From: paul@hal.COM (Paul Sander)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
Subject: Re: Reporting bugs in A/UX
Summary: Support programs
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:35:04 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: parlo.hal.com

In article <1992Sep2.054029.7176@panix.com> alexis@panix.com (Alexis Rosen)
writes:
>dundas@chip.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (John Dundas) writes:
> [Complains that bugs reported via comp.unix.aux and
>  reports.aux@applelink.apple.com go unacknowledged]
>
>*Flame On*
>
>Forget it. You're wasting your time. If you're really lucky, one of the
>engineers who knows that area will hear, in which case s/he'll probably
>try to fix it, _if_ the time is available (according to group leaders or
>whatever they're called), and may actually let you know and have a patch
>before 3.1 or 4.0 comes out.
>
>Apple has already blown it in the Unix market so badly that there's no chance
>they'll ever succeed, unless possibly the PowerRISC machine is an incredible
>hit. One of the reasons for this is that they don't behave like a "big Unix
>vendor" ought to. And bug reports are a prime example of this kind of problem.
>
>*Flame Off*

I don't know about that.  Apple's telephone technical support has improved
about 1000% for me over the past few months.  They return my telephone calls,
and report progress of bugs that I report.  They've solved some problems over
the phone for me, and have escalated other problems to engineering.  They're
a bit slower than I'd like (I still have a couple of crucial bugs open with no
resolution in sight), but it's much improved.  Plus, you get 1 year's
worth of phone support for free (up from 3 months when 2.0.1 was released)
when you license A/UX 3.0 .  They even have a toll-free telephone number you
can call from anywhere in the USA.

I believe that it is a sound business decision to support only those
customers who have purchased support.  Since everyone gets a year's worth
bundled with their 3.0 license, there's no excuse not to use it.  If you're
reporting bugs to reports.aux@applelink.apple.com and including your access
number, then Apple should treat them as if it were called in.  (If Apple don't,
then maybe they should reconsider this position.)  On the other hand, noting
bugs reported by unsupported users and giving them low priorities is typical
for a Unix vendor; Sun, DEC, and IBM (each of whom claim to be big Unix
vendors) all do this.

In addition, even if you do need to actually _purchase_ support (as I did
for 2.0.1), the pricing is half that of 3rd party Sun support companies,
which charge less than Sun do for inferior service, and who in turn charge
less than DEC and IBM.  And, Apple sells a stripped-down support service
that caps the number of calls you can make in a fixed time period, if your
support needs aren't great and your budget is low.

Sounds to me like Apple's support organization is far superior to their
competitors'.  No, Apple does not behave like a big Unix vendor, thankfully.
They act like a small systems vendor, and as such are able to provide
superior service to the little guy.  And this is quite a feat, considering
how many different ways small systems can be configured and various side
effects that may interact.
-- 
Paul M. Sander  (408) 379-7000  |  "No guts, no glory"
HaL Computer Systems, Inc.      |  -- Bumper Sticker
1315 Dell Avenue                |  "No brains, no headaches"
Campbell, CA  95008  USA        |  -- Mindy Lee