Jottings Number 74, Reply B, by Peter Naus.
Date: 7/24/97
Quick Thoughts:
3 words : Ownership. Change. Fault.
Ownership : that indefinable quality wherein an individual (induhvidual) or group of individuals takes full responsibility for good results.
Change : that fundament of life, whereby the universe expends energy and so runs down to true entropy, while most individuals expend more energy, and thus hasten true entropy, in futile efforts to withstand change. (See : Change) Fault : Something that is in remarkably short supply in individuals, but is remarkably abundant in others.
Yes, I passed Cynicysm 401 with flying colours. I don't know if this saying is an old one, or one that I truly coined, but my definitions for cynics and skkeptics is that a skeptic does not believe a thing can be done, while a cynic knows it's being done, but for the wrong reason(s).
Microspeak is a wonderful tool. Only in Microspeak can you claim that dirty water exiting from the pipe (regardless of whether the pipe is dirty or not) is clean. Foolish people, can't you see that it's not dirty at all - it's perfectly pure! With additional colloids, suspended vitamins and minerals, rare gases, and a wonderfully refreshing taste, all thrown in (literally!) for free!
we can sell any kind of water out of any kind of pipe! If it's clear, it's "Crystal Clear". If it's murky, it's "95% dirt-free"! If it's undrinkable, it's "Rich and Hearty". If it's poisonous, we can sell it to the Third World as fertiliser!.
How the hell did I get to the Third World??
Anyway.
We all know the old problem with 1.0 version software. It's not going to be any good - wait for version 1.5. The big bugs will be fixed, and maybe the small bugs won't hurt us financially or productively, and anyway, if they do, we'll sue!
The thing I am most surprised at is that no-one has sued Microsoft for Windows 3.0 (or 2.1 or /386). Why is it that if a software house fixes bugs and finally releases a product that works the way it should have 6 iterations ago, they are praised for a "better" product? Claims that a software product "Increases productivity" is a "buy me" sticker. If Ford had advertised the Pinto 2.0 in similar terms, they would have been annihilated by the market. Can't you just see it : "The NEW Ford Pinto GLX. It has better fuel economy, more power, and free AIR! You probably will survive until your next trade-in! (Disclaimer : cars used on public roads and driven by humans are not covered by the previous statement)".
This money thing is a bit of a worry, alright. I think James hit it on the head. It's confirmed whenever you consider our "consumer" products. HP used to make the BEST printers in the world. That's why we sold so many of them. They were reliable, they worked. We weren't so hot with our PC products at first - they tended to be slow, steady, rock-solid performers. Not many of the bells and whistles, just well engineered PC Volvos. We still have major customers using Vectra ES/10 and RS computers for business-critical applications. But customer loyalty to HP isn't all it's made up to be. The customers using the old equipment are pleased enough with the reliability (and, yes, service too!); but they're also frightened to buy a new PC - even from HP! Why should they fork out money for a product with the lifespan of a honeybee?
I think a lot of big manufacturers, not just HP, have lost the plot in a number of ways. They produce more flimsy, B-grade trash than ever before. Their customers are deserting them in droves (our REAL customers, I mean, not the 10 or 20 corporate accounts who don't buy elsewhere because they can't afford to change their vendor). From my vantage point as a hardware escalation engineer, I heard so many customers saying that if it wasn't for the 2686 laser printer that still sits in the corner churning out paper, they wouldn't have bought HP equipment. Despite repeated hardware malfunctions, reliability issues, and proactive information being fed back to the start of the "pipe", we continued to build computers I wouldn't use as boat anchors because they corrode too quickly. And they get worse. Our instruments? They keep getting better, although I understand some loss of quality is evident even there.
I think there has to be a capacity for honest appraisal of our work by ourselves, before a corporate entity will be able to do the same for itself, and learn from mistakes instead of apportioning blame. It's the demographic, we cry; It's the market forces; It's the environment; It's the stockholders; it's the competition. It's everybody but us.
What I don't like or understand is the gristle of corporate fear of profits falling, and customers leaving, and public perceptions, if they're SEEN to make a mistake. Then the blind twitching and squirming and rictus of internal reorganisation as they scamper to avoid blame (which is almost as good as learning from a mistake, but far less costly) and then try to make more, instead of better. I think Phaedrus had it right : there is a 'classical' Quality, and an 'intrinsic' Quality in all things, and we can only do things better when we understand that difference. It seems many people, myself included, have lost to a greater or lesser degree that ability to differentiate between 'better' and 'more'.
Whew. That's 'better'. ;)