Jump to content

Are Firmware Updates "Pre-Planed" in Advance?


Didjerrydo

Recommended Posts

After wrestling with the many, many issues that need fixing on the Colorado 300, I began to wonder if Garmin intentionally puts new units out there knowing in advance that they will change certain features and functions at a later pre-determined date? Surely lots of the issues with this unit were pretty obvious and would have been seen by the engineers and tech wizzards that develop these units.

Is there a purpose in doing this or is it just a result of rushing s a product to market half baked?

Link to comment

After wrestling with the many, many issues that need fixing on the Colorado 300, I began to wonder if Garmin intentionally puts new units out there knowing in advance that they will change certain features and functions at a later pre-determined date? Surely lots of the issues with this unit were pretty obvious and would have been seen by the engineers and tech wizzards that develop these units.

Is there a purpose in doing this or is it just a result of rushing s a product to market half baked?

Maybe some things engineer to manufacture smooth, maybe some things don't. Deadlines, spare parts shortages, concessions with the manufacturers, price considerations maybe weigh in also.
Link to comment

i could understand if they implement the features from the old generation and some new buggy features (and have to less time).

But now they missed the old features and have a really big list of bugs - that doesn't make any sense for me.

 

Garmin will not have enough engineers to get a good version before Q4/08

 

they should change it to open source :ph34r:

Link to comment

I don't how to respond here. The title itself is a non-sensical, misspelled redundancy. Once we get that parsed out, perhaps I can compose an answer.

 

So, let's look at it: "....."Pre-planed" in Advance?"

1. I assumed that we are not making a piece of wood flat and that we are dealing with the past tense of the verb "to plan", which is "planned."

2. Let's assume for a minute that there is such a thing as "pre-planned", which there really isn't as described in #3, below, and look at the redundancy. Which redundancy is ""Pre-Planned" in Advance." What's up with that? If it is "pre-planned", how can it not be in advance? If it truly has been "pre-planned", how could it possibly have been planned after the fact. As an obvious redundancy the condition "in Advance" adds nothing whatsover to the context of the title and is totally superfluous.

3. Now, about pre-planned as a combination word, does the addition of the prefix "pre" make any sense in distinction if there is no such thing as "post-planning." Not only is post planning implausible at best, even if possible in a sequence of events, who would admit to having done such. That's tantamount to the drunk telling the cop that he had more than the overwhelmingly admtted to consumption of only two beers. So, having established that there can be no such thing described as "post-planned", then there is nothing to be gained by using the term "pre-planned" as there is no "post-" from which to distinguish just good old, everyday planning.

 

Now, if somebody could re-title this topic, I might be able to provide an answer. :D

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

I don't how to respond here. The title itself is a non-sensical, misspelled redundancy. Once we get that parsed out, perhaps I can compose an answer.

 

So, let's look at it: "....."Pre-planed" in Advance?"

1. I assumed that we are not making a piece of wood flat and that we are dealing with the past tense of the verb "to plan", which is "planned."

2. Let's assume for a minute that there is such a thing as "pre-planned", which there really isn't as described in #3, below, and look at the redundancy. Which redundancy is ""Pre-Planned" in Advance." What's up with that? If it is "pre-planned", how can it not be in advance? If it truly has been "pre-planned", how could it possibly have been planned after the fact. As an obvious redundancy the condition "in Advance" adds nothing whatsover to the context of the title and is totally superfluous.

3. Now, about pre-planned as a combination word, does the addition of the prefix "pre" make any sense in distinction if there is no such thing as "post-planning." Not only is post planning implausible at best, even if possible in a sequence of events, who would admit to having done such. That's tantamount to the drunk telling the cop that he had more than the overwhelmingly admtted to consumption of only two beers. So, having established that there can be no such thing described as "post-planned", then there is nothing to be gained by using the term "pre-planned" as there is no "post-" from which to distinguish just good old, everyday planning.

 

Now, if somebody could re-title this topic, I might be able to provide an answer. :D

 

You sound like a really nice person that I would like to know! I've seen this attitude a lot on this forum. I've never encountered this on any other forum anywhere before. This tells me a lot about several of the participants here!

Edited by Didjerrydo
Link to comment

I don't how to respond here. The title itself is a non-sensical, misspelled redundancy. Once we get that parsed out, perhaps I can compose an answer.

What's this? A grammar & usage junkie on the Groundspeak forums?

That just warms the cockles of my former-english-major heart. :D

 

Should anyone be interested, in the book Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace there is an essay entitled "Authority and American Usage". If you're truly a grammar & usage junkie, I highly recommend it. It is hilarious.

Link to comment

 

You sound like a really nice person that I would like to know! I've seen this attitude a lot on this forum. I've never encountered this on any other forum anywhere before. This tells me a lot about several of the participants here!

 

Roger that, primarily, I am a nice guy. Secondarily, I'm an amateur lexicologist. Tertiaraly, .......

 

Oh yeah, one other item: If you observe a misspelling in my pontifications, it isn't; however, I will admit to an occasional typo. :D

Link to comment

MBAs run the corporate world and they are only motivated by next quarters results. They don't lose sleep over putting out defective products. I am sure there is some thought to seeing how users use a device and making improvements, but I think most updates are reactionary rather than planned.

Regarding the appropriatness of the nature of my response in Post #6, I see it as no less appropriate than the negative, uninformed drivel immediately above.

 

Later in the day, most likely this evening, I will post a response germane to my interpretation of the original subject.

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

MBAs run the corporate world and they are only motivated by next quarters results. They don't lose sleep over putting out defective products. I am sure there is some thought to seeing how users use a device and making improvements, but I think most updates are reactionary rather than planned.

Regarding the appropriatess of the nature of my response in Post #6, I see it as no less appropriate than the negative, uninformed drivel immediately above.

 

Later in the day, most likely this evening, I will post a response germane to my interpretation of the original subject.

 

What is your point here, simply to make trouble and genetate heated responses? I thought a forum such as this was to help people with problems with GPS units and activities concerning them. Most participants have enough sense to use it for its intended purpose and show courtesy to fellow posters, not pick at their spelling or grammer. If all you are on here for is to irritate other people and cause trouble, why don't you do your thing elsewhere. I'm sure most folks would appreciate that!

Link to comment

I don't how to respond here. The title itself is a non-sensical, misspelled redundancy. Once we get that parsed out, perhaps I can compose an answer.

 

So, let's look at it: "....."Pre-planed" in Advance?"

1. I assumed that we are not making a piece of wood flat and that we are dealing with the past tense of the verb "to plan", which is "planned."

2. Let's assume for a minute that there is such a thing as "pre-planned", which there really isn't as described in #3, below, and look at the redundancy. Which redundancy is ""Pre-Planned" in Advance." What's up with that? If it is "pre-planned", how can it not be in advance? If it truly has been "pre-planned", how could it possibly have been planned after the fact. As an obvious redundancy the condition "in Advance" adds nothing whatsover to the context of the title and is totally superfluous.

3. Now, about pre-planned as a combination word, does the addition of the prefix "pre" make any sense in distinction if there is no such thing as "post-planning." Not only is post planning implausible at best, even if possible in a sequence of events, who would admit to having done such. That's tantamount to the drunk telling the cop that he had more than the overwhelmingly admtted to consumption of only two beers. So, having established that there can be no such thing described as "post-planned", then there is nothing to be gained by using the term "pre-planned" as there is no "post-" from which to distinguish just good old, everyday planning.

 

Now, if somebody could re-title this topic, I might be able to provide an answer. ;)

 

You sound like a really nice person that I would like to know! I've seen this attitude a lot on this forum. I've never encountered this on any other forum anywhere before. This tells me a lot about several of the participants here!

 

And here I thought this response was Team CowboyPapa's way of saying that pre-planning does not necessarily pre-empt problems as evidenced by the OP's errors when trying to articulate his pre-disposed ideas about pre-duction of a pre-mier pre-cision GPS. :ph34r:

Link to comment

What is your point here, simply to make trouble and genetate heated responses? I thought a forum such as this was to help people with problems with GPS units and activities concerning them. Most participants have enough sense to use it for its intended purpose and show courtesy to fellow posters, not pick at their spelling or grammer. If all you are on here for is to irritate other people and cause trouble, why don't you do your thing elsewhere. I'm sure most folks would appreciate that!

 

Hey, apologies if I've increased your hostility factor. Such was never the intent of my initial response. It was simply an effort to stall while I collected my thoughts and in the meantime, offer a minor missive in writing and compostiion.

Now, as mentioned earlier today, I just came back to offer my insights in response to the original question. However, I certainly do not want to further ruffle any feathers, so I'll just refrain.

