Come on down!
Readers respond with gusto “Name That Vendor,” a game everyone with maintenance issues is invited to play
The results are in from our first round of “Name That Vendor,” and I think we did quite well. You will recall a few weeks ago I presented descriptions from four readers of “Maintenance Manipulations” they’d experienced, and asked readers to identify the unnamed companies that matched their own experiences. The response was quite remarkable; I apologize for taking this long to read everyone’s contributions, but I hope you’ll agree it was worth the wait and worth us playing again some time.
Just to make it clear to those who didn’t quite get the idea, the point here is to make sure we’re naming the worst offenders regarding these practices — be it the company the original reader had in mind or someone else. So there were no wrong answers.
But the more you can tell me about the specifics of your experience with the vendor you’re talking about, the better. So those of you who just said that all four descriptions remind you of Microsoft, Oracle, Computer Associates, or Intuit no doubt had good reasons — it’s not like we don’t know those four have some pretty customer-hostile policies — but next time tell me a little bit more.
We’ll take them in reverse order. Company D turned out to be the easiest one. That was the company one reader felt had gone over the line with its subscription renewal notice, which said that legal authorities would be informed if the customer chose not to renew. A large number of readers recognized this as a common and longtime practice of our friends at Network Associates.
“My guess for company D is McAfee,” wrote one reader. “At our company we used them until their renewal letters seemed more like court summons to pay or be ‘reported.’ They have been de-installed. I have no kind words for them.” (Do you suppose Network Associates would consider these gripes “reviews” that are prohibited by their shrinkwrap censorship clause?)
Several readers identified Company C. Or, better said, several readers identified the same company my original griper described as having a dismaying tendency to decide customers’ maintenance plans have lapsed just before they bring out a major new release. Unfortunately, it’s apparently not the only company that plays such games, as several other firms were described in virtually identical terms. As none of the companies readers discussed can clearly be singled out as the worst offender, I’m afraid for the moment we’ll have to pass on naming any names there.
Company B — the one a reader said denies bug fixes to customers who don’t have a current maintenance agreement — is also going to take more work to identify. In fact, I now sincerely doubt that the company our reader had in mind is any guiltier than many others, since numerous readers reported running into this same policy with different vendors. In most cases, refusing to provide non-maintenance customers with bug fixes is the de facto but unstated policy. But a few companies make it quite explicit. “Just buying their software isn’t enough,” one reader said about a company that has given her a clear statement of their no-bug-fixes-without-maintenance philosophy. “If you want software that works, you must be on maintenance.”
Along with naming names, I think this is an issue into which we should probably delve a bit deeper. What is the best practice in regard to bug fixes and maintenance? It can be argued, after all, that maintenance revenue provides an appropriate incentive to get software publishers to devote resources to fixing their bugs. But is there any sign that’s where the maintenance dollars go? Let’s hear your thoughts, and don’t forget to put names to the examples, both good and bad, you’ve seen.
Company A was the one I thought least likely to be identified, which was why I provided the hint that it’s in the financial software sphere. As one among many in a fragmented market, I knew only a rather small portion of InfoWorld readers would have even dealt with them. Company A’s policy of requiring customers to pay a stiff penalty if their maintenance agreements lapse reminded many readers of various companies in the accounting software arena. Still, the specifics we related left no doubt in the minds of those familiar with them who we were talking about: the MAS accounting software division of Best Software, known as Sage until recently.
“What is really stupid is that Best comes out with new modules but the 40 percent to 60 percent of their end-users who chose in past years not to renew their maintenance agreements can’t buy them unless they pay for the years they missed plus 25 percent,” said a reader who, as the one who first reported the issue, is a MAS reseller. “The average yearly maintenance fee is $2,500 plus $625 penalty times, say, two years comes to more than$6,000 before [users] have the privilege of buying new user licenses or a new module. Not gonna happen. That cuts out a substantial part of the customer base as potential prospects for the new module. Dumb and greedy.”
Perhaps someone at Best got the message, because a company spokesman has informed me that they are running an “amnesty” program in March during which MAS 90 and MAS 200 customers whose maintenance expired before Oct. 15, 2001 can renew without late and lapsed-years fees to get the latest version. But better hurry, as the amnesty program ends March 29th.
And hurry to get in your suggestions for our next round of “Name That Vendor.” Many categories beyond maintenance manipulations are possible, and we want even more participation next time. Two out of four isn’t bad, but let’s see if we can bat 1.000.
