The Bane of Forced Obsolescence (Page 2 of 3)
Written by
Steve Lake
Posted on: Feb 19, 2007 at 02:44pm
Section:
Editorials
Printer Friendly Version
Legacy URL
But if security is the issue, the company should have to foot that bill for the upgrade by giving away free patches or full upgrades unless the transfer between versions is too great. For example. If a customer has version 2.5 and 2.6 is out, they shouldn’t have to pay to get 2.6 just because of a security issue that is the fault of the software company. Now if they have 2.0 and 3.0 or 4.0 is out, then yes, the customer waited long enough that the company has every right to charge them for the new version because they’re getting more than just a security update. They’re also getting a whole slew of new features. Even if for example 2.6 has a bunch more features than 2.5, the jump is small enough that customers shouldn’t have to pay for the upgrade due to a few security issues which forced the upgrade. But if the new features or changes are significant enough to warrant charging a fee, then a small upgrade fee would be applicable. But certainly not the full upgrade or full version price. Some software companies already do this as part of their support cycle, but there are a lot more who don’t. I also hate faked obsolescence. IE, providing supposedly new software that is nothing more than the old software in new clothing. For example, I’ve looked at some programs that were supposedly full upgrades of the previous version and struggled to find what was new about them aside from a cool new UI and some eye candy. The upgrade wasn’t required for any reason other than the company said you “had to have it or else.” I’d like to know what that “or else” was, because it certainly couldn’t have been worth spending all that money for a pointless upgrade that did nothing more than the original.
And not just to point fingers at the software companies for forced obsolescence, bloatware and forced upgrades, I want to look at the hardware companies too. I have a few things to say to the hardware OEM. First, to the PC chip makers. The Mhz wars are over. Stop trying to outdo each other on the speed frontier. By this point in history it’s pointless and childish to continue it. Instead of trying to make faster chips, try making more power friendly ones. Make them cooler. Make them smaller. Iron all the bugs out of the current design before you push for your next mhz boost. Two cores is fine. Four cores is a bit much. Eight is excessive. And eighty?? Now that’s just absurd and unnecessary. Just stick with two cores and stick to making the chips smaller, cooler, and WAY more power efficient than they currently are while maintaining the currently achieved speeds. And to the video card makers, I have a few things to say. A power requirement of 250w for a video card is ridiculous!! Video cards should not be required to have two or three power plugs just to satisfy their appetite for power! The PCIe or AGP bus should provide everything needed. And who needs three to four cards in their system to get everything they need?? Video cards should be no bigger than what the ATI 9800 was and everything needed should be able to fit onto a circuit board no bigger than the 9800 used. There’s no way you should need to take up two expansion slots on your PC just fit in a video card. Everything should be able to fit onto one card that runs cool, is power efficient with a low profit and is space conscious in the case. Anything that takes up two expansion slots is just hardware bloat.
Now, if anyone needs any example of why such continued hard driving tactics of hardware expansion is destined to fail, they need look no farther than WW2. While WW2 really doesn’t have anything to do with modern technology, the examples are just as applicable. There are many cases during the war where generals pushed forward relentlessly, moving with all speed and available resources to achieve their targets. Sure, they pushed the enemy into a corner in the process, but the problem came when the enemy counter attacked. Since they had pushed so far, so fast, they were stretched too thin, their supply lines were too long, and they were vulnerable on all sides. Rommel is a great example of this. Using his brilliant tactical skills, he pushed through Africa several times, conquering the northern part of the continent with lightning speed only to come to the end of his resources and be thrown back just as quickly which cost him dearly in lives, men, equipment, and most importantly, land. You can see the same thing in the tech industry. There are too many companies who are over committed and the casualties are already mounting. Sony is another great example of this with the PS3. Sure, it’s a state of the art bleeding edge gaming console with a lot of technology that holds a lot of promise. The problem is that it’s too much, too soon at too great a cost and ultimately it failed before ever really getting started. Yet the Nintendo Wii came onto the scene with slightly above average technology and has sold like hotcakes. Proof again that having the latest and greatest technology is not always a win all formula for success.
|
Average vistor rating: 4.6 out of 5 (5 total votes) | |