 

Furthermore, as opposed to spending my time and energy answering the firmware question posed above, I can better use my time resolving an extremely pressing firmware issue of my own, right here and now. It may come as no surprise to some, but the model 53D of Betty Crocker coffee makers have been doing a good job with Folger's brand but make very acidic tasting coffee when Hill's Bros beans are installed. Well I think that I have a solution to that now as I have modified the coffee maker firmware to ramp up the heating element to.................. :ph34r:

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

Would you rather they abandon the product at launch?

I'd like to respond to this in the affirmative; however, as noted in the quote in my previous post above, it's been requested that I go elswhere, which I interpret as not physically in the geographical sense, but not to further add substance to the issue. As a consequence, to be in compliance with such, I'll decline a resposne.

Link to comment

MBAs run the corporate world and they are only motivated by next quarters results. They don't lose sleep over putting out defective products. I am sure there is some thought to seeing how users use a device and making improvements, but I think most updates are reactionary rather than planned.

Regarding the appropriatness of the nature of my response in Post #6, I see it as no less appropriate than the negative, uninformed drivel immediately above.

 

So it is negative, uninformed drivel? Seems your statement is even more negative than mine. Ironic that you try to justify your post based on another's post. Am I responsible for your actions? Did I hit a nerve? Do you have an MBA?

 

If it is such drivel, how do you explain both Garmin and Magellan's latest product releases being riddled with bugs and deficiencies? Maybe you can apply your superior intellect to that question?

Link to comment

 

So it is negative, uninformed drivel? Seems your statement is even more negative than mine. Ironic that you try to justify your post based on another's post. Am I responsible for your actions? Did I hit a nerve? Do you have an MBA?

 

If it is such drivel, how do you explain both Garmin and Magellan's latest product releases being riddled with bugs and deficiencies? Maybe you can apply your superior intellect to that question?

 

Hey, TS, I'm really caught 'twixt and 'tween here. I've been asked not to particpate above in Post #13 and now you are asking for the answers that I volunteered in Post #12, which was prior to #13. Help me out here, my head is spinning. Can you folks get together and decide what you really want? I'd just be happy to make you happy. :ph34r:

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

 

So it is negative, uninformed drivel? Seems your statement is even more negative than mine. Ironic that you try to justify your post based on another's post. Am I responsible for your actions? Did I hit a nerve? Do you have an MBA?

 

If it is such drivel, how do you explain both Garmin and Magellan's latest product releases being riddled with bugs and deficiencies? Maybe you can apply your superior intellect to that question?

 

Hey, TS, I'm really caught 'twixt and 'tween here. I've been asked not to particpate above in Post #13 and now you are asking for the answers that I volunteered in Post #12, which was prior to #13. Help me out here, my head is spinning. Can you folks get together and decide what you really want? I'd just be happy to make you happy. :ph34r:

 

I see you can count as well as spell and use proper grammar, maybe you do have an MBA?

Link to comment

I think that companies now realize that it is impossible from a practical and reasonable standpoint to attempt to withold release of software until bugs are at a zero level. They test and test and sometimes that has to come to an end. One has to expect that the only bugs remaining are the ones that are extremely difficult to stumble on accidently. There comes a time when they just have to release it and whatever in the Greek alphabet comes after Beta, we, the comsumers are that level of testers.

 

Witness any other software: Windows XP? Nero 5? Windows ME? DVD+RW drive firmware?

 

If you wait for perfection, you'll come to know eternity.

 

If software with bugs is not acceptable to you, buy nothing more modern than a '50s Toastmaster (4 slicer will do) and you'll be safe. ;)

 

Now the above deals only with firmware/software updates due to the bugs inherent in software. There are other real good reasons for updates on which I'll pontificate later.

Link to comment

I don't how to respond here.

I just have to know. Is this proper grammer????

If you mean grammar as opposed to a cute abbreviation, or diminutive, of one whose vocation is computer (pro)grammer, I'll understand the question and provide a response.

 

OTOH, I note that 3 Hawks suggested a cease and truce several posts above to which it seems that I immediately agreed, however, the acceptance of such seems to be less than 100%.

Link to comment
I'll decline a resposne.
This must be proper spelling.

Apart from that, I think you analysis is correct. If there's a release date, then there is, ready or not. The good thing is that it can be fixed after the fact. The bad thing is that everyone relies on that.

 

Actually, it is not proper spelling. My highest congratulations on your find.

 

OTOH, if you can scroll back up you might notice that I've dealt with the possibility of such. A misspelling out of ignorance it is not; an inability to make all ten fingers work in the correct position and in the correct sequence is the issue in this instance.

