When software go bad...

How do you make your program successful? Well, initially you let people use it for free and spread the word. But as soon as it’s hyped and reorganized you start to charge people money for future use... This is how many developers think and a lot of popular and supported software that once were “freeware” (Software that is provided without charge) now costs money, for instance Jv16 Powertools and X-Setup. Jv16 powertools is a program which maintains and fixes the registry in Windows (www.macecraft.com); X-Setup is a “tweaking” program that let’s you squeeze the fullest out of Windows (www.x-setup.net).

I tried both these programs before and after the switch from freeware to “shareware” (Software that is available free of charge; may be distributed for evaluation with a fee requested for additional features or a manual etc.) and can’t say there’s any major improvement. The big difference appears to be only the visual and both programs looks nicer now. However, whether or not it’s looks nice is not important – it’s what they can do and how they do it. Since there’s no large difference, there’s no reason to start charge money for them. I mean, just because X-Setup nowadays is called “X-Setup Pro” doesn’t mean it’s actually “pro” (professional) or any better then before. It’s just a sales argument. If a company decides to demand money for previously free software, it better make the software worth that money.

Sometimes bigger companies buy out initial developers; sometimes developers simply decide to backstab users and charge them for future use of the software. This is not a good thing and if you’re not out for profit in the first place you better not go there. Turning the back on beta testers and other early users who spread the software and promote it through word of mouth (which is basically excellent PR) will only cause these faithful and loyal people to feel betrayed and look for alternatives elsewhere. Many developers sell their software to some big shot company only to see their creation fail because of greed. Typically, users won’t pay for something that was free of charge and when forced, they simply abandon the program and go for something else. Make no mistake, there are alternatives around.

It’s not uncommon to see developers behind pioneering programs go for profit when their product gets widely recognized. However, these programs often fail when the developers go greedy because as time goes by the product becomes known and with it comes competitors which may steal the concept and offers better, more advanced, and secure products. So the software fail because, (1) as long as it was free people used it and was loyal to it, (2) better programs came along making the initial program obsolete, and (3) many programs that were once free also fail because they simply can’t compete with already established programs on the market. As with everything else, software is branded and people stick with what’s known. Sure, in the freeware sector they were number one. But when competing with the “big sharks” they fail big-time. Go cry a river.

In conclusion, it’s difficult to say whether the developers of Jv16 Powertools and X-Setup made the right choice, I doubt it though. They most likely lost both loyal users and the vital PR these people offered. But maybe they manage to sell their software to some poor souls and get that wanted short run profit. However, in the long run, they would surely benefit to stay freeware. If you have a nice program but are thinking on switching to shareware remember that people like free stuff (and will use it), better programs may come along sending your program back to Stone Age, and the competition on the mainstream market is killing.

Don’t kill your program.

The Future of Proton

//Reasearch paper, written about one year ago on Malaysia's very own car: Proton.

Overview
When I first arrived to Malaysia I saw a lot of people driving the cheap Proton with pride. Now I see the same people driving the local car because they must. And I see no pride anymore.

Since I travel a lot by taxi, I decided to do a mini survey and ask the drivers what they thought about the local car. My question was simple: “What do you think of Proton”. The answers were mostly the same; Proton is “rubbish”. Some other complaints were bad quality, too much plastic, unsafe, too cheap (to be any good), and one even said that compared to Volvo (Swedish car), Proton is “nothing”.

Naturally I didn’t use only this information for my research, but it gave me an interesting perspective about the “people’s car”. My objective with this research was to learn more about Proton and I based my research on three questions I wanted answered:

1. Is Proton a good car?
2. Why is Proton so dominant in the domestic car market?
3. Can Proton compete with the giants in the car industry?

I knew the company had been in difficulties for a while, and things weren’t getting better, so I decided to call the research simply “The Future of Proton”. To find information about the matter I surfed on the waves of the Internet and visited numerous web sites, read news-papers and car magazines.

Introduction
Proton was incorporated on 16th January, 1985 under the name Auto Elegance Sdn. Bhd., and is owned by EON (Edaran Otomobil Nasional Berhad.

Part of the “The National Car Project”, the company’s objective was to produce cars, assembled and sold in Malaysia. On the 4th November, 1993 Auto Elegance Sdn. Bhd became Usahasama Proton DRB Sdn. Bhd.

Proton’s first model Saga was launched in July 9, 1985 by ex Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who is now a company advisor.

So, is Proton a good car?
Well, since EON owns about 80 percent of British Lotus and cooperates with Mitsubishi – Proton would theoretically be a very good car. But things aren’t what they ought to be and the average Proton isn’t very good.

After 20 years in the business, Proton is uncompetitive in both international and domestic market regarding quality, safety and after-sales support.

The market
The authorities has successfullycleared the road for the local car and swept aside all of Proton’s competition by introducing heavy taxes and tariffs on imported cars. Taxes between 140% - 300% make sure Malaysian’s buy “their car”. EON is use to sell 6 Protons out of every new 10 cars sold in Malaysia.

The only real competitor is Perodua but since it’s also a company controlled by the government, it can’t count as competition. Perodua was thought as a slightly more “posh” alternative to Proton and was supposed to please customers; however the both car brands have ended up cannibalizing on each other.

Even though import taxes are high, foreign cars are common in Malaysia. Brands like Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Ford, and the more exclusive brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and BMW are foreign cars in the domestic market, doing relatively well.

Nevertheless, the high import costs have come under fire and under the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) Malaysia must reduce taxes and tariffs on cars imported from other ASEAN nations to 0% - 5% by 2005. Because of this, both Proton and Perodua is expected sell less.

The Minister of International Trade and Industry Rafidah Aziz said that’s likely that excise taxes will rise, to counterpart loss of revenue. But the excise duty is strictly a tax meant for products produced locally and therefore not applicable for foreign manufactured products.

Furthermore, Malaysia also needs to open its market under the WTO (World Trade Organization). Participating countries are required to eliminate unjust trading practices and Malaysia is therefore required to get rid of a number of procedures that are considered unfair trading practices.

Analyzing the sales (Proton under the scope)
During the 1990’s the Proton sold an average of 105,000 cars a year. In 1991, they estimated the sales to 194,654 cars and in 1997 that value was estimated to 404,869 cars. In 1997, Malaysia had the largest new car market in ASEAN, but in 1998 the sales fell to 163,852 cars, because of the Asian economic crisis. Proton and Perodua had together 80% of the market.

The Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA) reported for 2003 a total industry volume (TIV) of 405,010 units which is compared to 434,954 units sold in 2002, a decrease of 6.9 percent. Total sales of passenger cars fell to 319,847 units from 359,934 units in 2002. The MAA also forecasted that TIV will rise in 2004 and accordingly EON’s chairman stated in the Annual Report for 2003 that:

“…Proton car sales are therefore, expected to grow in tandem with the improving economy as well as the anticipated roll-out of new models by PROTON.”

In 2003 the sales of domestic brands fell 17.3 percent to 271,710 units from 328,638 units in 2002, whilst the sales of foreign cars increased by 53.8 percent to 48,137 units. Proton’s sales dropped 27.5 percent to 155,420 units from 214,373 units in 2002.

Can Proton keep up?
Proton isn’t producing enough to keep up with demand and new models usually behind the competitors in safety, technology and quality. The latest Gen-2 (Generation Two) doesn’t seem to be an exception. Following quote is taken from Catcha forums, posted by “al bundy30”:

“…even the latest Gen-2 is far behind the competitors in terms of technology. There is no variable valve timing and looks like there won't be any adaptive automatic gearbox not too mention airbags, traction control and electronic brake distribution.”

Proton though is relying on Gen-2 and expects it to sell; they increased its production from 3,000 cars a month to 6,000. Proton has created a manufacturing plant called Tanjong Malim (known as Proton city) which will produce 100,000 cars initially, but can manufacture about a million a year. Gen-2 technical details: minimum price RM 52,000, maximum speed 180 km/h, 1.6GLI engine, 5 passenger seating and 4-door.

Conclusively
Picture a situation without any imports taxes and tariffs: an invasion of foreign cars. Would Proton (and Perodua) survive such a situation? Who knows. Even thou both companies are backed by foreign forces, it's the final consumers who have the last saying. In the end, it's they who decide Proton's future.

Iironically, customers are forced to overpay an amount of RM 15,000 when buying their “own car”. Main reasons for this are because high royalties are paid to Mitsubishi, and costly and ineffective production. Actually, Proton is relatively more expensive than foreign cars, without import taxes. So, what point is there in having a business that doesn’t profit?

What needs to be done, if Proton is meant as a meaningful business, Proton must produce quality cars. Also, the people’s demands must be satisfied. The cars must be on the same level as the competition, if not better. But it really doesn’t matter what Proton does – it’s the people that have to look on the local car with other eyes.

Furthermore, Perodua's future must be decided. As it’s mainly a compliment to Proton it won’t fill any function if the market opens to foreign cars, the most rational is to privatize Perodua and make it a competitor instead of a compliment.

