Why aren't software vendors taking better care of their installer software?
I've come across this issue more and more lately: you buy or download a software, that may be the greatest of it's kind. But you will never find out, because you first have to cross the installer that either crashes, suffers from too many syntax and UI errors, fails to upgrade an existing version, or prevents un-installation of the software.
Why is it that software companies invest a lot in R&D and marketing, and not enough in the installer - the first (and last) thing their customer will use?
Good Answers (2)
Chuck K.
Co-Founder and Software Architect at Milyli
Best Answers in: Software Development (4), Web Development (3), Computers and Software (2), Planning (1), Enterprise Software (1), Information Security (1)
It may be that even though as you quite correctly point out it is the first and last software that you use, you only use it twice, so it is not viewed as important. I don't think that's the real issue though.
So you know where this perspective originates, I figured I'd let you know that I have been writing different enterprise software for most of my career. In this world where many companies are only trying to make a bunch of sales and flip their companies (or go on to make more sales), those organizations are only interested in implementing the features that sell a product. Yes, software needs to be installed, but it is so taken for granted it almost never comes up in the sales cycle. If you can't set up the software, there is always the help desk, technical support or some other service department that will handle it.
A sad part about this theory is how many times at other companies I have worked for that I have been asked to implement a feature because "it demos well". Both marketing and product visionary type people will flat out admit that almost no one will use those features. And yet they become higher priorities than a feature that everyone will use even if it is only twice.
As for the customers, I would like to think that people could see through those sorts of sales tactics, but evidently, such is not the case. The ability of the software to perform lots of powerful, sexy functions that will never be used seems to trump the ability of the software to perform mundane tasks that will definitely be used during the buying decision more that I would have thought.
As for the software companies, this seems like a pay me now or pay me more later. I would think that the amount of technical help required for each customer that a well designed install / update / uninstall package save the company would pay for itself. Not to mention all the word of mouth advertising, "... not only that, but it was so easy to set up and get going."
I am definitely biased on this one. At my new company, the installer is one of our top five priorities. We're hoping to prove out that the easier to use every feature of a product is the less support that is required to maintain it. If you're going to take the time to write a feature, a well written feature will save you more than its development cost in time and frustration later, even if it's only the installer.
Ross P.
Commercial Software Development Expert
Best Answers in: Web Development (6), Software Development (5), Business Development (1), Planning (1)
The installers are usually the last task before getting a release out, and the lowest priority for any feature-upgrade. In addition, the expertise required to design and build the installer tends to be in short supply in most organizations - everybody speaks C/C#/Java/whatever, but only a few also speak InstallShield/NSIS/whatever. Lastly, if you're going to ship with known bugs (and you will), do you want to try and fix the ones in the product or in the installer that each user runs only once? I know that sounds cavalier, but except for life support and missile systems, most software will be allowed to ship without fixing all known bugs.
More Answers (2)
James S.
Senior Software Engineer at Netflix
Best Answers in: Events Marketing (1), Business Development (1)
At some previous employers, they had no dedicated staff to work on Installers. It was something that one of the developers would randomly get assigned towards the end of the development cycle... As Ross points out, it's something that needs specialization and if the company doesn't treat it as such, it suffers.
Over the years, I've spent quite a bit of time learning Windows Scripting Host (WSH) in order to built better install "scripts" for various applications. Why? Because buying a license for a commercial installer program would have never made it through procurement.
In other cases, I've seen installation get assigned to already overworked, understaffed groups, such as Documentation or SQA.
