple perspectives.

Robert complained about ComponentOne because their subscription model required him to pay for a renewal in order to fix a bug in a component he was using. As an independent developer I would probably feel the same as he did. However, if I was a Fortune 500 CIO or IT Manager I would want to ensure the vendors of components I used in my mission critical apps were financially viable and hence I’d be more than happy to pay for a subscription. After all, developers costs money and support staff costs money, and someone has to pay for it.  That’s one reason why component vendors move to subscription models; to ensure they have the revenue to support their customers.

After reflection on this topic, I believe ComponentOne’s subscription model caters best to companies willing to pay for a higher level of support and that also want to ensure their vendors are financially viable.  Robert’s problem wasn’t that ComponentOne wouldn’t fix the bug; the bug was already fixed. Robert’s problem was that he couldn’t get the fix for free.

Which brings me to this hypothesis: Maybe different types of component vendors are better for developers in different circumstances but neither vendors nor developers have really yet made this distinction?  By analogy, what multi-national Fortune 500 corporation would in their right mind attempt to run their business using QuickBooks?  And what mom-and-pop would even consider implementing SAP? Maybe Robert’s problem was he chose to use components from a vendor who is now catering to the SAP crowd and yet what he really needed was QuickBooks?

I know from experience many component vendors are “starving artists.”  To service a Fortune 500 company you have to be much more than that.  I seem to remember Robert made several comments in his blogs about software being too expensive and hence his company would offer an alternative. And I know there are a lot of developers as either new vendors and as customers who believe the same, including myself, in some circumstances. So I would hypothesize that vendors with this ideology are the best ones for developers who think fixes should be free. Alternately, vendors that ensure they generate significant revenue are the best ones to services large company’s mission critical apps.

If I am correct, then this puts the onus on the developer to know what type of component vendor they are dealing with before choosing to use their component in an application.  What’s your opinion? 

business, componentone, customerservice, freetools, people, robertmclaws, tools, xtras

Robert McLaws responded to my post from yesterday about the responsibility of component vendors. Robert’s comment reflected his view as a vendor (Robert sells components too, though my company hasn’t currently established a relationship with his company via Xtras.Net for no other reason than I just learned about his products.) Robert states:

I believe that is the vendors responsibility to take care of their customers, whatever that means. If a function in the API does not work, then a customer should be able to get the update for free, as long as it is the vendor’s fault, not the customer’s.

I tend to agree with that assertion, especially in principle. However, what defines the limits of "taking care of" in the software context? ComponentOne has a subscription model which differs from selling versions of a component as Mike Sax elegantly explained. This might bring up another question about which I’d be interested in hearing opinions: “Does a subscription model provide a disservice to the customer?” As is, I’m going to assume a subscription model and use Mike Sax’s comments to define the model.

On subscription you get updates rights when you buy the subscription. If your subscription is not current, there are no new update rights. A grey area would regard a prior subscriber’s right to access to the latest update made available prior to their subscription lapsing, and I strongly believe vendors should allow that. For example if there are 4 quarterly updates and I purchase an annual subscription in Jan 2004 which gives me Q1-2004 through Q4-2004, in 2005 and beyond I should still be able to download Q4-2004. But that’s not Robert’s issue.

Looking at it logistically; I see two ways ComponentOne could have solve Robert’s issue. First, they could apply all bug fixes on all prior subscription releases. Assuming quarterly subscription releases, a year would require they apply each bug fix on four code bases. After two years, they would need to apply each bug fix need on eight code bases. And so on. Is it just me, or does the combinatorial explosion this creates prove it to be unworkable?

The other way is to just give the customer the new release, the one he didn’t pay for. If we follow Robert’s customer service rule, then anyone who experiences a bug should get the latest version for free. And that might be a great customer service; I would applaud any component vendor who would choose that as a policy, but I would also question whether it would be viable long-term.

As I believe no software is bug free then who would pay for a subscription renewal when one only needs find a bug, even if that bug isn’t affecting them? But them I’m sure there aren’t any developers reading my blog that avoid the subscription fees in this manner, right? :)

So is my analysis correct? Is a policy of providing the most current version of a subscription to a developer who finds a bug incompatible with the subscription model? I unfortunately think it is. What is your opinion?

business, componentone, customerservice, freetools, mikesax, robertmclaws, tools, xtras