Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Are We Addicted to "NEW"?

(1/2) > >>

Renegade:
Reading here:

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=30621.msg284960#msg284960

^^ +1 for WhyReboot and the dev even dropped by some time back..
--- End quote ---

I saw a link to here:

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=1710.msg46620#msg46620

I've done little with WhyReboot because it fulfills its purpose -- to tell you about pending file operations that are scheduled to happen after a reboot.  The methods used by Windows to control pending file operations have not changed as far as I know.  So, no need to update WhyReboot.
--- End quote ---

I've wondered this a few times - if a program does what it's meant to do, why bother "updating" it?

It seems like we're addicted to updates/new releases. Both as authors and users.

Do I have a skewed perception? Or is that about accurate?

Josh:
Let me give you my perception of this issue.

As a user, I evaluate programs based on a few categories such as functionality, ease of use, serving the intended function, and supportability (is that a word?). One of the key factors behind supportability is whether or not the author is actively involved in the project. I do not require updates for a program, but a lack of updates gets me worried since it could indicate a lack of support should an issue arise.

Let's say I invest 80 dollars into a productivity tool. After using it for a few months, I notice that a bug occurs when I perform steps X, Y and Z. Now, I go to obtain support and hopefully a patch. This is when I find out the author no longer supports the product or has just given up on it. In my eyes, an update, even if only to post to the homepage every few weeks, shows that the product is still alive.

No software is perfect, and there are ALWAYS bugs to fix. Updates do not necessarily have to mean new features, but it could reflect additional bug fixes. This level of support is more preferred, in my eyes, than posting updates to an application by adding features just for the sake of adding them. Do we really need a spell checker in an application launcher and does a book collection manager really require a DVD ripper?

In the end, updates are a good thing if done for the right reasons. Adding features, just because, is the wrong way to go about it. Keep up with maintenance and patching of an application and add features as your users show a genuine interest for them, or as capability gaps are identified.

barney:
And then, there's the upgrade$ path.  Build a util.  Sell it.  Add something to it - maybe just cosmetic.  Charge for the upgrade.  Repeat as needed for financial comfort.

Mayhap we're not addicted to new, so much as encouraged to it  :(.

How many times have you seen an upgrade that was nothing more than cosmetic, with no functional value at all?  I'm not certain I can count that high.  Can you?

I'm minded of all the MS Office upgrades (just an example, not MS bashing).  The one constant was a restructured menu system.  No matter how good the actual software upgrades were - and many of them were very good - it took a month to find a particular element in the new menu system.  That was a standing joke in my last corporate venture - new Office, new menu to learn.

I don't mind paying for a legitimate upgrade, and I don't mind paying for new technology - assuming it is new - but I very much object to paying for cosmetic enhancements.

However, in answer to the original question:  No, I don't think we're addicted to new, I think we're trained to new.

lanux128:
though not directly related, i was just reminded of this comic while going through the thread. :)


• credits: http://www.stickycomics.com

Josh:
Too bad the Linux aspect of that is false.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page