Forum Posts Feed
UltraRecall v4 update worth it?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Aug 22, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Mark wrote:
>
>Somebody is wrong on the Internet, and I must correct them!
>
>
>http://xkcd.com/386/
>
>Jan, with all due respect, that’s not fair.
>
>You
>write:
>
>> Some time ago Kinook announced the cessation of further development of URp
>except for bugs & compatibility issues. When I commented on this on their fourm, they
>fudged the statement but never came clean on the issue realizing that the
>announcement was probably bad for business.
>
>A more charitable reading would be
>that they changed their minds. Excuse, don?t accuse, as a wise mother (not mine) might
>say. And no, I don?t want to rehash your exchanges with them back then.
Had the exchanges been thoroughly “hashed,” avoiding rehashing might be the better wisdom. They haven’t been.
The only “excuse” for banning a poster for criticizing the product is an apology and reinstatement. Prohibiting free discussion of a product - even misguided criticism - is an ineradicable stain on a developer’s credibility. Forum censorship is fortunately *not* the norm. The only developers I know who have committed this grievous misdeed are ADM and Opera Software (the browser). I might use or even pay for such a product - but I would never praise it without the strongest qualifications.
Posted by quant
Aug 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>... The only developers I know who have committed this grievous misdeed
>are ADM and Opera Software (the browser). I might use or even pay for such a product - but
>I would never praise it without the strongest qualifications.
Kinook made a huge mistake of announcing that they will only correct bugs from now on, thing that only the most naive and fair business would do (surely, they are very bad businessmen ;-) ).
Jan kept on pushing and asking them to come clean (about at that time removed nonexistent statement) in every new thread that had sth to do with development, when it was obvious that it was closed issue for Kinook (whether they changed their mind or not) because they didn’t answer such questions from several users (myself included) in the original thread where the announcement was made. So, from their point of view, Jan became forum spammer ;-)
To add to your list, Milenix (MyInfo) developers removed (didn’t publish) my comments when they announced MyInfo v4. They falsely claimed with big letters that they are the first PIM with customizable attributes pane when UR had it for years ... they didn’t post my comments, neither removed the false claims nor sent me any email with explanation ...
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Aug 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The age of the Internet has certainly changed the nature of the relationship between producers and consumers. I can sympathize with companies that try to find the right balance of sharing information with customers and not telling them too much… it’s the old “You don’t want to know how your sausage is made” point. Why Kinook didn’t address this issue when they first made and then retracted the statement about further development of UR is a mystery. It seems to me they could easily have put the whole thing to rest then and there. Then silencing Jan’s voice was another dumb move… companies need to realize that in this day and age there are many other venues for frustrated customers to air their grievances. Better to let them do so and address those grievances.
Most customers want to believe in the companies they are supporting, and will give them the benefit of the doubt. I think that is why Tom Davis of Zoot is cut so much slack by Zooter-nation. He constantly over-promises on delivery of new versions. But the product works and everyone believes—rightly or wrongly—that Tom does the best he can as a single-person developer. The fact that he continually improved Zoot (even though it was only a 16-bit application) and never charged an upgrade fee—I mean, we’re talking eight years or so—also helped. Then, when Zoot 5 (the 32-bit version) finally came out last year, I was glad to pay the upgrade fee. And with the new version, 6.0, just around the corner (we hope), Tom is saying there will be no upgrade fee for those who upgraded to or initially bought 5.0, even though 6.0 introduces a host of additional features. It’s for these reasons, I think, that most Zooters have remained loyal.
Steve Z.
Posted by $Bill
Aug 23, 2009 at 03:13 PM
I’ll a addendum to quant’s recap of the momentary drama of UltraRecall. Thankfully, Jan’s assertion that the announcement was pulled and replaced to swindle us out of our money (a la ADA) - that the developers were likely unethical and had no intention of continuing development nor bug fixing - was a false premise. The UR developers, clearly not being PR experts nor marketeers, have responded in a more traditional and worthy manner. The developers have demonstrated their commitment with quick bug fixes and have now added the new features that they promised on the roadmap that they announced. They are very responsive in the UR forum. They have an updated “road map” of features that are mostly refinements to their feature rich software.
The UltraRecall forums are still not a place to do “social networking” with the developers. Questions are answered effectively and promptly. Lengthy dialogs are not the norm. (Quant is a most valuable resource in that forum :-) ) The technical documentation of each feature and menu choice UR is thorough. While UR can be used to do simple things easily - UR has a lot of depth.
I can confidently recommend UR to someone looking for mature, stable software with an extensive and gradually growing- feature set that is useful TODAY. If you enjoy being a part of a community that troubleshoots, finds bugs, refines rough features or living on the bleeding edge - I would look elsewhere.
Posted by Jan Rifkinson
Aug 24, 2009 at 12:20 AM
@ $Bill: you quote me as saying:
>Jan’s assertion that the announcement was pulled and replaced to swindle us out of our money (a la ADA) -
>that the developers were likely unethical and had no intention of continuing development nor bug fixing - was a false premise.
I think you’d better find that post & post it here as I don’t believe I ever said that. If I did I was wrong.
However, I do remember insisting that Kinook come clean with their intentions so no one—myself included—was under any delusions. And whenever some naif came aboard & offered a suggestion or asked for an improvement, rather than see them wait around when nothing was going to happen, I pointed them to what the developers posted @ the time which was: only compatibility issues & bugs were going to be addressed.
I have consistently said that URp is a mature, capable & stable program that is on the list of excellent data gatherers & people should look @ it despite the developers saying that had halted further development.
I didn’t make anything up & I haven’t made anything up. Prove your statement quoted above or take it back.
Let’s at least have some honesty on this forum.
—
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA