O'Grady: Chronos Users Revolt (Updated)
db
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/02/chronos_users_revolt_updated.html
It seems pretty even handed, though Chronos made the mistake of
suggesting that he couldn't be "positive" so of course he felt
challenged by that. Chronos just doesn't get it.
BTW emory: It seems that you should let folks know if you're the
"press". We might have been a bit more motivated to take the time to
show you what it was you were looking for, if we knew.
Here is a response I sent to the "Comments" (which has to be reviewed
first):
Emory,
You did a pretty good job. You got most of the details right; close
enough. You'll have noticed Chronos is lightly confronting a little OT
on their forums now, though of course praise is still quite acceptable
even though it too is "against the rules". In other words, their forums
are primarily self-serving, and secondarily self-serviing serving, and
all just so they have a place to say they offer support (even if you
might have to wait several days and still not get a response; that's
not support). And they really shouldn't call them "discussions".
Good of you to notice how it wasn't hard to beat them to answering
questions; that was deliberate (and it took little effort) to point out
how they were neglecting their users. Apparently it worked as now they
are re-spinning the neglect by saying they have been almost exclusively
responding to users problems (which is also likely spin), but of course
to the dismay of those waiting for the software to be finished.
Everything is an excuse for the other. Being on their payroll indeed;
but they haven't even refund my money as they promised.
I do think you fell short of displaying their intent to focus on a
single bad guy (an "evil doer", like politicians do ;-), to serve as a
scapegoat, as an example of "what could happen to you" if you get out
of line. But as you have seen, there are many others who are willing to
speak up and be censored (and of course countless others who don't).
And as politicians should do, you have also seen that they should spend
at least 100x as much energy understanding why there is a problem and
preventing it, as they do attacking those who point it out.
IMHO, reviews shouldn't "be" positive or negative; editorials are for
telling us what to think. Reviews should "be" subjectively and
objectively descriptive, and you should always point to other
alternative reviews (and certainly not to the regurgitated PR that you
mentioned). Or better, point to the uncensored user discussions such as
ChronosTalk (as you have) and the Macintosh PIMs (both user established
Google Groups), and the reader can draw their own conclusions. Of
course all reviewers should have uncensored access to users so they can
gather the experience of others as well as their own. (Do you suppose
they can see ChronosTalk as possibly being good for them? I encourage
them to put a link to it on their forums. '-)
I find it quite interesting that they would suggest what you should
publish, but censor what their users can publish in their own forums.
You will notice that the vast majority of threads in their forums (and
apparently their time for the last couple of months) has focused on
bugs and major deficits in the software. Look at the forums of other
apps (good ones) and you will see mostly users sharing ideas on how to
better use a product, not mostly asking how to get it running or keep
it running. They released betaware as finished product and now everyone
involved is paying the price for that decision, except you. You get
fodder. ;-)
BTW: ChronosTalk isn't intended to be a place to report bugs; it is a
place to discuss anything Chronos, especially anything Chronos won't
allow on their website.