Comments on: the six laws of software

By: jim wilde

jim wilde — Fri, 06 May 2005 19:08:48 +0000

Hey Hugh,
I have a simple solution created around open source software that is making a difference in organizations right now. It is not so much about “reduce a company’s internal cultural friction”, although that may be the result — but more about embracing that friction on many levels across the business to create new and better offerings, processes, and strategies. Everybody gets to participate and have a voice; it is not about a c-level show and the one big idea. Email me or check out my site for more info.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 03 May 2005 00:35:36 +0000

sig, good software may take ten years, but "good enough" software takes significantly less. So maybe we do have all the software we need but a lot of it isn't "good enough" quite yet. Perhaps "The Six Laws" are what we need to push the barely adequate (or worse) software we have now into the good enough category. Personally, I think that any software that requires you to think about IT, rather than what you are really trying to do (write a book, create a logo, etc.) is a failure. If you've ever switched to "Print Preview" mode in an application, then you know what I mean. I think that problem may be possible to overcome, someday at least, but I'm afraid I don't see how that would eliminate cultural disruption. Then again, if everyone is thinking about what they're trying to do rather than how they're doing it, maybe some of the cultural disruption disappears automatically.

By: oheloxi

oheloxi — Mon, 02 May 2005 17:03:21 +0000

you assume too much. I am not software spotter / collector.
more than 40% is illegal that is high percentage to say that software is not expensive, if was much lower it might be that.
another question how many people would use it if the subscription model was used. I am talking about people who found it too expensive and do not want to use illegal.
I think that software makers lost their eyes on the demand, because they create and the people must use it, but only with their price. you can see that people do not like it, because they look for increase of illegal or freeware or open source.
I rather support the mozilla, than pay for it. I want that choice!

By: MarkN

MarkN — Mon, 02 May 2005 10:27:12 +0000

The software isn’t too expensive, its that you’re not in the target market. Piracy is simply a way of reducing the cost enough for you to justify using it. Kind of like knowing how to lie to an auto insurance company or to the front desk at a typical chain hotel.
Its yield management, man. Sometimes they really don’t want your business because not having you as a customer actually makes them more money.

By: pheloxi

pheloxi — Mon, 02 May 2005 03:08:06 +0000

one of problems with software is that it too expensive it drives people to illegal copying. in some countries is more than 40% of the software an illegal copy. may be it is time change the business model to a subscription like model, because it is better get some money than no money at all.
another problem is that software makers who keep only making software that is not using the “OS settings” and use small fonts only. two examples:
http://www.blinkx.com/
– website and software unreadable for visual impaired and the blind.
– I know it is free, but it would have a lot more users if they used “adjustable settings”.
– they are also not very good listeners. I advice them twice to add “adjustable settings” since they started a few years back..
– the current version is a waste of money.
http://www.ifinger.com/
– do not forget to use cookies, because otherwise you can not even see the website.
– they said they would do something about “adjustable setting” 2 years ago.
– there is paid version, but I would never pay for it.
both might very interesting, but unusable software, but because the software makers narrow minded view of the users.
I want public apology from them on their website, before I would start to use it!

By: sig

sig — Sun, 01 May 2005 23:46:37 +0000

Ahh, forgot to mention an alternative take on software — one of my favourites: Joel Spolsky’s “Good Software Takes Ten Years. Get Used To It.“
Here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html
That would be software that makes an impact, not “just another CRM, toaster etc.” that should not take ten years… that would spell disaster for the developer

By: sig

sig — Sun, 01 May 2005 23:11:27 +0000

Have to admit I agree with his views, as long as his assumptions are valid.
Assumption is that organisational culture (the way we do things) is unchanged.
CRM, BPM, ERP and whatever are totally and completely dependent on the current structures and methodlogies — the organisational culture.
Then he’s probably right.
Just like the IBM chap who stated that the world market for computers would be six. His assumption were also quite simple, computers where huge and used for scientific calculations. And we know what happened…
If you blow a hole in the assumption and say that organisational structures, business methodology, management theories and practice will change — then there will be a whole new market, a huge one as the old stuff would not work, at least not well.
I can hear the argument though that the companies will not have any change, status quo is good enough etc.
And I agree to that too, that is until one single company does it. Changes its culture in complete and new ways — resulting in some major leap in competitiveness (why else do it?), then we all know what will happen.
Everybody else will run for thee samee door as fast as they can.
Add that there in fact is a movement towards experimenting in that direction — Hugh said it, he wants to reduce internal cultural friction. And what about asking all the million of Dilbert readers? Supect they’re mostly for some changes too…
Thus I would rephrase from “…have all the software they need.” to “…have all the software they need today.“
So no need to despair if you’re in software, just free yourself from the current thinking, make something for the future that (very important for the cash-flow) can be used today.
Eternally optimistic I am (which in the mind of my pessimistic friends is called unrealistic, I don’t mind that