They need to get their act together or get out of the airplane creation for FS business. :( I really love the Bonanza and have really enjoyed most of my FSX purchases, I hope that they listen to their customers and fix the annoying issues that plague us all.I honestly think that they should fix their current fleet, before designing any new airplanes. Let's add vc rain effects, fix some bugs, and then consider new projects.Thanks.

I honestly think that they should fix their current fleet, before designing any new airplanes. Let's add vc rain effects, fix some bugs, and then consider new projects.

Amen :(

Now imagine how the 'support' for FSX will even further decrease now they started building planes for x-plane which is totally different :(

If over a thousand people have bought a product, and less then 100 have downloaded the free patch for that product, how much effort should the company put into their next patch?

If over a thousand people have bought a product, and less then 100 have downloaded the free patch for that product, how much effort should the company put into their next patch?

They should put 100% effort if they care about the people who buy from them. If thats not good enough, how about pride in there product. Phil

They should put 100% effort if they care about the people who buy from them. If thats not good enough, how about pride in there product. Phil

So you think that if 100 people buy a product, and only 10 of them could be bothered to download an update, the company should concentrate all their efforts on whatever percentage of those 10 that want another update, and ignore the 90 who think it is already good enough and want the companies next product? And are willing to PAY for it? If that is the way you would like to run your own business, feel free, but please do not ask others to run their businesses into the ground in the same way.

So you think that if 100 people buy a product, and only 10 of them could be bothered to download an update, the company should concentrate all their efforts on whatever percentage of those 10 that want another update, and ignore the 90 who think it is already good enough and want the companies next product? And are willing to PAY for it? If that is the way you would like to run your own business, feel free, but please do not ask others to run their businesses into the ground in the same way.

With respect, fixing a few remaining bugs is hardly going to run a company into the ground,and their reputation within the flightsim community surely counts for something.Carenado seems to have improved their responsiveness in the last months and I applaud them for that!

So you think that if 100 people buy a product, and only 10 of them could be bothered to download an update, the company should concentrate all their efforts on whatever percentage of those 10 that want another update, and ignore the 90 who think it is already good enough and want the companies next product? And are willing to PAY for it? If that is the way you would like to run your own business, feel free, but please do not ask others to run their businesses into the ground in the same way.

I would try to fix my product regardless of how many or how few would want that fix. It's called producing the best product possible. It's called protecting my reputation and showing a comitment to my customers. That should make them willing to pay for the next one. I am not asking them to run there business into the ground, just a qualitiy product.

I would try to fix my product regardless of how many or how few would want that fix. It's called producing the best product possible.

Sorry, but I think you will find that that it is called 'obsessing', and it is one of the main reasons so many start-ups do not finish and deliver their first product.

It's called protecting my reputation and showing a comitment to my customers. That should make them willing to pay for the next one.

Again, I think it is called something else. You are simply showing that you will do what you want to regardless of what your customers tell you they want. That is not how you build a positive reputation.

I am not asking them to run there business into the ground, just a qualitiy product.

We are still discussing things in subjective terms. I know very few people that would not call Carenado products 'quality products', though most would agree if pushed that they are not perfect, but then most people if asked would also tell you that for 30 bucks, they weren't expecting perfection.

Well that was fun, thanks for the disscusion. You guys have fun. I am done with this.

If over a thousand people have bought a product, and less then 100 have downloaded the free patch for that product, how much effort should the company put into their next patch?

Hmm, so your argument is that a company should only strive for excellence when expected to do so by others, not because it demands excellence of itself. And your argument also seems to be that a company should only strive for excellence when the market demands it, not when the respective product's developers design the product, or even afterwards! And you also seem to be saying that, even if a company recognizes an existing flaw in their product, they should only rectify it if so demanded by the market. You seem to argue that a company's neglecting perfection, and that the concomitant harm to its reputation have little or no effect on its marketshare. Well, in response to your arguement that only 100 out of 1000 people demanding excellence in one's product is not reason enough to fix it, I would argue that perhaps the reason why many of folks #101 - #1000 do not also demand excellence is that they recognize that these demands will be rebuffed & ignored lol, thus they go elsewhere, as I would lol . The harm to the reputation has already been done. Let me ask you: How do you quantify lost sales **potential** in your narrow view of market-driven dynamics? Sure, Carenado sells lots of models, but how many **could** they be selling?Well, in the 70s & 80s, "Detroit" felt similarly as you do. You can justify the theoretical practicality of embracing mediocrity all you wish, but the manufacturing sector's contentment with mediocrity is one of the primary reasons why Europe & Asia, and not the US, are now in the, um, driver's seats of car manufacturing, and it is the reason why they are also in the driver's seats of electronics, of optics, of producing software engineers, of... It is *not* simply about cheap labor and health coverage burdens (although they are indeed components of it), or about satisfying annoying, quality-seeking customers lol. It is *primarily* about reputation and about the perception & reality of quality in a given company and/or in a given product.I am glad that my wife and I do not eat meals prepared by a chef in a restaurant that you own ("Hey, the patrons don't go back into the kitchen, so why keep it clean?! Oh! if the H.I. is coming, or if someone get's sick, then I guess *only then* will we perceive an obligation to clean it!" Too late, many *future* customers have irrevocably been lost. Word-of-mouth, you know.). I am also very glad that neither my wife nor I drive cars manufactured by a company that you own. But, hehehe, I am especially glad that I do not own any FSX addon aircraft designed and/or published by a company that you control lolol. Market driven dynamics are great, but they comprise only one-half of the 'capitalism equation'. So ends this lesson of "Capitalism & Good Business 101". You will be receiving an invoice shortly. :(

