Just my 2 cents
JIm
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Kruckenberg <pete@inquo.net>
To: portmaster-users@livingston.com <portmaster-users@livingston.com>
Cc: sales@livingston.com <sales@livingston.com>; support@livingston.com
<support@livingston.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: (PM) v.90 code
>On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Roy wrote:
>
>> Rather than ragging on the list, I sent a note to the sales department
>> with the hope that they had a better path to upper management. The
>> short story is
>
>This was the /exact/ same thing with the initial PM-3 code release, then
>again with the 56Flex release, and now with the v.90 thing.
>
>Something like:
>
>1. New product/feature announced by industry
>2. USR/3Com releases unstable "release" code
>3. USR/3Com releases patches to make "release" code usable
>4. Livingston releases unstable beta
>5. Livingston ISPs start losing customers to USR/3Com ISPs
>6. Livingston ISPs ask Livingston for update after month+ of no updates
>7. Livingston ISPs scream at Livingston mailing list--no response
>8. Livingston ISPs scream at Livingston sales department--no response
>9. Livingston ISPs start leaving Livingston for USR/3Com to save business
>10. Livingston says (first peep out of them in months) delay is to release
> stable code and will be out "soon"
>11. Go back to 4 at least one time
>12. Livingston releases next beta which is stable enough to slow migration
> of customers to USR/3Com ISPs
>13. Livingston releases final release with 20 new features that nobody
> needs but finally has stable code everyone waited for
>14. Wait a month, go back to Step 1.
>
>With the PM-3 and 56Flex (which both had their own "oops" announcement
>violently rebuked by the non-marketing Livingston people), the reason for
>this whole thing was that Livingston was privately held and underfinanced
>and understaffed, but that was good for ISPs because Livingston cares
>about ISPs.
>
>Now Livingston has Lucent, and supposedly the near-infinite resources of
>Lucent and still the same thing where they're asking ISPs who have bet
>hundreds of thousands or more on their platform and are losing customers
>because not only can Livingston not produce code, they can't produce any
>information either.
>
>I wish I could sell my customers the awesome future, but unfortunately
>most of them are very short-sited and just want what works today. That
>means they are again seeing that our choice of Livingston has set us not
>days or weeks but months behind what all of their friends and co-workers
>have, and they're starting to question whether we are cheap or just
>stupid.
>
>Woo hoo, is anyone awake there at the Lucent RABU?
>
>Pete Kruckenberg
>inQuo
>
>> 1. Roy said :I am losing customers because of lack of V.90:
>>
>> 2. Sales said :Try the beta:
>>
>> 3. Roy said :The beta doesn't work satisfactorily:
>>
>> 4. Sales said :We will report this to support:
>>
>> 5. Support said :If the beta gives you problems, back out:
>>
>> 6. Go to step 1
>>
>>
>> I wonder if there are deep problems in the Lucent V.90 that are not
>> software and they are desperate to find a fix that doesn't involve
>> recalling every K56FLEX card.
>>
>> Roy
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>