|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Carroll Slemaker wrote:
> I'd like to offer the following as an ethical foundation
> for discussions of this subject, a list of what a customer should
> fairly expect from a software creator/vendor.
These are ethical *assumptions* - in this case, what you think is fair
here. That's fine, but I get the impression that you consider Omega to be
obligated by this dicta, which wouldn't necessarily be the case.
> 1. Software which is robust. "Robust", with respect to software,
> means that it behaves gracefully "under fire" - it traps and handles
> in an appropriate manner all user-input and data errors; it never
> responds to such conditions in an uncontrolled manner by aborting,
> crashing the system, or corrupting itself or its data, especially
> where the corruption is covert - not immediately apparent. The
> engineering rule for robust software is that any secondary damage
> caused by user or data error must be controlled and kept to an
> absolute minimum.
This is way too utopian. While this would be ideal from the standpoint of
the consumer, it doesn't follow that anyone would be bound by this high
standard.
> 2. Product defects which are encountered by customers will be
> promptly corrected by the vendor, or a workaround will be devised,
> or the customer will be offered the option of a refund of the
> purchase price.
I have to agree here. But...
> What is a defect? A defect is any operation which
> is contrary to what is described in the documentation.
How about: "a substantial failure of product to perform as intended, due
to a flaw in its design."
> And if the
> documentation is ambiguous or incomplete, then the standard will be
> however the average reasonable customer would expect the software
> to operate based upon the available documentation AND advertising
> materials and operational characteristics of other similar products.
The standard for *what*, though? We may conclude that, on a comparison
with other products, that it is inferior, but this wouldn't constitute a
defect per se.
> 3. The vendor will maintain a list of reported defects/problems
> in which symptoms and workarounds, if any, are clearly and
> completely described. This will permit some customers to avoid
> the problem with its attending frustration and loss of time (and,
> perhaps, money).
This would be nice, but in the real world, this sort of efficiency is very
rare.
> 4. If the documentation is ambiguous, unclear, or incomplete, then
> a convenient, accurate, and effective technical-support program
> will be provided by the vendor.
I've found Omega's documentation and support to be of very high quality,
above and beyond the call if anything.
I agree with some of this, but it seems to me that this would place
vendors under an unreasonably high standard. There are generally accepted
norms of conduct which apply here, though. For instance, the vendor shall
not engage in deceptive practices, and shall make representations about
his product in a forthright and honest manner. In my experience, Omega
has succeeded in meeting these standards.
In my view, this discussion is one of quality and not obligation.
Products and services differ in regard to quality, and it doesn't seem
reasonable at all to claim that lesser quality implies ethical
misconduct. For instance, a firm might not offer any service or support
for its products at all, which would be perfectly fine as long as this was
understood at the time of sale. Similarly, a product may be less reliable
than one may wish, but this only implies that it is of lesser quality that
we would hope. We may become angry when this happens, but it doesn't
necessarily mean the supplier failed to fulfill his obligations to us.
It can be presumed that Omega, like virtually all businesses, is primarily
engaged in making money, as would be the case for traders as well. In
doing so, they are entitled to choose the level of quality and support
they wish to provide, as long as reasonable disclosure is made at the time
of sale. With this said, I've found their approach to be quite good. Not
ideal, mind you, but very few things are.
Regards.
A.J.
|