SOUNDING OFF

Steve Watts argues that software manufacturers have exploited their customers' tolerance for shoddy, bug‑laden products for long enough.

Consider the following: if you bought a new car, and it stalled on a regular basis for no apparent reason, you would expect to be able to take it back to the garage and have it repaired under guarantee. If a large number of people bought the same model with the same fault, the manufacturer would probably issue a recall or lose their reputation for building decent cars. Why shouldn't this apply within the software industry?

To take another example closer to home for many SOS readers, the warranty for an item of studio hardware I own states that "this warranty covers all defects in material and workmanship in this product," and that the warranty will "remain in effect for one (1) year." All fair enough, as far as I'm concerned. Compare and contrast this with an excerpt from a Microsoft warranty: "...will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying Product Manual(s) for a period of 90 days."

Why should they be able to get away with using the word 'substantially' as opposed to, say, 'entirely'? And it isn't an isolated case, sadly — Steinberg state in their Cubase warranty (in the version I have, anyway) that they "are aware that functional defects in the licensed software cannot be totally ruled out," and also that "rectification of all faults therefore cannot be guaranteed." Have you asked yourself what this warranty is telling you about the standard of Steinberg's product? While it might be a little much to expect software to work first time without any bugs at all, I can see no excuse for developers not repairing them immediately.

I used to be a developer of bespoke software myself, and when a customer pays you to do a job, you deliver what is required — I would have to fix any faults as quickly as possible at my own expense. It is entirely possible to develop bug‑free software, and I can only imagine that the reason why buggy software continues to be manufactured is because of consumer or shareholder pressure upon the manufacturers to bring out more and more feature‑rich software, more and more quickly. I, for one, would prefer that they concentrated on eliminating bugs, rather than developing bulkier, feature‑laden, slower versions which require that I have to upgrade my PC yet again in order to make them run as fast as the older ones. However, it would seem as if the manufacturers aren't interested in this point of view, and that 'new features' are much better at selling products.

I suppose the one upside of all this is that the price of stand‑alone studio hardware has been brought down because of competition with computer‑based systems, but sadly it seems as if a software manufacturing mentality is also now creeping into hardware manufacture. I've heard that bugs are now finding their way into the operating systems of samplers and other processor‑based units, and if this is true then this is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

My own experiences with computers have shattered my faith in the PC completely. When I had the idea to build a small studio for multimedia production, though I initially believed that I could base everything around a PC, I soon realised that I felt was too risky. I don't believe that current PCs are reliable enough and I didn't want my business to become inoperable should any bugs be present in either the OS or any of the software. I was also worried that after I had already spent my budget I might have to pile good money after bad in order to compensate for software inadequacy.

So I had a major change of plan and built the entire studio using stand‑alone equipment — other than a Mac G4, which I'll be using primarily for off‑line editing. I am happy to say that I have been absolutely delighted with all the equipment I have bought: all of it worked straight out of the box, other than a condenser mic and a sampler's floppy drive (which have both been replaced with no fuss) and a faulty console LED (which meant I got a brand new replacement desk). It's great to be able to sleep soundly at night now that I know who to go to should anything break down, and that I'll be able to get any problem fixed.

The moral of the story? Well, if you're looking to build up your own recording setup and a 'PC studio' appears to be too good to be true, then remember that things that look too good to be true generally are! If you've already shelled out for a PC and it keeps crashing, you have the right and duty to complain. Track down those responsible and have a go at them until they sort out your problems, because they're getting off too lightly. Why should you have to spend hours on Web forums trying to fix the problem yourself? It's because consumers have been putting up with being treated so shoddily that things are as bad as they are now. As the Manics so rightly sang: "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next."

If you'd like to air your views in this column, please send your ideas to: Sounding Off, Sound On Sound, Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambs CB3 8SQ. Any comments on the contents of previous columns are also welcome, and should be sent to the Editor at the same address.

E soundingoff@soundonsound.com