Market: How will situations of product failure be handled after a build update ? - page 4

New comment
 
papaklass:

It's pretty damn straightforward.

Before a new build is released, the MC gives software developers whose products are on the market a test period of one week. That's it.

It's not that simple. I already reflected this problem at the beginning of the thread. I'll repeat (ironically): there's nothing better for product authors to do than to spend weeks "for free" testing each new build for bugs....If someone wants to do it specifically then fine, but it's not very nice to lump everyone in the same ladder. With this approach professional programmers who have enough ongoing projects will not be satisfied...Or all of them will have to put the price of catching bugs in advance, raising the threshold of availability of their products.
 
papaklass:

During this week, the new build will only be available for developers to test their software on this build. If they find bugs, they will report them to servicedeck. After this test week, if the MC decides there are no serious bugs, a new build will be officially released (available to everyone).

It's fucked and arsehole. Especially at the rate at which builds are appearing now.

The problem is not solvable, we just need a place where the user can absolutely normally write "plea, it's not working!", the developer will catch all the bumps anyway.

 
papaklass:

Again the concern is not for those who pay money for the product (service), but for the poor programmers.

You have tried to take care of both sheep and wolves at the same time. I merely explained to you that there is a serious flaw in this logic. And what does it have to do with "taking care of poor programmers"? Especially, if you consider that you took care only about sheep (figuratively continuing your own thought).

...And the fact that you proceed from the existing conditions does not at all deny the possibility of changing/improving these very conditions.

 
papaklass:

You are proposing a system in which the buyer will have to pay for everything again. This is not fair.

No. Read it carefully. The buyer only pays for what he agrees to pay for. He always pays for the terms he has chosen, that's for sure.
 
C-4:

However, the concept of integrity is not contradicted by having a rollback backup function.

It does, however, not contradict the concept of integrity if you roll back everything: terminal, server, cloud and who knows what else.
 
Yedelkin:

...

    ===Somehow, details can always be clarified/added to. I'll tell you right away: I was asked for options - I generated them. I hope the idea is clear. Suggested what I came up with now. To questions "how do you imagine such an implementation" can not answer. Definitely will not defend the options, based on unfortunate experience.

    So immediately. :) Here are more options. There is something to build on (not us). And experience should not be sad but joyful. Though sad moments sometimes bring interesting ideas... In general, you have to rejoice in everything. )))
     
    Yedelkin:
    The buyer only pays for what he agrees to pay for. The buyer only pays for the terms he has chosen, that is for sure.
    When I was dreaming, I came up with this follow-up idea: there are at least two versions of the same product on the Market, with different prices. That version, which is 2 times more expensive, means that the vendor guarantees n-future builds support. Cheaper version, it has a guarantee of working with the current build, plus the possibility of paying extra money to the creator for tweaking to new builds (to control new builds). The cheapest option means that the buyer will decide whether to upgrade to the new build on their own "at their own risk", or to seek advice from the author for a fee.
     

    You are constantly trying to solve the problem from within. As a result, you are coming up with solutions which are delusional in implementation.

    Does the programmer have to?

    There isn't one. He went to conquer the taiga for three months and hunt taimen. So what? Take the goods off the shelf? On what grounds?

    Put him on a permanent vigil waiting for a new bill? And the period of a week to catch bugs? There is no more programmer, it will be a Market employee now.

    Also, if one of the vendors will join this slavery, he will include it in the cost of goods. But the number of sales of these goods will drop to a level that is not profitable for the programmer.

    Right now there are few vendors and each has an average of one product. But you have to put things in perspective. So the average vendor has two and a half dozen products. So what? Have time to fix it in a week, for money he received and spent a long time ago?

    The buyer has nothing to do with it. Paid, received. It has to work. It has to work. If we make a place in the Market where the buyers write about not working with the new build, then on each letter of this will be another nine that the Expert Advisor bought in the Market drained the depo instead of the expected one million earned.

    I have no suggestions, but do not forget the laws of the service market.

     
    Mischek:

    You are constantly trying to solve the problem from within. As a result, you are coming up with solutions that are delusional to implement.

    A clarifying question: is this message addressed to all the panelists at once (as a kind of generalisation of your understanding of the situation), or to someone in particular?
     
    Yedelkin:
    A clarifying question: is this message addressed to all the panelists at once, or to someone in particular?
    All except you, to cut down on the chatter
    1234567891011
    New comment
    Reason: