Lists

Gadget Monday – February 2, 2009

This is the beginning of what could be a new feature on my site: a (more or less) weekly list of interesting gadgets, selected based on their design and usefulness. I call it Gadget Monday. It’s not exactly an original name — a quick Google search reveals it to be used in plenty of other places — but it’ll do.

Der Bergmönch Folding Bike in a Bag

Made in Switzerland, this amazing mountain bike folds completely into its own backpack and can be carried up the mountain on your back, then ridden downhill. It’s lightweight yet very sturdy, and features, among other quality parts, hydraulic disc brakes. The whole bike weighs 9.5kg, or about 20 lbs.

[via LikeCool and Bergmönch]

Freeride Photographer Backpack

I’m a photographer, and I used to ski quite a bit in my childhood, so this is right up my alley. It has two compartments: one for regular items, and one pull-out compartment for a DSLR. The weight distribution is just right for the frequent twists and turns involved in skiing. From the looks of it, it will probably only fit a medium-sized DSLR like the Canon 5D and a medium zoom lens like the EF 24-105mm f/4L, but that’s good enough for me.

[via DesignLaunches]

Danger Bomb Clock

It’s probably not a good idea to carry this clock with you while traveling, but it’s fun to have it around the house. The alarm sound is a ticking bomb. To disable it, you have to disconnect the cable whose color matches the flashing light, which can be red, blue or yellow.

[via Economist]

Wooden Laptop Case by Rainer Spehl

This looks like a sturdy place to store my MacBook Pro! It’s made of solid wood, and has a magnetic latch to keep it closed. There’s a smaller size for the regular MacBooks as well. I only hope it’s lined with some felt, so my laptop won’t get scratched as it slides in and out.

[via LikeCool]

Prime Gaming Laptop

This laptop, designed by Kyle Cherry, has two collapsible side screens, in addition to its main 13″ screen. When fully opened, the aspect ratio is 32:10, and the screen’s diagonal size goes from 13″ to 26″. It’s a boon for watching movies or playing games, as you can see from the photos below. I love how the side screens slide over the main body of the laptop, allowing its owner to carry it easily.

[via LikeCool]

Porsche Sled

The Porsche design team have come up with this wonderful sled design. The skeleton is made of aluminum, the seat is imitation leather, and the runners are stainless steel. It even comes with its own carrying bag.

[via LikeCool]

Tibetan stick seat by Ashish Chaudhary

This is a seat made of three elements: two oval wooden clasps which hold a stack of loose sticks. The design is organic, rustic and futuristic at the same time. While it may not be comfortable by itself, I’m sure it’ll be just fine if you spread a fur or some thick wool comforter over it.

[via DesignLaunches]

Standard
Reviews

Hardware review: LaCie Little Disk 500GB

I needed a larger external drive to do my Time Machine backups, and the LaCie Little Disk 500GB was the best value for my money. It’s a portable drive (2.5″ form factor), it has 500GB of space, and it only cost me $100 at B&H. They’re pricing it at $124.95 now, so I guess I bought it at the right time (right before Christmas). (Amazon still has it for $100 if you want it.)

The design of the drive is distinctive, and builds upon the brick design that LaCie used to their advantage in the past. The enclosure is made of glossy black plastic, and it comes with a removable top/lid, which masks a short, retractable USB cable. I’m not crazy about that top, since it doesn’t sit tightly on the enclosure, but at least it can be removed easily.

In terms of weight, the drive is as light as other portable drives — perhaps even lighter. In terms of size, it is a little longer and thicker than my 160GB WD Passport drive, whose design, although almost three years old by now, is still one of the best I’ve ever seen.

I like my little LaCie drive though. It’s fast and roomy enough for me to back up my MBP’s 250GB hard drive as often as I need. Time Machine backups complete in minutes, and then I can simply eject the drive and put it away until I want to do another backup. I am even using the carrying pouch for now, to protect the drive as it sits in my backpack during travel.

Photos used courtesy of LaCie.

Standard
Thoughts

Storage drops below 9 cents per gigabyte

I see that Newegg.com lists the Seagate 1.5TB SATA hard drive for $129.99 with free shipping. Sure, it’s an OEM drive, which means it’s not boxed, but who cares? Do you realize what this means? It means you’re paying $0.086 per terabyte gigabyte. Storage has become even cheaper — unthinkably cheap. The previous relevant price point was $100 for a 1TB drive, which meant $0.100 per gigabyte (a dime).