Link to comment

If there's a release date, then there is, ready or not. The good thing is that it can be fixed after the fact. The bad thing is that everyone relies on that.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with that in principle, although it may happen occasionally. That is, that as a matter of course they release software with known bugs. I think it is usually the case that they release having fixed all that they have found up till then. However, I don't know that as a fact, and there may be some who release knowing that there are issues, unresolved, at the time.

Link to comment

 

If you mean grammar as opposed to a cute abbreviation, or diminutive, of one whose vocation is computer (pro)grammer, I'll understand the question and provide a response.

 

Sorry for the spelling, however I am not an amateur lexicologist. I just find it VERY funny that your extremely pompous first post started with improper GRAMMAR.

Edited by sdcanoe
Link to comment

 

If you mean grammar as opposed to a cute abbreviation, or diminutive, of one whose vocation is computer (pro)grammer, I'll understand the question and provide a response.

 

Sorry for the spelling, however I am not an amateur lexicologist. I just find it VERY funny that your extremely pompous first post started with improper GRAMMAR.

Hey, didn't 3 Hawks suggest and end to this in Post #22 and did I not assent to that immediately in Post #23?

Note that I made successive posts without any controversial comments in posts #24 and #25.

 

Then I received a provocative comment in post #26, regardless of 3 Hawks' request.

 

What kind of identity crisis do you have that you keep this going? :)

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

OK!!! Time out!! Everyone go to their respective corners and come back friendly. "Can't we all just get along."

I'm starting over! :)

Hey, I'm truly over it as 3 Hawks suggests. But if you want to keep layin' it in to me, I'm tough - I can take it. :anibad:

 

Ah, shuckins, just as I wuz about to git Baxter Black to come in here an' interpret this here thing. :huh:

Edited by SpankySCRC
Link to comment

I don't know for sure that it happens at Garmin, but I do know other places, where products are indeed released with the full knowledge about faults, incompleteness, bugs and other issues. Then it's considered that these flaws are small enough not to be important, or considered to happen rarely enough so that customers can live with it for a while or that they need the product out there, for various reasons, and count on fixing the remaining issues as soon as resources allow.

 

Once again, I don't know if that's the case with the Colorado. Most likely some kind of combination, perhaps.

Link to comment

I'm just glad nobody tore me a new one because I forgot to place a question mark at the end of Rodney King's famous plea to the masses.

I let it pass because I'm a nice guy. :unsure:

OTOH, do you have any idea how many times that he has dished out beatings to his girlfriends since he got his unbelievable settlement?

Seems like he can't take his own advice. :unsure:

Link to comment

I don't know for sure that it happens at Garmin, but I do know other places, where products are indeed released with the full knowledge about faults, incompleteness, bugs and other issues. Then it's considered that these flaws are small enough not to be important, or considered to happen rarely enough so that customers can live with it for a while or that they need the product out there, for various reasons, and count on fixing the remaining issues as soon as resources allow.

 

Once again, I don't know if that's the case with the Colorado. Most likely some kind of combination, perhaps.

Any specific examples, or are we left with vague allegations?

Something like: 357 out of 683 Yugos manufactured in July, 1983 had leaking water pumps.

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

I'm pleased to announce that in addition to the other activities planned at GeoWoodstock this year (see link below), Team CowboyPapa will be leading a discussion on "What is The Best GPS to Use For Geocaching" - I look forward to attending this workshop, which will no doubt go into the anals of history.

Link to comment

Moderator's note Obvious typos aside, the intent of this thread seems to have been "do vendors plan to rev firmware after the units ship" and not about revisiting grammar school, Rodney King, or general bickering.

 

Please get back on topic in this thread and in the forums, try to be nice to each other.

Link to comment

Talk about hijacking a post...LOL

 

As a person that works for a high tech company I have some personal experience with product releases. Every company has a roadmap of features for their product line. In cases like the Colorado all of the intended features may not have been implemented at release. Other products may have a full complement of features at release but the implementation may be buggy and require patches.

 

In the software world you have to differentiate between patches and updates. Patches are generally targeted at fixing functionality that does not work properly. Updates are usually to introduce functionality that was not in the original release. There is sometimes a discussion on whether missing functionality is a bug or a feature but that is another discussion altogether.

