| > This kind of offer really frosts my *ss. The next time GTI (or whoever they
> are) beats their drums and announces availability of a hot new
> game/variation on DOOM, I believe I will simply wait for all the
> "cheap/easy" access methods to be available instead of sending them cash "up
> front" and paying through the nose for a product that will probably be
> available within 90 days via a variety of sources at a discount to the
> initial price.
IMO, by paying in advance, one is giving software companies a disincentive to
release products on time, without bugs, and with reasonable customer
and sales service. Once they have your money, they've got no reason to
release a quality product on time -- you're stuck with whatever they choose to
give you -- you have given up your 'free market rights.'
Call me an old fashioned, callous ass, but IMO giving money to somebody and
not getting anything in return (immediately -- "I put this here $40 in your
hand, you put that there software in my hand.") is foolish. Yer just askin to
be taken for a ride!
Mail order for *hardware* in the PC biz originally started out somewhat
fly-by-night (or at least that was the general perception), because people
received (or were fearful of receiving) low quality equipment. Brand name was
a big deal. IBM and the like made megabux off their name and their quality
hardware and service, and took advantage of an oligopolistic market
(semi-monopoly, large margin). But there was a niche for lower-quality,
low-service and MUCH LOWER price hardware -- the mailorder PC biz -- and it
grew into a sizeable market containing many small companies. Then competition
got fierce. Quality then became a product differentiator in the mailorder PC
hardware biz. The software industry has yet to become as competitive to
require this, but this too will come with time.
Also, I see a psychological transferrance of perceived quality. People assume
quality in their PC hardware, and rightfully so. The market dictates that in
order to play today in the PC hardware biz you MUST produce quality products
at competitive prices or you will lose market share. This immediately obvious
when it comes to core computer components like memory SIMMs, disk drives, and
CPUs -- e.g. look what happened with Intel and their FDIV bug. It is less
obvious when it comes to sound cards, CD-ROMs, mice, etc., but companies like
Gateway 2000 who vary their product set often take a lot of flak and have
increased 'hidden' costs associated with retraining sales/customer-service/
tech-support staff to assist their customers when they have problems, which
occur at higher average frequency because of the turnover in product set. But
Ted Waitt is learning about the hidden costs of low-quality (e.g. their reason
for switching to Sony from Mag for monitors).
I propose that some consumers are 'assuming quality' for software, and they're
getting burned. While there are some software companies that appear to
consistently offer high quality products (Lucas Arts comes to mind -
Xwing/TIE, DOTT, Rebel Assault, etc.), there are some who appear to produce
low quality products (Origin comes to mind - Pacific Strike, WC3 install woes,
etc.). Granted one's definition of quality varies from person to person when
it comes to software, since unlike hardware there is more to it than just
turning it on, you have to enjoy USING it. Genre, interface, and 'eye-candy'
will all affect the market demand for a software product. In this sense, the
software producers have some control over the market, and I postulate that
this has allowed them to remain successful selling low quality products.
Perhaps this has evolved in this way because the price for software is low
enough that people don't care whether the products are made and sold with
quality and integrity. If consumers care enough about their <$100 purchases,
then they will buy what meets their minimum criteria for quality.
Maybe so, maybe not. Either way, it's a hell of a subject for a B-school
thesis! Hmmmm.... :-)
- jeff_with_business_shool_hat_on
|