- Two things about Martin Harvey’s threading article that I posted. First, Alexey Gavrilov was kind enough to send me version 1.1a, which I have posted. Second, it turns out that the article/book is available on CodeCentral. So if you want to download it for yourself, you can. But now, at least, people can find it online.
- Embarcadero has put out a pretty cool “commercial” on YouTube. I think it is very nicely done.
- There is a new Delphi book out: Cross-Platform Development with Delphi XE7 & Firemonkey for Windows & Mac OS X by Harry Stahl. Only a couple of reviews on Amazon – one good and one not. Thanks to Robert Dawson for pointing it out in the newsgroups.
- Weird. Both Microsoft and Embarcadero are left off of this list.
- Stefan chastises me for making another one of my pronouncements on “evil” programming techniques. I admit to a bit of hyperbole, but it’s not without a point. The argument against my pronouncements is that the wise and judicious use of these so-called “evil” features or techniques is good. I don’t agree. I think that if a “feature” has the ability to be *easily* abused, then it should be avoided. For instance, some make the argument that there places where the
withstatement makes sense. Well, my counter argument to that is if you allow the
withstatement in a few places, it’s very easy to use it in just a few more places, and then the next thing you know, your code is full of
withstatements. It’s a slippery slope that you should never start down. The same is true for nested procedures. Sure, there might be places where they “make sense”, but if you allow them in one place, what is to stop a junior programmer from getting the wrong idea and go crazy with them? This is especially true for features that simply need not be used at all – such as
withand nested procedures. You can write beautiful code without them, so why risk sliding down the slope? Better to ban their use altogether. (Cue the “Then why don’t we all just use assembler” comments in 3..2…1….)
- I’m a big user and proponent of the Spring for Delphi framework. If you are, too, then you might consider donating to the project. The website now has a PayPal donate button.
- I recommend that you give a very careful read to Marco’s post about what was going on at the Microsoft BUILD conference last week. Lots of interesting stuff there for us Delphi developers, both in the Windows and cross-platform realms.
- Torry.net is for sale. Hat tip to Olaf Hess in the non-tech group for this piece of information.
The day is coming when you are going to have to pay to get bug fixes. You won’t like it at first, but that is the way things are heading. And you should like it.
I can remember the day when software came with free support. You had a problem, you called up the company and spoke to a tech support representative who would help you with your problem. For free. For hours if need be. It was expected. Of course a company should support a product that they sold. If it wasn’t easy to use or didn’t work right, they need to make good on it.
You might, at this point, see where this is going.
Then, of course, economics caught up with the marketplace, and companies began to charge for support, sometimes upwards of $100 an hour. People didn’t like it at first. But even that became uneconomical as the internet appeared, and people stopped paying for support when they could get free support on the internet.
I can remember the day when software came with a stack of manuals, sometimes two feet high. Anyone remember the Borland C++ 4.0 box? It was so big it had a handle built into it. (I looked for a picture of it, but couldn’t find a good one…) Of course the company should supply physical documentation with their product!
Then, of course, economics caught up with the marketplace, and companies couldn’t afford to ship all that paper with the product, and the documentation became digital and shipped with the DVD. Hard copy documentation fell by the wayside. People didn’t like it at first.
I can remember the day when software came on DVD’s, and when you ordered a new version of your favorite software package, they mailed you a DVD with a nice case. (Shoot, I can remember when they mailed you 3.5” floppies, but that’s another story.) Of course the company should send you a physical copy of the software. You paid for it, damn it, and you should get a disc!
Then, of course, economics caught up with the marketplace, and now, you don’t even get that DVD. Instead, you get a download link for an ISO file and you burn your own DVD if you want a physical backup. Or you just download an installer. More likely you simply stored the software file on a backup hard drive or, now, in the cloud. People didn’t like it at first.
You definitely should see where this is headed now.
Pretty soon now, we’ll all be looking back on the day when you actually bought a stand-alone license for your software, and you got bug-fix updates with that single purchase. Of course a company should give bug-fixes for free – the product should work right in the first place, and so why should I have to pay to get bug fixes?
But the economics of that are going to catch up with everyone, and soon companies are going to stop selling licenses and start selling only subscriptions. And in order to get updates – including bug fix updates — you will have to have a subscription. People won’t like it at first.
The future is already here for many software tools. Adobe sells only subscriptions for their highly popular graphics tools. Office 365 is sold as a subscription. And if you own either of those, you are – surprise! – paying for bug fixes. This is a trend. Microsoft and Adobe are not small software vendors. You will see more and more software tools being sold this way. It’s inevitable, as economics and the marketplace do their thing and technology enables new business models.
A pause for some thoughts:
- It’s a silly thing to believe that the complex software that you buy should be bug free. No non-trivial software is bug-free. All software is buggy. Everyone knows this. Developers, in particular, should know this. Yet people still argue that the product should be bug-free and that they should be entitled to free bug fixes because they “paid for a product that should work out of the box”. Well, I hate to break it to you, but no software “works right out of the box” and there is nothing that developers can do about it. I’ll say it again: all non-trivial software has bugs and there’s nothing to be done about that.
- Even brilliant developers develop code with bugs in it. Even a clairvoyant QA team won’t find all the bugs.
- All software development requires intense human labor. Bug fixing requires intense human labor. Companies cannot afford to do things for free. Good developers and QA people are not cheap.
- Thus, as we saw with free support, documentation, and DVD’s, something has to give. And that something is the notion of “buying a single, stand-alone license” for your software. It’s going to go away. Software companies are slaves to the marketplace just like every other business in the marketplace, and they are being driven to a subscription model just like they were driven away from free and then paid support, as well as stacks of paper for documentation and DVDs for software distribution.
People won’t like this at first. But they should.
First, the overall cost of a subscription will be less than purchasing upgrades. Subscription fees have so far proven to be a remarkably good deal.
Companies will have vastly more flexibility to add features on a more frequent basis rather than in yearly (or longer) upgrade cycles. Companies that sell only subscriptions can also talk more freely about their future plans because – and I am mentioning this with great trepidation – they won’t have revenue recognition issues with regard to future-looking statements.
And yes, companies will be more motivated to fix bugs – perhaps even bugs in previous versions. Because they will have a steady stream of revenue and because they will be off the “one big release” mentality, they will have more leeway to fix bugs. Because they can bring features to market sooner than they might have before, they can spread the pressure of releasing new features over longer, less focused periods of time. Removing shipping pressure increases quality.
Some will argue that a subscription model incentivizes companies to care less about quality. This is nonsense. It will incentivize them to care more about quality, because there will be no more excuse not to increase quality. If quality doesn’t increase, people won’t renew their subscriptions. And companies will be very, very interested in renewed subscriptions. Low quality will not be a good business model while providing subscriptions. Since feature pressure will be reduced, quality can become more prominent.
Yeah, people won’t like this change. You are probably firing up the comment dialog box as I type this. But I think we all see the benefit of free internet support like StackOverflow, online documentation like wikis, and software downloads that get you your software immediately. Those were changes that we didn’t like at the time, but that we see the value in now.
And so it will be with software subscriptions. So, yes, you are in essence “paying for bug fixes”. But bug fixing is both inevitable and costly. However, you’ll also be getting more frequent updates, more frequent new features, higher quality, and more openness about the future. You’ll always have the latest and greatest version of your software package.
Who doesn’t want that?