Software makers are obsessed with new. And of course we are, that’s our job: making more, newer, better! But as a lot, we’d be well-served to remember this affliction is generally not shared by our users and customers.
Sure, some people love upgrading to the latest version the minute it lands. It’s also a lot easier when it’s a personal device, like an iPhone, where the focus isn’t purely productivity.
But remember all those companies holding on to IE6 for their dear life? That’s the other side of ‘upgrading fun’. Disrupting workflow, processes, and institutional knowledge because the damn fax machine won’t send the important contract until the firmware is upgraded. What possible utility could a firmware upgrade to the fax machine provide that’s worth keeping a document from sending?
It’s ok not to LOVE, LOVE, LOVE all software
It’s so easy to get self-righteous about IE6 laggards and the fax machine that cries for a firmware upgrade, but they’re two sides of the same coin.
For some of our customers, Basecamp is an appliance. It does the job, and it does it well, but they don’t have to LOVE, LOVE, LOVE IT to be happy customers. I’m at peace with that.
Clearly the person who came up with “sunset” as a euphemism for kicking people off their service was not at peace. Whether the reason was a shiny new version or simply losing interest in maintaining legacy, “sunset” encapsulates all the misconceptions software makers have about why their users upgrade.
It’s not beautiful to lose access to your data. And no, that gobbledegook XML or JSON export doesn’t help anything. It’s not beautiful to have a trusted tool or service ripped from your hands because the maker found it an inconvenience to keep it around. It’s nasty, it’s annoying, and apologizing for ANY INCONVENIENCE THIS MIGHT CAUSE is just a further slap in the face.
No more sunsets at Basecamp, ever
So Basecamp 3 is not going to sunset anything. Not the current version of Basecamp, not the classic, original version of Basecamp. Either of those work well for you? Awesome! Please keep using them until the end of the internet! We’ll make sure they’re fast, secure, and always available.
But, but, but isn’t that expensive? Isn’t that hard? What about security? What about legacy code bases? Yes, what about it? Taking care of customers – even if they’re not interested in upgrading on our schedule – is what we do here. Cost of business, as they say.
At launch, Basecamp 3 is not going to have all the same features as previous versions, so some existing customers may well just want to continue with whatever version they’re on. That’s great! All the new, exciting features will still be there when (or if) they choose to upgrade.
For those existing customers who do want to upgrade, we’re going to roll out the red carpet: Big discount on a new trial, and we’ll store your old Basecamp data in the existing versions for free, forever, as long as you’re a paying customer of the latest.
It’s really not rocket science. People like change on their own schedule, they detest it when forced according to someone else’s. That’s just human nature, and it’s rarely good business to fight it.
Devan
on 26 Sep 15Interesting strategy, and I hope it goes well for you, but what happens when you are up to BaseCamp 6 one day and all the programmers who worked on BaseCamp 2 have moved on and you need to make a security fix? I am assuming your code is well commented and documented, but that is still a risk factor to consider.
Also, won’t this lead to fragmentation amongst large teams using your software? What if 10 people on a customer site want to use v2 and 10 others in the same team want to jump to v3? I am thinking that it is really the customer’s problem and not yours, but we live in a world where I’ve seen large corporates where people are working on 3 completely different versions of Microsoft Word trying to collaborate with frustrating results… Sometimes perhaps enforced upgrades may be for the greater good?!?
Kartick
on 26 Sep 15Kudos for doing what you think is right for the user instead of what’s convenient for you.
Kudos also for trying out a different approach. The industry will be better off if different companies try different approaches rather than everyone doing the same thing.
You’ve solved a problem with cloud apps (as opposed to traditional standalone apps), and that is that the developers can change something you know how to use with a different version. I see how serious a problem this is for normal users like my mom.
But what will you do when you have many versions of Basecamp? Will you eventually have versions 1 – 10 all offered simultaneously?
The part about having different data in different versions of Basecamp gives me pause. That’s a new level of complexity that most cloud apps, like Google Docs don’t have. Even with traditional installed apps, if you upgrade Microsoft Office, you still have all your data accessible in a single app rather than having to open some documents in the old version of Office and some in the new. So you’ve added a whole new level of complexity here.
Anthony
on 26 Sep 15As long as the older versions are providing more revenue than cost, then I can see that this isn’t really a big problem. It’s the monthly (yearly) fee model that allows this. It’s where there’s a one time fee model that getting people to upgrade to the latest version becomes more important.
Having said that, some customers really do stick on to older versions, and those older versions start to take up ‘mental space’ in the corporation. It’s interesting that the founders decided to focus on ‘one’ product (Basecamp), but that has now become three products (BC1, BC2, BC3).
DHH
on 28 Sep 15It’s taken us more than 12 years to get to Basecamp 3. At that rate, I’ll have to worry about BC10 when I’m 70 years old. It’s fun to think about what-if extrapolations 30-40 years into the future, but letting it guide what’s best for today is some serious crystal ball-planning.
This discussion is closed.