[c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?

[Adam Armstrong]

e ninja wrote:
> Nick,
> *
> inline...*
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:
>
>   
>> On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> No it is not right.
>>>
>>>    1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for
>>> bug
>>>    fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3
>>>
>>>       
>> That is an interesting wish-list.  Have you considered what it would do to
>> the price of software if vendors were made liable?
>>     
>
> *
> So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? When
> was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start?
> Software is always "new" because it can't break from over-use.* *Do
> Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? *
>   
>>  I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits.
>>  Worse still, open source would be killed by it.
>>     
> *
> The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open source
> software is free.*
>   
In the UK we have laws stating that products should be fit for the 
purpose they're sold for (IANAL, though). Perhaps if it was tested in 
court properly, it would mean bug fixes which would prevent the use of 
the software safely would have to be provided free?  I do, however, 
suspect that EULAs try to strip away as much legal protection as 
possible from the customer.

>>  I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything
>> or contribute anything to open source software.
>>
>>     
> *
> N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not
> liable for the product.*
>
>   
>>     2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is
>>     
>>> extortion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion>- a criminal act -
>>> seek legal counse
>> Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support
>> subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that
>> the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the
>> manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one.
>>     
> *
> I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software.
> Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in
> proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you
> discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.*
>   
Think of hardware support as "insurance". The cost of providing the 
service when it finally breaks is spread across the entire lifetime of 
the contract. If someone has a device unsupported for 5 years, takes out 
support and it dies 2 years later, the supplier has lost the vast 
majority of the money they'd have used to pay for the replacement.

Now, I don't think this should be the case for simple software upgrades, 
but I can see why it's the case for hardware replacement contracts. (And 
I can see why recert exists).

adam.