I would tend to agree. In the past we have developed our own syatems when Tucows was already planning to launch something similar. Because I didn't know, I didn't have the chance to consider using Tucows (I am thinking about email and DNS). By the time I found out it was already too late.
Regards Gordon Hudson Hostroute.com Ltd www.hostroute.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Todd Jagger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:47 PM Subject: RE: Managed DNS Service concerns (tangent) > Thanks for the reply Elliot, > > Personally I would like to see both a long term roadmap ie in Y4Q3 > service or feature x is planned (if it is commercially unsound to > disclose the details I would still like to see a placeholder indicating > a change or a new service for anything within a 12 month window) and a > more detailed view of what is coming in the short term (say 3 months ?). > > This would help me to plan around features which require more than a > small amount of work, whether technical or marketing, against those > which correlate to a minimal amount of not very technical work on my > part to implement. I believe that this visibility together with the > planned new version of the client will assist us all in adopting the new > or enhanced services much more easily and quickly than is sometimes > possible at present. > > I look forward to Lee's first announcement :-) > > Regards > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elliot Noss > Sent: 07 April 2004 12:12 > To: Robert Macleod; elliot noss; Todd Jagger > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Managed DNS Service concerns (tangent) > > Yes and no. The issue here is one of form not substance. > There are two things. > > The first is a simple HR issue. We have recently added a new fellow, Lee > Garrison, as VP, Products (separately, we are very excited about Lee > joining us. He brings a bit of a different skill set than we have had in > the past). The client code migration path, and communicating it, falls > into his area of responsibility. He just started on Monday and > understands quite well that this is on his plate for quick turnaround. > > The second is how much or how little to communicate. Do we talk about > what we are planning to do next week or next year? My preference is > always to give you guys as much visibility as possible, but the longer > the time horizon the bigger and more complicated the communication > becomes. > > A lot of work has been done on this issue internally. It is just not yet > visible. > > I don't want to commit Lee to a date on his third day in the office, but > it will be soon. Robert, if there is a specific issue that you are > wrestling with please speak to your rep or let me know offlist and we > will see if we can get you the info you need to make a decision, or the > resources to help you with something. > > I know this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope it helps. > > Regards > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:05:10 +0100 > "Robert Macleod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hi Elliot, > > > >Are you now able to share the plans for the client code with us ? > > > >Regards > >Rob > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of elliot noss > >Sent: 05 February 2004 22:26 > >To: Todd Jagger > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Managed DNS Service concerns (tangent) > > > >Ok. Time permits. > > > >First, I want to talk briefly about client code and RWI. > >We are, I am, > >in complete agreement with the comments made. The one thing that I want > > >to make sure is clear is that these items are not being ignored. We > >have spent lots of time and lots of money (little of it well) on these > >two issues. In any organization some things go well and others go, um, > >less well. These two are right at the bottom of my personal list. There > > >have been too many statements unfulfilled on these two items and I do > >not want to add to the list. I will say folks are working on these > >things and, especially with client code, I will be unhappy if you do > >not see a clear plan shortly (within a month?). > > > >Next, with regard to the level of new services. I personally do not > >agree with the comments below in a couple of ways. When OpenSRS was > >first introduced it was (quite good) beta code. The original designer > >chosen did nothing but make pretty pictures for a few months and we had > > >to switch all of our plans. We had signed contracts and we had a market > > >moving at a million miles an hour. We pushed this baby bird out of its > >nest quite early. > > > >The point of all that is that the level of new services launched today > >is miles ahead of when we first released OpenSRS and 100's of yards > >ahead of where the first certs release was. IMHO, each release of a new > > >service is a little better than the previous. > > > >And SO WHAT. None of that matters, because if there is one lesson we > >have learned and learned well is that we will always learn more in the > >first six months being in the market than we ever will just talking > >with customers and whoever for whatever length of time. If you would > >rather someone else sand off the rough edges so be it. I would suggest > >that offering a service early provides two HUGE advantages for you. > >First, it allows you to participate meaningfully in the evolution of > >the service. > >Second, it allows you to learn how to market the service. > >IMHO, there is > >much more impact today in the way a service is marketed (and by this I > >mean all elements, bundling, pricing, packaging, not just where you > >stick the link or what keyword you buy) than in its features. > > > >As for your input, there is an extremely high level of involvement with > > >customers at all stages of planning and design. Don't believe me? Speak > > >to your rep and ask to get involved. Anyone willing to be demanding is > >welcome. Many, many of you have participated in surveys, in placeware > >sessions, in one-on-one conversations with product management and sales > > >and in the NSE program. Again, this pales in comparison, no matter how > >well done, no matter how much done, to being in the market. > > > >Lastly, wrt