TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-06 > 0991654168


From: "Steve Shook" <>
Subject: [TMG] Re: TMG 32-bit - reply to Bob Velke
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:29:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010603201340.00dbe2f0@24.2.2.70>


Bob Velke wrote:
"By the way, I don't intend to get embroiled in another thread about
hown'out of date' TMG's technology is. I am the first to admit that
TMG's interface needs an overhaul and we've been working on it for a
long time. When those who know that but still start threads like this
one, I have to wonder to whom they are talking?"

Bob, I believe that you are referring to me in your message, so I'll
respond. Consumer frustration isn't solely related to the fact that
Wholly Genes has been working on TMG's overhaul for a long time. The
frustration is that TMG users are in the DARK as to what, if anything,
is going on with the development of the 32-bit interface? Simple
**periodic communication** would work wonders. Perhaps it would even
enhance the marketing of the product, which would benefit everyone by
hopefully creating a larger user base.

Velke writes:
"Most objective observers recognize TMG as the most powerful and
flexible program on the market - but does anyone disagree that its
interface could be a lot better?"

I can't disagree with you here.

Velke writes:
"When such people suggest (as one here did) that everyone complain by
e-mail, what in the world is he _thinking_?? To expect that to help
(instead of just consume more resources and further delay progress), one
would have to believe that we're sipping daiquiris at the beach all day
with no clue about what to do next."

As a university professor of marketing, I'm was taken aback by your
response, Bob. Your remark is very defensive and lacks any sort of
customer orientation. Is it any fault of the **consumer** that Wholly
Genes is understaffed? Are there any alternatives that could alleviate
this problem (e.g., outsourcing, temp hiring, consultants, strategic
alliances)? Is it any fault of the **consumer** that priorities were
changed in mid-stream that severely affected the development of the
32-bit interface? Is it simply wrong for your **consumers** to complain
and vent their frustrations, regardless of the issue? I interpret your
remark as saying that "Consumers that complain can just go to hell....We
know what we're doing here and we don't want or appreciate you input
concerning our business decisions."

Furthermore, nobody on either thread has even come close to implying
that your staff is "sipping daiquiris on the beach" -- far from it. To
imply such things about your customers shows a lack of diplomacy in
dealing with them (IMO), regardless of your feelings for their comments.
It's obvious from the volume of messages concerning the 16-bit versus
32-bit interface that Wholly Genes has a significant number of users
that are growing increasingly frustrated -- it's not just me.

I hate to be the fly in your ointment, Bob, but as a consumer of your
product I feel that I have a every right to suggest ways to spurn the
development of the 32-bit interface along as you have the right to delay
its development. Communication - it's a two-way street. I'm very willing
to stick with Wholly Genes and their TMG product. Other users may not,
however, which would erode the consumer base. This affects not only
Wholly Genes, but all TMG users -- including me. In sum, I only wish for
Wholly Genes/TMG/Bob Velke to succeed.

Regards,
Steve Shook
Professional Page: http://www.uidaho.edu/~shook/~shook.htm
Genealogy Page: http://users.moscow.com/woodisgood/home.htm [Note that I
give Wholly Genes/TMG a good promotional plug on my "Researchers &
Tools" page.]



================================================================
================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Velke [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Re: TMG 32-bit


John said:

>What's up, Bob?

What's up is that we are working around the clock to get FTST and TMG5
out
the door as quickly as possible.

As Diane has quoted from our web page, the product has gone through
dramatic changes since the beta testers got hold of it. The beta
testing
process resulted not just in fixing problems but redesigning whole
sections
of the program from scratch in order to overcome memory/system
conflicts,
handle much larger data sets, make it much faster, and improve the
interface. I think that all of those changes have produced a much
better
product - and I believe that you'll agree - but it has made the process
much longer than expected.

We asked beta testers to spend their precious free time to review and
test
the product. They did what we asked them to do. If we dismissed their
advice and released the product over their objections, then I think that
we
would be doing them and you a great disservice. To those who think that

our obligation to the calendar (or to meet an estimated release date) is

more important, I can only say that there are many company presidents
that
would agree with you ... but I'm not one of them.

>My complaint here is lack of communication.

I don't think that I or my staff have ever declined to respond to an
e-mail
on the subject. But I also think that it is unrealistic to expect us to

read every message on this forum and _not_ have it negatively impact the

amount of time that we can work on the product. So we speak when spoken
to
and we otherwise keep our noses to the grindstone.

We've periodically updated our web page and our web store, we respond to

e-mails and phone calls, and we've attended a few conferences in order
to
demonstrate the product and to talk to users about the progress. For
this
we're criticized by some for "wasting time" and not concentrating enough
on
development. So on the subject of communication, I can only say that we

can't win for losing <g>.

By the way, I don't intend to get embroiled in another thread about how
"out of date" TMG's technology is. I am the first to admit that TMG's
interface needs an overhaul and we've been working on it for a long
time. When those who know that but still start threads like this one, I

have to wonder to whom they are talking? Most objective observers
recognize TMG as the most powerful and flexible program on the market -
but
does anyone disagree that its interface could be a lot better? When
such
people suggest (as one here did) that everyone complain by e-mail, what
in
the world is he _thinking_?? To expect that to help (instead of just
consume more resources and further delay progress), one would have to
believe that we're sipping daiquiris at the beach all day with no clue
about what to do next.

The claims by some that we "should" have been able to update the
interface
by now without compromising our other standards are made by those who
have
no concept of what is involved. And the suggestions made here that we
"refuse" or "have no desire" to release an update would be laughable
except
that new users read that nonsense and assume that the author actually
has a
basis for his opinion.

Upgrading the interface has been and continues to be very important to
us. But if we have "refused" anything, it has been to consider that the

_only_ priority. We made a difficult decision to delay the release in
response to the discontinuation of UFT, for instance, because we
believed
that decision was in the best interest of all TMG users (for more on
that
see http://genforum.genealogy.com/tmg/messages/1105.html and two other
messages from me in that thread). And we have an ongoing aversion to
the
"release anything" mentality that would only satisfy the few users whose

priorities don't extend beyond the interface.

All of this is to say that you should please consider this your update
on
our progress <g>. I don't think that anything constructive will be
accomplished by further discussion so I trust that you'll understand why
I
don't intend to continue participating in it. It is 10:30pm on Sunday
night and my staff and I are now going back to work.

>I have also been somewhat disappointed with Wholly Genes because of
>this
>"prepayment"
>for the pre-release version of TMG 5.0. They have made no effort to
keep
>those who
>paid, in advance, for what is now clearly vaporware, informed. They are

>working on our
>money that was paid in good faith.

I realize that many people are accustomed to dealing with companies that

will take your advance order, charge your credit card, and deliver
months
later. I realize that many people who are accustomed to dealing with
companies that would succumb to the temptation of so many advanced
orders
and release a product that is not ready just in order to put your money
in
the bank. Apparently, such business practices have gotten so commonplace

that John would even assume that we have done so. But we don't, we
haven't, and we won't.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software

______________________________

This thread: