Convergence

(This is actually a repost of an entry from before we changed hosting providers. It was lost, but I had a backup. So here it is.)

This weekend I experienced a convergence of thought and I thought that I would share it with you.

First off, two or three weeks ago, I decided I wanted to begin learning some other languages besides English so that I could begin localizing the applications published by DeVoeSquared. I've always had a knack for languages, and in my freshman year of highschool, I ranked sixth in the state of Louisiana for French. So I thought it would be fun to take one of these language packs that contain five to ten different languages and learn them so that I could do the localization myself.

So I headed down my local Apple store, and browsed through the foreign language section. The first problem that I was met with, was that no one seemed to know if any of the applications were written specifically for Mac OS X. When I did my last installation of Mac OS X, classic mode was not installed by default. It isn't that difficult to install but I thought to myself, what OS 9 applications do I use? The answer was none. So why waste the disk space? So now, I deliberately try to avoid purchasing any Mac OS 9 applications. This has worked pretty well. Unfortunately, noone seemed to know if any of the applications worked with OS X.

Well, I purchased one anyway, spending $49 on a package that contained French, German, Italian, Japanese, and a couple of others. Now I might have been naive, thinking that $49 could get me all those different languages. I looked on the box to try to determine how far this application would take me and it seemed to indicate that I should be able to at least have a conversational knowledge of these languages by the time I was finished. However, when I got home, I discovered first off, that it only worked with OS 9. But worse, it was an extremely limited subset of the languages that one would be able to learn. As it turns out, when I went to the company's Web site, I discovered that I could spend an additional $400 and get the kind of application that I really wanted. One that would actually enable me to learn conversational levels of these languages. Well okay, not that big of a deal I thought, I guess I just didn't do my research properly. Unfortunately, now that I had it, I could not return it because it's shrink-wrapped software.

Fast forward a week later. My oldest son has autism. He's not as severe as some kids I've seen, but at age 11, reading is still very difficult for him. Despite this however, he loves to learn new things. At one point, we bought him a computer game about the human body, and he has memorized every bit of spoken text in that game. He can tell you all about how the heart works, how the brain works, etc.. It is truly amazing. So I try to keep my eye out for games that are similar, ones that will teach him something by telling him about it as opposed to forcing him to read lots of text. I found a game that I thought would be right up his alley, it was all about how all the greatest inventions of the world had been invented. And contained detailed three-dimensional models. Now I will admit, nowhere on the box did it say that the text would be read aloud. I just expected that since it was a game for kids, it would be slightly more interactive than just as a few encyclopedia pages with some movies. I was wrong, and I was disappointed. But again, it was just ten dollar game, not that big of a deal.

I don't hold a grudge against the software publisher, they built a product that they feel is good and it's probably good for certain markets. But, frankly, I would like to return the game because it's not what I wanted. But I can't because it's shrink-wrapped software.

What I'm getting at here is that there's something wrong with this picture. To be very specific and sharply pointed, I was ripped off. Twice. And many more times before that. Not because the products are poor but because they simply cannot do what I wanted them to do. They're not buggy. They worked exactly as designed. It's simply that based off of looking at the outside of the box I was misled as to what the product did. But what's worse, is that there's nothing that the software publisher can do as long as they are making shrink-wrapped software. They can't list every single thing that their software does on the outside of the package. And the fact that I can't return the software means I'm stuck with it regardless of whether the feature that I want is actually in the software or not. I mean, marketing departments want to sell their product, that's what they do! So they naturally will try to entice me to buy it. And if I am carried along on that enticement to purchasing something I really didn't want, well, that's not their problem. As a consumer, though, this is broken.

Fast forward again to this morning. I saw an article posted on SlashDot about an open letter that a software developer wrote to another software developer. Go read it , or if you can't get through to that Web site (it's been overloaded all day) then go read the copy posted in this SlashDot comment . Now what this fellow is talking about, is that some people think that open source software is the only way to solve what's broken in software today.

The basis of the argument of the fellow to whom this letter is addressed is that commercial software is "evil". Now its pretty difficult to argue that commercial software itself is evil for no reason other than it being commercial. People have to make a living, and put food on their tables. So why would someone make such a sweeping generalization, unless they themselves have had bad experiences with commercial software. I submit that the root of these bad experiences are experiences like what I have illustrated above. Meaning that, when you purchase shrink-wrapped commercial software, it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain whether you are ultimately going to get the value from the software that you are expecting based off of the price. Microsoft is an extreme example, but one that is appropriate here. Their mistake is not that their software doesn't do what they advertise. Instead, their mistake is that their software is buggy. Further, they force people into buying upgrades to get their bug fixes. (Yes, I know, current versions of the operating system have free upgrades, but many people are still running Windows 95) so even with Microsoft, your stuck feeling that somehow you're getting reamed.

In this case, the letters recipient believes that open source software is the only way to solve his pain. He doesn't want to have to spend $100 on a piece of software and have it not do exactly what he wanted it to do. A $100 is a lot of money. And I would not want to spend that kind of money myself, not knowing if it was going to solve my problem either.

The problems with open source software are illustrated well in the letter itself. I myself am not new to open source software, I started using Linux way back when it was version 0.99pl11 in the early 90s. I had to manually patch my own kernel to add sound support to my system. I was chairman of the Phoenix Linux users group for several years. And I have two Linux servers in my house, right now. But the problem again is that people need to make a living. And I don't think it's necessarily feasible for every one to make a living from support.

I believe that commercial software has itself in a serious pickle. It has made enough users angry to make them want to choose anything other than risking their hard earned dollars on products that may or may not do what they expect them to do. I believe that we need to solve this as an industry or be prepared for extinction. I believe that it is better for the industry to continue making commercial software, but make it possible for potential customers to try a product before that by it, and also to return the product if they are unsatisfied with it after they have purchased it.

(Of course, if you're a DeVoeSquared customer, you already have these abilities and rights.) :)