Thank you for telling me what I seem to be saying. Unfortunately, that is not what I did say. I would also appreciate it if you leave out the personal attacks, they are not helpful. What you, RotoRx and others 'seem' to be saying is that you think a Company has some moral duty to achieve the ultimate perfection, while what I am actually saying is that a Company's only duty is to continue to make a profit for its shareholders. If potential sales or other indirect benefits (goodwill, reputation etc.) can be gained by a spending resources on already sold products, and that potential can realistically be believed to be greater then the cost of the resources involved, then that is a potentially profitable activity and should be actively considered. But, and this seems to be the bit you guys are having problems with, if more short and long term profit can be achieved by using those same resources to produce new goods for sale, then the Company has a duty to do just that. You make the point that the US is no longer at the cutting edge in a number of areas and yes, you are right, it is not because of "...cheap labour and health coverage burdens", as despite having higher payroll costs and much higher health care standards then their American cousins, European and Asian companies are able to produce more competitive goods primarily by being more closely focused on what sells profitably. Finally, I hope you wont think me rude if I point out that your suggestion of "concomitment harm to reputation" contradicts your hypothesis that resources should be invested when there is no market demand.

Let me get this straight, it's ok to screw the consumer as long as the shareholder is taken care of. I now know why the term " buyer beware" came to be.

...What you, RotoRx and others 'seem' to be saying is that you think a Company has some moral duty to achieve the ultimate perfection...

Hi Paul,No, a Company's duties are to marketshare and to *both* its long-term and its short-term viability. There is no increased marketshare, no big dividends to shareholders and no viability if the company goes out of business or if a sales trend continues on a downward, or even flat, trend.This is the difference between capitalism as practiced by us here in the US and as practiced elsewhere by, say, the Germans. The former is primarily short-term oriented, and the latter is long-term-health-and-viability-of-the-company oriented and seeks to increase marketshare. One engenders modest survival, while the other...thriving success. That is why everyone here drives Jetta's, Camrys (ies?), Hyundaies and Audies, and not Chevy Luminas. That is why we shoot pictures with Canon Sureshots or Nikon Coolpixes, and that is why we watch Sony and Samsung TVs. How did these companies achieve such overwhelming success? By maximizing efficiency & costs-vs-returns, sure, but *mostly* by producing products that consumers want and thus buy in droves *and by responding to their demands and to the market*- both for products, but *mostly* for service. They do not require massive demand, they create it in a cyclical process by first responding to modest...any demand. You say: "...then the Company has a duty to do just that". The key word there is "just". The part of the sentence that you left out was this: ...then the Company has a duty to do just that if its primary concern is short-term profits, and not the full successful business model triumverate of profitablily, *growing* marketshart *and* continued viability. GM had great profits and returns for its shareholders too. But GM almost died two years ago, and needed CPR to survive.You never did explain to me how you quantify lost potential. It is a long-term / short-term thing, and it is a cart-before-the-horse-thing. Require overwhelming demand before addressing an issue? OK, sure. But how to increase that demand in order to make it overwhelming? Most truly successful companies create the means, mechanism and environment for increased demand. Outstanding customer service is one of the principal mechanisms.You are absolutely correct: I DO believe resources should be invested before ultimate demand has been achieved (I wasn't referring to 'zero' demand, Paul hehehe). It was *precisely* this vision that led [Eisenhower] to the development of the US Interstate Highway System in the 50s & 60s. Sure, we needed more roads, but not like that!!!......yet [;)]. We sure do now though. Anyone who started a concrete business in the 50s to cater to the highway builders was responding more to potential than they were to demand. It is a delicate balance, one which we do not seem to have mastered yet, but also one which others seem to be mastering more readily. You are totally right though, in the end, I guess it all boils down to "to each his own" with regard to how we view & practice capitalism. Yes, absolutely, the short-term approach served us VERY well in the 1900s, but this is the 21st. century now, and as far as I can tell, the short-term-only-and-at-all-costs-thing isn't serving us so well now. Truly successful capitalism requires a flexible, elastic approach. Nothing is carved in stone, certainly not the business practices of an exceptionally healthy company.Finally, your condescending tone to RotorRx (in your 9/23 response) and above in this thread was the genesis of the tone in my response of above. There were no personal attacks, merely pointed and sarcastic humor. Don't dish it out, if you cant stand the heat in the stitch-in-time-saves-nine (that's all mixed up, and it's a deliberate joke to try to lighten things up a tiny bit).

May I humbly request that both of you take this pointless p*****g contest somewhere else?Preferably somewhere that I don't even suspect exists. Thanks.