Comments on: Should software come with a warranty? http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/ a community for independent software developers Fri, 05 Jun 2026 03:56:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Jan Goyvaerts http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-605 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:20:49 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-605 I have been offering my customers the following limited warranty for many years: 1. 3-month unconditional money-back guarantee 2. free bugfix releases Nothing spectacular, but then my most expensive products are $99 Selling something without any kind of guarantee at all is simply not ethical. Oh, and Ford did get sued for installing faulty Bridgestone tires on their trucks. I have been offering my customers the following limited warranty for many years:

1. 3-month unconditional money-back guarantee
2. free bugfix releases

Nothing spectacular, but then my most expensive products are $99

Selling something without any kind of guarantee at all is simply not ethical.

Oh, and Ford did get sued for installing faulty Bridgestone tires on their trucks.

]]> by: Craig http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-604 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:45:37 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-604 The problem is that a PC is a much more complex 'environment' than a car. If for example you blow a tire on a car, no one would blame the manufacturer of the car. But if someone installs a buggy device driver that kills your software, the user will expect you to fix it, even if its not your problem. The problem is that a PC is a much more complex ‘environment’ than a car. If for example you blow a tire on a car, no one would blame the manufacturer of the car. But if someone installs a buggy device driver that kills your software, the user will expect you to fix it, even if its not your problem.

]]> by: joeyDotNet.com http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-603 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:24:41 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-603 <strong>microISV.com - Great New Community Site</strong> microISV.com - Great New Community Site

]]> by: VB-tech weblog http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-602 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:15:45 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-602 <strong>MicroISV Microsoft Program</strong> MicroISV Microsoft Program

]]> by: VB-tech weblog http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-601 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:36:45 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-601 <strong></strong>

]]> by: matt http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-600 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:17:17 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-600 Actually, I need to rephrase that... we offer a warranty against ERRORS not BUGS. However, we will fix bugs too. We just don't commit to being able to fix every single bug in a timely manner. Our wording is something like the following: “Error” shall mean incorrect results by or failure of the Software to perform a material function described in the customer software specifications in an environment for which it was designed, and which Error can be reproduced at our facilities. “Bug” is a minor problem with the Software which can be easily avoided or circumvented. I have changed some wording in order to protect confidentiality. But you should be able to get the drift. Actually, I need to rephrase that… we offer a warranty against ERRORS not BUGS. However, we will fix bugs too. We just don’t commit to being able to fix every single bug in a timely manner. Our wording is something like the following:

“Error” shall mean incorrect results by or failure of the Software to perform a material function described in the customer software specifications in an environment for which it was designed, and which Error can be reproduced at our facilities.

“Bug” is a minor problem with the Software which can be easily avoided or circumvented.

I have changed some wording in order to protect confidentiality. But you should be able to get the drift.

]]> by: matt http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-599 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:08:13 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-599 I have (and do) work for companies that offer warranties on software. These types of applications are enterprise applications for the retail vertical. You are typically talking about $50K-$500K in licensing costs. They are also heavily customized. We offer 60 days for a limited warranty on bugs. This gives the customer a chance to identify any issues and get them fixed for free during that period. After the 60 days, the customer has to pay for bug fixes unless they are currently paying software maintenance. I have (and do) work for companies that offer warranties on software. These types of applications are enterprise applications for the retail vertical. You are typically talking about $50K-$500K in licensing costs. They are also heavily customized. We offer 60 days for a limited warranty on bugs. This gives the customer a chance to identify any issues and get them fixed for free during that period. After the 60 days, the customer has to pay for bug fixes unless they are currently paying software maintenance.

]]> by: Liam Strand http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-598 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:17:25 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-598 I would say I have mixed feelings about the "warranty" idea for Enterprise Software. Comparing software to a Mercedes is in some twisted way correct. The majority of the cost associated with a $100,000 product is based on the fact that your organization will not be able to internally develop a solution at a lower cost. This is not just development, but also testing, user adoption, support, etc. The mercedes comparison holds true in the way that you would not be able to fabricate a car from scratch that could match the performance of a mercedes for a lower cost. You are paying somebody else so that you don't have to pay to innovate, therein lies the "You sold me a beta!" complaint. If it bugs you that much, get to market and kick their ass with a better product! While that is a an argument for Enterprise COTS, I would agree that the current support contract tax is a pain. 18% of the original product price paid annually for things like bug fixes should be illegal :) I would say I have mixed feelings about the “warranty” idea for Enterprise Software. Comparing software to a Mercedes is in some twisted way correct.

The majority of the cost associated with a $100,000 product is based on the fact that your organization will not be able to internally develop a solution at a lower cost. This is not just development, but also testing, user adoption, support, etc. The mercedes comparison holds true in the way that you would not be able to fabricate a car from scratch that could match the performance of a mercedes for a lower cost.

You are paying somebody else so that you don’t have to pay to innovate, therein lies the “You sold me a beta!” complaint. If it bugs you that much, get to market and kick their ass with a better product!

While that is a an argument for Enterprise COTS, I would agree that the current support contract tax is a pain. 18% of the original product price paid annually for things like bug fixes should be illegal :)

]]> by: Jared Peless http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-597 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:41:28 +0000 http://www.microisv.com/archives/2005/02/08/swwty/#comment-597 I think that this is fairly valid, even though we have very similar language present in our license agreements. One thing that I think would work like a warranty is that customers don't have to pay for bug-fixes to a particular version. I know this would take a lot of work for software that goes through versions rapidly, but essentially, the bug-fixes work like a warranty. If something is broken, it gets fixed. Maintenance Agreements for support and upgrades cover situations where the customer wants new features (along with the new bugs ;) ). Comparing this to the car example, when the car is sold, no new things are offered under the warranty (i.e. new-fangled add-ons, DVD upgrades, new sound system, etc.) for this the customer buys after-market parts or a new car. I think that this is fairly valid, even though we have very similar language present in our license agreements.

One thing that I think would work like a warranty is that customers don’t have to pay for bug-fixes to a particular version. I know this would take a lot of work for software that goes through versions rapidly, but essentially, the bug-fixes work like a warranty. If something is broken, it gets fixed. Maintenance Agreements for support and upgrades cover situations where the customer wants new features (along with the new bugs ;) ). Comparing this to the car example, when the car is sold, no new things are offered under the warranty (i.e. new-fangled add-ons, DVD upgrades, new sound system, etc.) for this the customer buys after-market parts or a new car.

]]>