Seagate 1.5TB SATA Drive

A gigabyte is now cheaper than a dime! I just didn’t think it would happen this fast. I remember when a dime would get you 100MB, and I thought that was a lot. Okay, let me not kid myself: I remember when a dime would get you 1MB or less. Now you get 1GB, which is 1,000 times the storage capacity, for less than the same tiny dime. Amazing!

If you’re looking for extra storage capacity, now would be a good time. If I hadn’t already filled up my main Drobo with 1TB drives, I’d jump all over these, because they’re definitely at the right price point, especially now that they’ve been cleared for use with the Drobo once more.

Seagate FreeAgent Xtreme 1.5TB

While I’m on the subject of good deals, let me remind you of my guide to getting good deals on hard drives. I mention it because Micro Center happens to be selling the Seagate FreeAgent Xtreme 1.5TB (a triple interface external hard drive) for $149.99. This means that you’re paying $20 for the enclosure over the price of the hard drive alone.

Remember, this is a triple interface drive (USB 2.0/FW400/eSATA), and that means the enclosure is very inexpensive. Instead of buying one of those DIY enclosures that may or may not work (I’ve been there), you’ll get something that’s guaranteed to work, or you can return it.

Standard
Reviews

Hardware review: Elgato Turbo.264

I’ve been using the Elgato Turbo.264 hardware encoder since February of 2008 (see item 5 here) and am happy with it. When I first saw it on the Elgato website, I thought it was a gimmick. After all, what could a little USB stick do that my iMac’s or my MacBook Pro’s CPU and GPU couldn’t do? I was in for a pleasant surprise.

Elgato Turbo.264

The Turbo.264 was launched on May 16, 2007. The original press release claimed that it would not only speed up encodings to the MP4 format using its own software, but that it would also speed up exports from iMovie, Quicktime Pro and other Mac software. I haven’t been able to figure out how to do the latter, but can definitely vouch for the former. I’ve converted virtually all of my DVDs to electronic format with the Turbo.264, and yes, it has sped up that process significantly.

Encoding speeds will vary depending on what your computer is doing at that time, and on the export quality (Apple TV, iPod, etc). You can easily select the type of output for your exports from a drop-down menu when you drag a movie onto the Turbo.264 app — yes, the UI is that easy to use. The encoding speeds I’m quoting below refer to exports for Apple TV, which are the highest quality in terms of resolution and bit rate.

I should mention that while the Turbo H.264 takes most of the processing load off your CPU, it doesn’t handle all of the computing tasks by itself. From my experience, encoding movies without the Turbo.264 meant the CPU usage stayed somewhere between 90-100%. Encoding movies with the Turbo.264 meant the CPU usage stayed somewhere between 25-35%, allowing me to use my machine for other tasks such as processing photos in Lightroom or working in Dreamweaver.

Elgato Turbo.264

From my own experience, I’ve seen the Turbo.264 take a mere 2-3 hours to encode a movie on my iMac G5 (2GHz PowerPC CPU, 2GB RAM) when it would have taken me somewhere between 24-48 hours to do it with Quicktime Pro. This usually meant encoding speeds were somewhere between 20-24 fps. On my MacBook Pro (2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, 4GB RAM), encoding speeds approach and sometimes excel 30 fps, which means movies are encoded at normal playing speeds.

Speeds will also vary given the type of storage you’re using for the original movies and exported movies. I’ve seen slightly faster encoding speeds on Firewire 400 drives vs. USB 2.0 drives, and I’ve gotten my fastest encoding speed to date, 35-36 fps, when I used a FW 800 drive. In other words, the movie to be encoded should be stored on the FW drive, and you should also be exporting to that same FW drive. If you’re storing and exporting movies to your local drive, encoding speeds will be slower, and you’ll be slowed down even more by Time Machine, because it’ll kick in every hour and try to copy the changed files to the backup drive.

When I encoded movies, I usually had no other apps open, or if I did, it was usually only Firefox or Safari or Mail or some other lightweight app. As a matter of fact, I’m encoding a movie from a portable USB 2.0 drive (see item 4 here) as I write this, and I’m getting 31 fps, which seems to be the usual encoding speed on my MBP.

Encoding speeds were fastest when exporting for my iPod Touch (it’s the iPhone setting in the Turbo.264 app). It took as little as a half hour to encode a full movie for my iPod, which meant I could be done preparing movies for a long plane ride in about 2 hours.

Nothing’s perfect, and I do have a few complaints about the Turbo.264. While the encoding software is intuitive and easy to use, sometimes it’s too easy, and there’s no option that lets me separate chapters from titles. What happens then is for DVDs that aren’t built right — the main feature isn’t a separate title from the ads, previews and other features on the DVD — the Turbo.264 won’t know the difference and it will encode all of those things together with the main feature, which means I have to do extra work afterward cleaning up the file.

Elgato Turbo.264

For example, I’ll sometimes get those annoying and tacky copyright warnings at the start of my encoded movies. I couldn’t care less about them and I don’t want to see them. These are my movies and I’m not doing anything illegal. Or, I’ll get the second title on a DVD appended onto the end of the first title, and then I have to split the file, making me do extra work.

If you’re looking for a product that will let you speed up the encoding of HD videos (720p and 1080p), the Turbo.264 can’t help you there; it can only encode videos up to 800x600p in resolution. On the plus side, it will encode both NTSC and PAL videos, which is to be expected given that Elgato is a German company.

Sometimes, and only for some movies, the Turbo.264 won’t properly mux the audio with the video. The sound will be off by a fraction of a second (or more), which is really annoying. I discussed the muxing issue in more detail in the past. The thing to do is to always check the encoded files carefully. Sometimes you may need to re-encode some files, or use an alternative encoding app, such as Handbrake.

This leads me into a discussion of the Turbo.264 alternatives. There are two that I’ve used and liked: Handbrake, mentioned above, and ffmpegx. They are both faster than using Quicktime Pro, naturally, but both are slower than Turbo.264. Of the two, only Handbrake can encode with the H.264 codec, which is the preferred way to encode MP4 files these days, and it’s much slower than Turbo.264 at that. However, if you use the ffmpeg codec in Handbrake, it is significantly faster than Turbo.264, about 2-3 times faster when exporting for Apple TV, at a similar bit rate (cca 2500 kbps). Of course, then you can get into a discussion of the quality issues between the two codecs, and that’s beyond the scope of this review. The important thing is that the alternative is there if you want it.

Elgato Turbo.264

The question you’ve got to ask yourselves is this: is your time more precious than $100? If you find yourselves with a big library of movies that you want to encode for Apple TV or for WD TV, and you want to encode them using the H.264 codec, then the answer is yes — at least it was in my case. For a few days at least, Elgato is making that decision easier: if you’re in the US, they’re running a special MacWorld deal for this week only (until 1/10/09), and they’re selling the Turbo.264 for $69.95.

Reference: official specs for Turbo.264. Buy it from: Amazon, B&H Photo. Photos used courtesy of Elgato.

Standard
Thoughts

Is it easier to design for the enterprise or for the consumer?

I was thinking about the difference between hardware and software products designed for the consumer and those designed for the enterprise. In particular, I thought about how vocal consumers can be nowadays vs. companies, and how that affects the process of making and selling products to them vs. the business market. I think it makes it more difficult.

You’d have to be braver, as a company, to put your product out there for the consumers in this day and age when anyone can chime in and voice their opinion on the Internet — even when they’re not well-informed, or worse, they intend to do harm to your brand, for whatever reason. Whatever the pitfalls of this brave new age of feedback, it is a good thing, as you’ll see by the end of this article.

On top of that, consumer needs are a lot more varied than business needs. It’s notoriously hard to figure out what people want. Let me ask you something: when was the last time you spent your own time filling out an online survey? If you’re like me, that’d be years ago. How about filling out a survey at work, on the company’s time, because you got an invitation from one of the vendors? I bet that happens quite often. So you see, businesses making stuff for the enterprise have a much easier time figuring out what customers want, while those making stuff for the consumers are stuck paying people to take surveys and doing focus groups and who knows what else in order to get an idea of what they want.

Individual taste is also something that enters into the equation. Individuals will have different tastes, and while your product may appeal to someone, it might appear downright ugly to the next person. Generally speaking, taste and design have little do with enterprise products, which are utilitarian and function-oriented. They are meant to perform certain duties, and as such, not much thought is given to how they look.

How about the difference in ease of use between enterprise products and consumer products? I don’t think I can think of a single instance when an enterprise product was easier to use than a consumer product. Not one. Sure, they perform more complicated tasks, but still, little thought (if at all) is given to making the user interface easier or more intuitive. Mostly, enterprise products are difficult to use, difficult to navigate (if they’re software), difficult to learn, and overall, frustrating. You simply can’t get away with that when you make stuff for consumers, because no one will buy your products. They’ll laugh you right out of the marketplace.

Finally, how about price? Isn’t it true that enterprise products are insanely expensive when compared to consumer products? And yet, the rationale for that huge price difference is always hard for me to find. Every time I ask why they’re more expensive, the answer I get is because they’re enterprise products. That’s never been a good enough explanation for me. Sure, the market for enterprise products is smaller, and you have to price them higher in order to sustain your business — the economy of scale just isn’t there to make up for a lower price. Plus, the stuff you make for the enterprise has to perform more complicated tasks and be more reliable under heavy levels of use. But I’ve always believed that enterprise products were overpriced simply because they’re marketed for the enterprise and for little else — and I haven’t yet been offered any conclusive proof to the contrary.

A few examples came to my mind as I thought about all this. Let’s call them mini case studies. I want to look at each one in particular. First, we have two consumer products, the Drobo and the WD My Book Pro Edition II:

Drobo

The folks at Data Robotics had a tall order on their hands. They wanted to come up with a consumer-oriented product that would give people the benefits of RAID, the ability to increase storage space on the fly, the flexibility of using drives of any size, and a dead-simple way to replace hard drives. Did they succeed? Yes, I think so. On top of delivering on all of those functional criteria, they managed to design a beautiful enclosure, too.

Were the odds stacked against them? I think they were, and while people are enthralled with the product once they begin to use it, there are a lot of questions they need to answer for themselves before and after the purchase. One of them is the file system, called BeyondRAID. Is it compatible with other file systems? Can you get the data off the drives without a Drobo? Another issue is the price. People find the entry price expensive, and they’re quite vocal about that, wherever you look. (For a representative sample of what people think, just look at the comments section of my Drobo review — the 110 comments posted there should give you a pretty good idea.)

Besides all of this, the Drobo is a new product, literally. There is nothing quite like it on the market. Sure, it works in comparable ways to other external storage products out there, but still, the inner workings are new, and the way in which data is stored is new. That means resistance, automatically. When you go against the grain, you get friction. It’s the way things work. So that’s why I say creating the Drobo, marketing it, and actually selling it and getting people to use it properly was a tall order.

Data Robotics had to work extra hard at this. And it was crucial that they provide good product support, or they would have failed. When I say they provide good support, I mean it. You might say I’ve been a frequent user of their support plan — and the Drobo folks might say they could have done with a little less complaining from me.

If you should read through my Drobo review, you will see what problems I had. My situation was a bit different than most. I have three Drobos, two with me in the DC area, and one with my parents in FL. I got a chance to see how the Drobo would work through the changing seasons of a temperate climate in the DC area, on a PC and on a Mac, and also how it would work in a pure Mac environment, in the sub-tropical climate of South Florida.

Now my primary Drobo is a new, second generation, Firewire unit, which I’ve been using happily for the past couple of months. But over the past year since I bought the Drobos, I had noise issues and various other bugs that surfaced through my intense use of the other units, and I went through a few unit exchanges and many email conversations with the folks at Data Robotics. I can say, without a doubt, that they’ve been responsive, courteous, helpful, and even went out of their way to help me sort through the issues and replace units that I didn’t think functioned correctly.

What was their motivation? Perhaps they’re just good people. That’s quite possible. But that’s not what this article is about, is it? It’s about the difference between making consumer and enterprise products. So I think in the end it boils down to needing to work extra hard as a company, because they’re not only making a product for the consumer, but they’re making a new product and they need to carve out a slice of the storage market. Sure, they’ve got good name recognition now, but they’ve had to work extra hard at it, and I think that played greatly into the level of customer support they provided. For me, it’ll be interesting to see how their customer support evolves over time, as they become a more established company.

Western Digital My Book Pro Edition II

This external storage device was an example of how not to design for the consumer market. The drive was meant for the Mac user, although it could be used just fine on PCs. It was a triple interface (USB2.0, FW400 and FW800) device, but it only worked on USB or FW400, depending on who you talked to. It also overheated frequently, and it sometimes crashed the computers to which it was tethered. As if that stuff wasn’t bad enough, some people experienced data loss, or the inability to get at their data because the drive would either crash their systems or it wouldn’t stay on long enough for people to copy their data off it. For a good summary, see the Wikipedia entry for the WD My Book drives, or have a look at my two articles about the drive, one of them the original review, and the other detailing the problems I’d had with it. (I’m one of the cited references on Wikipedia.)

WD Support were responsive, but, at the first lines of phone support, also clueless. The were willing to help, but all they could was to keep sending me refurbished replacement units, each one in worse cosmetic shape than the other, and all exhibiting the same issues. The problems unfortunately ran deeper than a replacement with this line of drives, and WD never really came clean and confessed, which would have helped their image quite a bit. Instead, they were content to sweep the complaints under the proverbial rug and hope they would somehow go away. That didn’t happen. People were getting even more vocal, and there was quite a bit of talk about a class action lawsuit at one time.

I think the problems with the My Book Pro line were hardware-deep. I know WD tried to fix them via firmware upgrades, but they were only partially successful. While the enclosure design was nice, it didn’t lead to easy cooling of the drives, and they overheated. The circuit board was also not successful, and the USB and FW connections tended not to work properly. The on-board thermometer likely didn’t measure temperature correctly, and shut off the units prematurely because it thought they were overheating. It also caused the fan to run into overdrive, which made an awful racket.

Thankfully, a few people among the WDC executives saw the greater picture and stepped in to help in individual cases. I was one of those lucky cases. I got another replacement unit, this time a My Book Studio Edition II drive, which has worked wonderfully for me since day one. Stepping back from my case, I believe that if Western Digital hadn’t mended its image with the My Book Studio Edition, things could have gone badly for them. Just look at the comments left on my two articles (23 on the review and 104 on the one detailing the problems), and you’ll see that people were getting progressively angrier with the company.

I think the problem with the My Book Pro line of drives is that it was put out by a large company. WD just doesn’t look at the market the same way as Data Robotics does. First, they’re one of the big players in the storage market. They not only make enclosures, but they make the hard drives that go in them as well. That’s actually the biggest chunk of their business. When they launched the Pro line, it was just another model line in their large product lineup. Did they do proper product testing and QA? The tally of the real-world results comes in at a resounding no. Did they listen to the customers as the first problem reports came in? No. Did they address customer issues appropriately? No. I bet there still are plenty of My Book Pro users out there who can’t use their drives properly, if at all. I think things went differently in my case because I was vocal about it. My article gained traction and as it started to come up on the first page of Google search results (it was up among the first results for a while), and it posed a real threat to the company’s public image, which they needed to address.

As a side note, I’m glad they chose to address my case correctly. They were polite and helpful in their interactions with me, and while I had to wait a long time to get the final replacement, I didn’t get bullied in the meantime. That was nice.

To get back to the root of the problem, WD just didn’t look at things properly. They put out a faulty product because they thought they could afford to do so (they probably didn’t think that as they were making it, but when a product is one of many, that’s the unspoken thought). They had a dismissive attitude toward the consumers because they were big and thought they could ignore them, and in the end, it cost them.

Now let’s have a look at two enterprise-level products and see how the rules change in this market. I’ll be talking about a DNF SAN and VMware. First though, I want to look at customer feedback in the enterprise arena.

How feedback works (or doesn’t) in the enterprise market

What you’ll find here is the customers (the companies, rather) will tend to be much quieter than consumers when things don’t work as expected. This happens for multiple reasons.