 

For the most part companies do not include certain features with the express intent of changing them later on. Or, as the OP suggested, Pre-Plan Updates. Certain features are often omitted intentionally due to resource constraints and the desire to bring a product to market within a given timeframe. Timing is everything when marketing products and there is an old saying that the first company to market gets 50% marketshare by default.

 

Because of this companies work really hard to meet schedules and get the units on the street ahead of the competition. Sometimes the quality of the product suffers because of this. Sometimes testing isn't complete or thorough enough to catch all the problems.

 

Sometimes certain features are enhanced through out the life cycle of the product. For example, the notes feature for geocaches may only allow so many characters at introduction (say 128 characters) and may be upgraded later to accomodate notes of 512 characters. Sometimes these are part of the product roadmap and sometimes they come as suggestions from the user base once the unit is in the field.

 

Most companies want to get it as close to right from the beginning as any rework of the code or patches will cut into the profit margin of the company. Unfortunately there is another saying in the high tech world and that is "We never have time to do it right but we have plenty of time to do it over." Until customers speak with their dollars companies will continue to produce substandard products.

Link to comment

Thanks, CowboyShootist,

 

Putting his post (#42) in conjuction with my previous post (#25), I think that the original question has been adequately addressed.

 

If so, perhaps the moderator might lock down this topic before it flies off in all directions again. :D

 

Lil Devil: I won't be, unfortunately, able to attend that event and discuss that question at a workshop there. ;)

OTOH, it is a good question and I could provide a reasoned response. However, to do so immediately here might constitute another instance of undesireable topic drift and I'm, therefore, reluctant to do so. I'll look for a new topic opened which is particular to that subject. :lol:

Link to comment

Talk about hijacking a post...LOL

 

As a person that works for a high tech company I have some personal experience with product releases. Every company has a roadmap of features for their product line. In cases like the Colorado all of the intended features may not have been implemented at release. Other products may have a full complement of features at release but the implementation may be buggy and require patches.

 

In the software world you have to differentiate between patches and updates. Patches are generally targeted at fixing functionality that does not work properly. Updates are usually to introduce functionality that was not in the original release. There is sometimes a discussion on whether missing functionality is a bug or a feature but that is another discussion altogether.

 

For the most part companies do not include certain features with the express intent of changing them later on. Or, as the OP suggested, Pre-Plan Updates. Certain features are often omitted intentionally due to resource constraints and the desire to bring a product to market within a given timeframe. Timing is everything when marketing products and there is an old saying that the first company to market gets 50% marketshare by default.

 

Because of this companies work really hard to meet schedules and get the units on the street ahead of the competition. Sometimes the quality of the product suffers because of this. Sometimes testing isn't complete or thorough enough to catch all the problems.

 

Sometimes certain features are enhanced through out the life cycle of the product. For example, the notes feature for geocaches may only allow so many characters at introduction (say 128 characters) and may be upgraded later to accomodate notes of 512 characters. Sometimes these are part of the product roadmap and sometimes they come as suggestions from the user base once the unit is in the field.

 

Most companies want to get it as close to right from the beginning as any rework of the code or patches will cut into the profit margin of the company. Unfortunately there is another saying in the high tech world and that is "We never have time to do it right but we have plenty of time to do it over." Until customers speak with their dollars companies will continue to produce substandard products.

 

Thanks, I'm glad that someone reading this topic actually responded intelligently and informatively and acts like an adult!

Link to comment

I don't know for sure that it happens at Garmin, but I do know other places, where products are indeed released with the full knowledge about faults, incompleteness, bugs and other issues. Then it's considered that these flaws are small enough not to be important, or considered to happen rarely enough so that customers can live with it for a while or that they need the product out there, for various reasons, and count on fixing the remaining issues as soon as resources allow.

 

Once again, I don't know if that's the case with the Colorado. Most likely some kind of combination, perhaps.

 

I wonder if this is the only post worthy of a response here. I won't ever know. I'm not reading any lower.

 

I can only imagine the people at Garmin who read these forums shaking their heads in disbelief as they read post after post about their (insert emotionally fired, exagerated adjective here) products that are rushed to market. I bought a Colorado 400t two nights after it arrived in Dallas and LOVE IT. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the GPSmap 60 CSx sitting on the desk next to me? Apples and Oranges. They are both GPS units. They both cost over $300. They both say "GARMIN" on the front. And they'll both be used to find thousands of geocaches. One already has.

 

Guys, if you don't like your new GPS, take it back! For the time and effort you're taking to talk it down, don't you have better activities in your lives?

 

Instead, and in print, you come on here and god knows where else, B. & M. about the problems that "plague" (misspelling not quoted here) the workmanship of the latest GPS units, and ... (do I really need to go on?)

 

Where did you buy your GPS? REI? Take it back for a FULL REFUND. The cacher a couple miles away will gladly snap it up and use it with a smile on their face.

 

As far as "Are Firmware Updates "Pre-Planned" in Advance?: What did they tell you when you called Garmin? You did call Garmin and voice your disappointment, right? Do you know their phone number? It's in the back of the owner's manual and its even a toll-free number!

 

I really can't see the remaining employees of Garmin sitting around planning ways to "disappoint" John Q. Geocacher. All they have to do to do that is to put out a new product after a very well designed GPS that has been their flagship unit for geocachers for years. Throw in the fact that Johnny Q. learned his cousin to geo-cashe and there ya go!

 

(Honestly, and I mean no disrespect here, I am amazed that anyone responded to this thread.)

Link to comment

I don't how to respond here. The title itself is a non-sensical, misspelled redundancy. Once we get that parsed out, perhaps I can compose an answer.

 

So, let's look at it: "....."Pre-planed" in Advance?"

1. I assumed that we are not making a piece of wood flat and that we are dealing with the past tense of the verb "to plan", which is "planned."

2. Let's assume for a minute that there is such a thing as "pre-planned", which there really isn't as described in #3, below, and look at the redundancy. Which redundancy is ""Pre-Planned" in Advance." What's up with that? If it is "pre-planned", how can it not be in advance? If it truly has been "pre-planned", how could it possibly have been planned after the fact. As an obvious redundancy the condition "in Advance" adds nothing whatsover to the context of the title and is totally superfluous.

3. Now, about pre-planned as a combination word, does the addition of the prefix "pre" make any sense in distinction if there is no such thing as "post-planning." Not only is post planning implausible at best, even if possible in a sequence of events, who would admit to having done such. That's tantamount to the drunk telling the cop that he had more than the overwhelmingly admtted to consumption of only two beers. So, having established that there can be no such thing described as "post-planned", then there is nothing to be gained by using the term "pre-planned" as there is no "post-" from which to distinguish just good old, everyday planning.

 

Now, if somebody could re-title this topic, I might be able to provide an answer. :D

It's an industry term...

 

before a load is PLANNED for a truck, it is sent as a PRE-PLAN for the driver to review BEFORE it is PLANNED for that truck. As far as the rest of all that goes, I don't know...Ah Juss' Drav Duh Truk.

 

Now don't go going all crazy on me now, I'm just playin' funlike

 

As far as "Post-Planning" maybe "W" can teach you all about that.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

Talk about hijacking a post...LOL

 

As a person that works for a high tech company I have some personal experience with product releases. Every company has a roadmap of features for their product line. In cases like the Colorado all of the intended features may not have been implemented at release. Other products may have a full complement of features at release but the implementation may be buggy and require patches.

 

In the software world you have to differentiate between patches and updates. Patches are generally targeted at fixing functionality that does not work properly. Updates are usually to introduce functionality that was not in the original release. There is sometimes a discussion on whether missing functionality is a bug or a feature but that is another discussion altogether.

 

For the most part companies do not include certain features with the express intent of changing them later on. Or, as the OP suggested, Pre-Plan Updates. Certain features are often omitted intentionally due to resource constraints and the desire to bring a product to market within a given timeframe. Timing is everything when marketing products and there is an old saying that the first company to market gets 50% marketshare by default.

 

Because of this companies work really hard to meet schedules and get the units on the street ahead of the competition. Sometimes the quality of the product suffers because of this. Sometimes testing isn't complete or thorough enough to catch all the problems.

 

Sometimes certain features are enhanced through out the life cycle of the product. For example, the notes feature for geocaches may only allow so many characters at introduction (say 128 characters) and may be upgraded later to accomodate notes of 512 characters. Sometimes these are part of the product roadmap and sometimes they come as suggestions from the user base once the unit is in the field.

 

Most companies want to get it as close to right from the beginning as any rework of the code or patches will cut into the profit margin of the company. Unfortunately there is another saying in the high tech world and that is "We never have time to do it right but we have plenty of time to do it over." Until customers speak with their dollars companies will continue to produce substandard products.

I spoke with my dollars...had to return the unit, and it will now probabaly be several years before I decide again to upgrade.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...