Whatever happens in the future the Malaysian people can boast about being the only Muslim nation in the world that produce (or has produced) their own car’s…

Stupid games

What’s the big deal about computer games lately? Why are they so hyped up, even long before they’re actually released? Well, games are meant to be sold, just like everything else is. Long gone are the days when developers burned for an “inner cause” and made games for their own fulfillment and joy.

The world of computer games is nowadays a big business. Just look at NVIDIA, EA, and DICE, they all know there’s lots of money to earn, and that’s why my GFX is considered a fossil these days.

Why is it that there’s so many uninteresting, pointless and pretty much worthless games around? And why is it that new games are so full of bugs that they must be patched a couple of hundred times before they behave appropriate? Oh yeah, it’s because big sharks like EA pushes developers into releasing unfinished stuff.

Now, I must say this sucks. It’s like producing a car with three wheels and say: “look, we don’t have enough time to fully develop this car, so we’ll send you the missing tire later”.

As a developer you must make good stuff! Of course, games is only software, and software is always software. Bugs probably can’t be 100% erased or avoided, and there’s always room for improvement. Back in the days when Commodore 64 and Amiga ruled, games were released and then developers looked to the future, knowing that the games were as good as they possibly could (at the time).

However, modern games are so advanced and complicated that once they’re released, the developers have to fix about a million leeks, wholes, and bugs. It’s nothing wrong with that of course, as it’s their responsibility. But sometimes one wish they focused on new stuff instead; this everlasting patching is getting tiring.

New games are often hyped up, and not to mention longed for, long before they’re released. And when finally released, expectations are often not fulfilled. For instance, the graphics in DOOM3 and HL2 was amazing and blew everybody’s minds, but still one expected more.

I guess we have to blame even this one on the media. If they didn’t buzz about developments of upcoming games, developers could work in peace, without being stressed. But then of course the developers (and others) should keep their mouths shut and not inform the media; this is something they seem to have really big problems with.

Anyway, it is like it is. We have to accept it: computer games are now big business. And we all know what happens when money is involved: quantity goes before quality. That’s why I don’t expect ANYTHING from Quake IV.

Stupid Dice, EA & NVIDIA!

I have bought one game in my whole life and that game was Battlefield 1942. Call me lame here, but as Dice (Digital Illusions) is a Swedish company, I wanted to support them. Besides, I was hooked on flying BF’s (well ok, Desert Combat’s) helicopters. Now a couple of years later, I was eagerly awaiting the sequel, if you can call BF2 a sequel. But what happens? I can’t even play the stupid f&#%¤!* DEMO!

Apparently, my GFX (graphic card) is way too old. But it’s not like it’s a Voodo3 or anything, nah, it’s a GeForce 4 Ti 4400 (not the monster in the series but still pretty decent). EA, Dice, and NVIDIA are “preparing” for the “next generation” GFX’s and have purposely excluded earlier GFX’s, including the popular GeForce 4 series. The game simply can’t be run. However older GFX’s from ATI works fine.

Nobody who pays own bills (or isn’t a millionaire or spoiled brat) wants to waste/spend hard earned cash. That’s it, plain and simple. GFX’s cost money, usually quite a lot and if you want to acquire the absolute best, you are going to get broke. Hopefully this strategic blunder backfires so big that these companies go bankrupt. Naturally, this won‘t happen but one can always hope. Seriously speaking here, if a lot of people switch to ATI in favor of NVIDIA, the company could be in real trouble.
Before BF2, I seriously wanted to upgrade to a newer NVIDIA GFX. As long as I had computers I always had GFX’s from NVIDIA. But now, when the scam is exposed, ATI is definitely the first choice and preference. See the market is bigger than Dice, BF2, NVIDIA, and even EA (Electronic Rats).

Let’s face it: apart from the (small) segment of hardcore gamers, most people have moderate systems. Is it really rational to exclude all those who are not Gamers, because these companies are “preparing for the next generation” GFX’s? A new GFX is usually not a very cheap investment. Most consumers want value for money hardware (software as well). As high-quality GFX is quite expensive, most people save money and buy higher-performing GFX that will last for a while, instead of regularly upgrading cheaper low-performing GFX’s.

Greedy developers and publishers (Dice & EA) and other companies (NVIDIA) should neither try to influence nor force consumers into upgrading. However, they should develop quality products (games) that do not exclude those with older hardware. For instance, both HL2 and DOOM3 run smooth on moderate systems. Just think about it, do you really want to upgrade GFX every time a new game is released? Of course not, it is a personal choice. BF2 is probably a success in terms of sales. But it could be a much greater success if it was available for all those without a state-of-the-art system.

When I think of BF2, Dice, EA and NVIDIA these days, an old saying comes to mind: “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. It’s easy to conclude that these rotten companies chopped the whole f@/!¤#& arm off.