For one thing, companies as a whole don’t have an outlet where they can complain about things like this. The larger the company, the tighter the rein on public relations, as they call it. You won’t find employees going on the company blog and writing about their bad experience with a product. It just won’t happen, because at traditional companies, every post tends to get vetted by multiple pairs of eyes, each concerned with legal and marketing and general image issues.

If the employees won’t do it, the company executives won’t do it, unless it’s off the record, among themselves, at certain gatherings. It won’t be in the public arena, unless a particular products stinks very badly and the company needs to blame it in order to account for poor results during a quarter or year, etc.

You also have resistance from within to let others know that a product is a real stinker. After all, when you’ve just spent a few tens of thousands or more on some fancy piece of hardware that’s supposed to solve your problems, and you find out it stinks, you can’t very well go to the executives and tell them you need to spend another five or six figures on another piece of hardware, because they’ll think you’re incompetent and you didn’t do your homework before recommending the purchase.

Another reason is that you don’t want to spoil a partnership. If your biz dev guys have just worked for months to get a partnership started and the company has put out marketing materials advertising said partnership, and there is promise of work in the future involving said partnership, you can bet your bottom dollar your company’s not going to go public with allegations that a certain product made by their gold/platinum/diamond partner stinks. And if you raise too much of a stink, internally, about said product, you’ll be told you’re not a team player, and you can’t be trusted to work with the valued company partners. What’s more, if the tone of your emails toward said partner gets angry, you may even be counseled.

There’s another ingredient to throw in this mess: the fact that most (if not all) support forums for enterprise products are behind login screens. Even if you should log on as an enterprise customer and voice your complaints on the company forums, those complaints will not show up on search engines, and other potential customers won’t be able to see that you’re having problems with the product until they, too, spend ridiculous amounts of money for the right to use said product and log onto the product forums, after which they find out they should have stayed away from it.

What you’ve essentially got is a muzzle on the customers in the enterprise market, for the reasons stated above. Is it any wonder then, that the companies making such products have very little incentive to be responsible, and to make good products? They can afford to charge ridiculous amounts of money for buggysoftware, ugly hardware, and despicable user interfaces, because the enterprise customers will pay for them and like it, or else.

Now, I’m not saying this is what happens most of the time, but let’s face it, when you’ve got a muzzle on your customers’ real-world experiences with your products, there’s little to keep you from going in the wrong direction and staying that way.

DNF Storage SAN

At one of the companies where I worked, we used to call it the “Does Not Function” SAN, which was a (sadly) true play on the acronym for its maker (Dynamic Network Factory). This SAN was purchased for the sole purpose of working with a VMware server cluster to act as storage for the company’s virtual servers. It never worked correctly. It was supposed to connect through iSCSI to the servers that controlled the cluster, and the iSCSI kept failing, time after time after time. Sometimes the RAID would fail, too. Throughput could never be maintained, the virtual machines sometimes didn’t want to boot up or took forever to do so, writing to the disks and reading from them was horribly slow, etc.

When the company called DNF, they got some support, but mostly, they were told the issue was with VMware. When they called VMware, they were told the the DNF SAN was no longer approved to use with VMware’s enterprise solutions, although it had been on the list to begin with, and that’s why it had been purchased.

Bottom line is the company got stuck with this thing which didn’t do its job and cost a pretty penny to boot. The staff bandaged it together and kept it going somehow, with frequent outages, until money could be gotten together so they could buy some SAN devices from EMC (VMware’s parent company). Those were on the aproved list of SANs to use with VMWare — funny how that works, isn’t it?

But wait, the fun doesn’t end here. Once the virtual servers were transitioned over to the new EMC SANs, the company wanted to repurpose the DNF SAN and use it as storage for various backups from their other servers — basically, use it as a network hard drive. It failed miserably at that task as well. First, one or more of the hard drives went, corrupting the RAID array. That meant starting from scratch. Once the setup was completed and another server stood up, people started copying data to it, and it got corrupted again. This time, it went down and stayed down for good.

At that point, after 2 years of struggling with this thing, and the support contract expired (not that the support was worth much anyway), the company was stuck with an expensive piece of hardware that took up space in the server racks and served no purpose whatsoever.

VMware

I’ve been working with VMware technology, daily, for the past two years and a half. I worked at a company which I think was at the forefront of using virtualization technology. We had production virtual servers when most companies were still only testing the waters. That was cool. Getting support from VMware with various issues that came up as we transitioned our physical servers to virtual ones and started to use them heavily, was not so cool.

While I wasn’t the main point of contact between our company and VMware, I had to take charge in a couple of situations when the POC was out. I remember quite well this one occasion when one of my production servers went down while live, and I couldn’t get it back up. It simply refused to boot at first, and when it did boot up, the networking went out. I called VMware and filed a support request. I asked them to mark it as urgent. I was promised while on the phone that someone would get back to me within 2 hours. No one did. I called again and was assured someone was researching the issue. I waited several hours. No one got back to me. I then called again, but couldn’t reach anyone. It was already the weekend. I kept monitoring my email account on Saturday and Sunday to see if anyone would get back to me, and no one did. On Monday, the main VMware person at our company was in, and he was able to get the server going again. On Tuesday, a VMware rep finally got back to me and, as if nothing happened, asked how the server was doing. I recounted the story, told him a 5-day delay in his response is not adequate for an issue marked as urgent, and expected an apology. I never got one, nor did I hear from him again. So I had a production server that was basically out of commission for a whole weekend, and VMware didn’t give a damn.

That’s not all. You remember from the DNF SAN story above that VMware kept blaming them for the iSCSI bandwidth/throughput issues. For about a year and half, we had to put up with slower than normal servers that could take as much as a half hour to boot up, not to mention that they’d often lose their networking connection on reboots, causing us to toggle between the internal and external virtual network cards multiple times in order to get it going again. When they did boot up, they just weren’t as fast as they should be. VMware and DNF SAN kept passing the buck on these issues.

When the company finally purchased EMC SANs, the problems didn’t go away, but at least VMware couldn’t play the blame game any more, since it was now their own hardware and software. Even then, it took countless hours on the phone with the VMware and EMC reps to get the issues resolved. After that, it could safely be said that the servers were adequately fast, and they booted up without issues, but bandwidth was still a major issue. Even though the company had a Gigabit network, writing data to and copying data from the virtual servers was still not at Gigabit levels (not by far), and I think that’s an issue with the iSCSI connections between the SAN and the VMware production cluster. This is why I said at the beginning of this diatribe of mine that iSCSI connections are problematic.

Another gripe of mine with enterprise software is that it’s needlessly complicated and badly designed. Sure, their virtual infrastructure client is pretty good, but we tested a piece of EMC (VMware’s parent company) software designed to keep virtual servers in sync (I forget its name), and boy, did it stink… First, it was hard to figure out what do do with it and how to do it. Second, the GUI looked as if it’d been designed in the early 90s by some dude with no taste whatsoever. Third, it cost plenty, too. The company ended up not using it.

Summary

If you’ve read this far, I’d love to hear what you think, although I’ll understand if corporate folks reading this would rather not say anything.

I’d also like to make it clear that I’m not singling out the companies and products I’ve named above because I have something against them. I don’t. I do have something against badly designed and overpriced products, no matter who makes them. I think as Western Digital proved, a company can turn things around if they want to, and in that case, I’d be glad to praise the things they’re doing right (see the WD My Book Studio review).

I hope I’ve made it clear that customer feedback is important. It’s very important as a matter of fact. Furthermore, I believe that public customer feedback, as in the case of people voicing their concerns on the Internet about a certain product, makes a company more responsible and more responsive to the needs of the marketplace. It also makes it harder for a company to create products for consumers, because the pressure to deliver a success is greater. But that’s a good thing, because if you’ve got a hit, word quickly gets out and the potential for profit is greater. That should make the bean counters and the execs happy.

When you muzzle your customers though, as is currently the case in the enterprise market, there is real potential for abuse. Companies have little incentive to price products correctly and to address issues that come up once those products get used. There is also no real incentive to design things well, so they look good and are easy to use, and I’m talking about both software and hardware here.

I think that we need to have a more transparent customer-vendor feedback loop in the enterprise markets. I think business customers ought to feel it’s their right as consumers to voice concerns about vendor products publicly if the vendor fails to address them privately. After all, when you’re paying five and six figures (or even more) for enterprise-level solutions, then you ought to get your money’s worth in every sense of the word.

Standard