the comment about the process being used in the development > > >of blogware vs the development of dns, there are some important > >contextual differences. They are not what I want to comment on though. > >Rather I want to highlight that we are learning not only about each new > > >service, but also about the process of developing new services in > >general. > > > >Each time we do it we try and do it a little better. We hope to learn a > > >little more from each introduction. The approach we took with blogware > >was much different. Your feedback there is helpful. We will try and > >take the best of each process and leave the worst. It will never be > >perfect, but our goal is that it just always be a little bit better. > > > >Be assured, with every thing we do your feedback is what drives it. > >When it doesn't seem that way please remind yourself that you all > >provide feedback in a number of different ways, meaning no one of you > >hears it all, and listening to everyone will NEVER mean pleasing > >everyone. By definition. > > > >Thanks for this. It is a great post. > > > >Regards > > > >Todd Jagger wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> Pardon me for inserting this extrapolated tangent into this thread, > >>however Rob's statements I think deserve some (more) discussion here > >>as they pertain not only to the DNS service but other Tucows products > >as well. > >> > >> Let me preface by saying each of us has a different business model, > >>needs, goals, customers, etc. What may be critical to one may be > >>unimportant, or even undesired, by another, and vice versa. Tucows > >>can't be everything to everybody and they have a significant challenge > > > >> in trying to tailor their offerings and services to a vastly diverse > > >>customer base. While any endeavor has room for improvement I think > >>overall Tucows has done an exceptional job and, above all, stayed > >>consistent with high standards of ethics and > >>professionalism. In > >> addition they overall seem sincerely interested in what we want. > >> Sometimes they also appear to ignore what we tell them, but at least > > >>they're listening. ;-) > >> > >> Whether or not Tucows offers X service or Y product is not the topic > > >>here. Tucows is going to offer the products and services they > >>determine; that is their prerogative, just as ours is whether or not > >>to resell that service or product, or to do business with Tucows at > >all. > >> > >> What concerns me is the development these products are given and the > > >>level at which they are offered. It seems in each case we're given > >>something one or two notches shy of a kick-ass product, and that > >>directly impacts our abilities to sell them to our customers. > >> > >> To use Rob's example, the DNS service without the ability to > >>configure > >TTL. > >> > >> And the apparent stagnation of the client code interface > >>and RWI. We > > > >> resellers have been bemoaning the state of the client code and RWI > >>usability for literally years. The latest word is that new client > >>code is important and probably 6+ months down the road. > >> I remember > >> that same "official word" perhaps 2 years ago, back when the SF > >>client > > > >> was the model on which the client code was to be built. > >> Specific bugs > > > >> and suggestions have gone unimplemented. (Does the client code > >>currently require a payment method - e.g. credit card input - for > >>renewals? This was the first reason I went to the SF code. We don't > > >>want to keep numbers on file, customers' credit cards expire or they > >>change cards or addresses; what is Tucows's model for getting payment > > >>on renewals? None apparently from the client code.) > >> > >> The email product has the potential to be a great outsourced service > > >>for those of us that offering fits our needs (mine does), and while > >>some of the product are excellent, it falls short of being superior on > > > >> multiple levels. The new feature additions are an improvement but > >>don't quite take it to the A list. The webmail interface is still > >>clunky, even compared to something like Squirrelmail, and doesn't even > > > >> come close to the web interface of Cyrusoft's SilkyMail. > >> And besides, > > > >> how many people want to use webmail for their primary mail client? > >> Not many I know. My clients want the features to be usable from > >>their > > > >> email client, and the webmail is something to use when they're not at > >their computer. > >> Features like the shared address books are great but aren't going to > > >>mean anything to my customers unless they can share them from a mail > >>client. There's no mention of the protocol (is it LDAP? > >> ISMP? ACAP? > >> or something proprietary from Stalker?) There are many other issues, > > >>some of which I've raised, and Bruce & Peter, you know how to reach > >me. > >> :-) > >> > >> The point here is that with core reseller products it seems we're > >given > >> a less than complete, and thus less than competitive, > >>solution. It > >> almost seems that the products (at least the Email and Managed DNS) > >>were determined prior to extensive discussion about what resellers > >>needed/wanted in the offering, and now that the products are out there > > > >> it might be difficult or impossible to mold them to what our > >>customers > > > >> need. This leaves us in a difficult position of either offering > >>something we're not excited about, or not offering it at all. > >> > >> This is in stark contrast to what's going on with the Blogware > >>development. That product is being tested, hammered on, Bugzilla'ed, > > >>discussed in detail, and most importantly modified to what the > >>resellers want. I'm convinced it's going to be, already is really, a > > >>top-notch product that's ahead of the curve, not behind it like Email, > > > >> Managed DNS, client code, RWI. > >> > >> IMHO, I'd really like to see Tucows re-tool the quality of the > >products > >> in the same spirit they're developing Blogware. > >> Remember guys, this > >is > >> technology --- you don't want to be playing catch-up. > >> > >> Thanks for listening > >> tj > > > > > >-- > >Elliot Noss > >Tucows Inc. > >416-538-5494 > >enoss.blogware.com > > > >
