UltraRecall v4 update worth it?

< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >

Posted by Daly de Gagne
Aug 24, 2009 at 02:15 PM

Stephen, you have understood well the points that I was trying to make.

Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>Let’s look at what Kinook did: They announced they were ceasing further development
>of Ultra Recall, then they retracted that announcement without any explanation. If,
>in fact, further development was not going to happen, don’t potential new customers
>have a right to know that? When one customer made a point of telling others about this on
>their forum, he was banned from the forum.
> >I agree with Daly that it is perfectly
>reasonable to question the ethics of people who behave this way.
> >While I doubt that
>Kinook would go to the trouble of issuing version 4.0 just to prove Jan wrong, Jan’s
>reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to keep UR viable, they had to
>keep developing it, and I think that was Daly’s point.
> >Regarding Tom Davis at Zoot,
>another big thing he has going for him is the advocacy of a credible journalist, James
>Fallows, no small thing. It is frustrating that Tom doesn’t include any information
>about what has been changed in his minor updates to Zoot, but any time I’ve written to
>him directly with a technical question, I have gotten a swift response. And he has
>never, to my knowledge, censored anyone or tried to. This is why I generally trust Tom
>and am willing to have patience with the glacial-seeming pace of
>development.
> >Steve Z.

Posted by Daly de Gagne
Aug 24, 2009 at 02:24 PM

What nonexistent statement.

There was a statement Jan responded to.

He didn’t make it up.

In the best fashion of chickens everywhere, Kinook removed the evidence.

It never bothered to apologize to Jan or call him in from exile in cyber Siberia.

These guys at Kinook acted with as much class as Haavard, Opera’s forum nazi who single handedly has done more to undermine both Opera’s reputation and Norway’s reputation as a land of democratic and fair folk than anyone else.

Consumers ought not to tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Daly

quant wrote:
>Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>> ... If,
>>in fact, further development was not going to
>happen, don’t potential new customers
>>have a right to know that?
> >we have the
>saying “IF the dog didn’t sh.t, he would be dead” ...
> >> When one customer made a point
>of telling others about this on
>>their forum, he was banned from the forum.
> >The user
>was consistently bringing up NON EXISTENT statement. Do you see the
>difference?
> >>Jan’s
>>reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to
>keep UR viable, they had to
>>keep developing it, ....
> >Sure, and you believe that?
>Jan’s reaction demonstrated that he didn’t understand that Kinook refuses to talk
>about this issue (which was not fair from Kinook, but there you have it) as they haven’t
>answered several such questions in the original thread. Others got the clue ...

Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Aug 24, 2009 at 03:18 PM

Well, in this case it sounds as if UR shit.

>> When one customer made a point
>of telling others about this on
>>their forum, he was banned from the forum.
>The user
>was consistently bringing up NON EXISTENT statement. Do you see the
>difference?

Just because Kinook removed the statement, doesn’t mean it did not exist. I read it myself when it was first posted. If the statement was still posted, Jan would not have felt the need to bring it up… DO YOU see the difference?

>>Jan’s
>>reaction could very well have demonstrated to them that to
>keep UR viable, they had to
>>keep developing it, ....
>Sure, and you believe that?
>Jan’s reaction demonstrated that he didn’t understand that Kinook refuses to talk
>about this issue (which was not fair from Kinook, but there you have it) as they haven’t
>answered several such questions in the original thread. Others got the clue ...

Well, Kinook felt strongly enough about what Jan was saying that it banned him from the forum. He obviously had some impact on them. The fact that they posted a statement saying development was stopped and then continued to develop the program suggests something caused them to change their position. Maybe it was just a humanitarian impulse.

Steve Z.

Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Aug 24, 2009 at 03:58 PM

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>>we have the
>>saying “IF the dog didn’t sh.t, he would be dead” ...
> >Well, in this
>case it sounds as if UR shit.
>

My apologies… I didn’t mean for that to sound so harsh. I was trying to make a joke out of the clever saying from Quant, but on rereading it I realize it is just stupid (what I said, not what you said, Quant).

Steve Z.

Posted by Jan Rifkinson
Aug 24, 2009 at 05:03 PM

Lookit, everyone. This thread was begun by a poster who wanted to know if UR’s v4 was worth the upgrade price. Several people offered their opinions. So did I.

As far as my dealings with Kinook:

1. On their forum they announced a clearly stated, brief, announcement that they were no longer going to develop Ultra Recall but would continue to support it for all bug fixes & compatibility issues. To me, this was extra disappointing because their road map had been updated just days before this announcement. I expressed my surprise & disappointment with their announcement. They didn’t respond directly. They did so indirectly.

2. They changed their announcement & softened it to say that there might be—possibly—maybe— under certain circumstances—further development. So I asked about their intention, circumstances, etc & never got an answer. Given the ambiguity of the 2nd statement, especially in contrast to the 1st statement, I felt then & feel now that I had a right to ask the question. And in fact, I asked it a few times, always courteous & respectful if memory serves. (This was a while back & not that important to me in the scheme of my life. Someone will have to prove otherwise w my actual words &—as I said—I will then apologize).

3, To me, a forum is a place to exchange information, to answer questions, make suggestions, create a community, be helpful etc. To me there was no difference between someone asking for help and getting a ‘how to’ response than telling a newcomer that their suggested improvement for URp would most likely not be implemented because further development had ceased. I was still using URp @ the time. This was legitimate information &—again to the best of my recollection—my comments always included the fact that URp was a good, stable program that got the job done.

So for this I was ‘excommunicated’ w/o warning. That told me something about the people I was dealing with. It had nothing to say about the program, itself. Arrogance is never becoming. So many of the brilliant developers I’ve dealt w & supported over the years were interesting people, happy that others had found use for their inventions & paying for it besides. It allowed them to continue their missions. IMO, Kinook forgot the 2nd part of that equation. It felt as if they only barely tolerated us users, even those of us who were excited by and enthusiastic about their creation.

The bottom line for me was not that I didn’t approve of their communication style, nor that I was ‘excommunicated’. It was that I felt they were not being honest with their community of users about further development. I still don’t & creating a v4 out of a bunch of tweaks & charging for it only codifies my feelings further. Maybe I’ll change my mind if they come out with a legitimate v5. I hope that happens.

In the meantime, I continue to say that URp is a fine, stable program that does a lot of things well. And for those of you who still use it, good for you. I just don’t like giving my money to folks who don’t appreciate it & whom I don’t perceive as being forthright.

If any of you want to continue this thread, I ask that you take my name out of it as it really is missing the point.

—
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA

Pages: ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Back to topic list