Tech Support: Sucking Even More 421
Tech support has become synonymous in most consumers' minds with corporate arrogance and greed, the dehumanization wrought by technology, and the frustration millions of people have felt at being hung out to dry by computer makers, access providers and online retailers. People struggle to assemble products, to install software, to access the Net and the Web, to locate passwords, codes and IDs they belatedly discover they need (or have just misplaced). No other business would survive a month operating this way.
Customer service and tech support are the contact points between the public and much of contemporary technology. It causes the greatest fear and anxiety, generates the most anger and resentment; it's become a scandal, branding the computer industry as perhaps the most insensitive and exploitive in America. Computer manufacturers and software-makers make used-car salesman look thoughtful and concerned about their customers -- at least you can go back and find the lot where you bought the car.
Customer service and tech support are constantly being promised and invoked, even as they are rarely delivered. Extortionate service contracts are now routinely offered -- special arrangements by which people who spend thousands of dollars on hardware and software spend hundreds more just for "priority access" to get the kind of minimal support that's standard in other businesses, and that ought to be included free with their purchases. Can you imagine paying extra to call up the store that sold you a sofa to ask where the legs are?
This week, the research firm Jupiter Media Matrix will release the results of a survey showing that while some companies doing business on the Internet are actually responding more quickly to customer e-mail inquiries compared to previous studies, those gains have been more than offset by a sharp increase in the number of companies that don't respond at all.
Of the 225 U.S. companies Jupiter surveyed in February, 38 percent responded within six hours or sooner to an e-mail message sent to customer service. That was an increase from 29 percent in Jupiter's previous survey in September. Only 16 percent of the companies responded with 6 to 24 hours, compared with 25 per cent last fall. The percentage of companies that responded to customers within a day, therefore, remained static at 54 percent; note, though, that many of those responses were in the form of automated e-mails. That doesn't mean the customers complaints were addressed or satisfied.
And here's the truly shocking and maddening finding: 24 percent of those companies surveyed didn't bother to respond at all, up from 19 percent last fall.
But nobody really needs a survey to know that tech support is a nightmare. Support and customer service jobs are often considered boring, low-paying and difficult. The more noise companies make about providing customer service and tech support, the worse they seem to treat the people they hire to do it, paying them little and overloading them with cases -- almost ensuring high turnover rates and bad service. It's hard to keep good people in those jobs, and those who stay are generally miserable and stressed out.
Small wonder they catch the brunt of consumer wrath at the outrageous way in which computers and related products and products online are sold and serviced.
The average consumer, according to a Jupiter analysts, expects a resolution of her complaint or query within six hours. They're not likely to get it. At a minimum, consumers are entitled to e-mail response within a business day, instand and equal access to customer service reps if they need it, and prompt resolution of their problems.
From my personal experience, and that of others, some companies -- Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Hewlett-Packard stand out. They answer e-mail queries and complaints promptly, and provide instant and knowledgeable support. (Microsoft, though, charges customers extra for those "priority" contracts which put them on the top of long phone queues. Hewlitt-Packard takes calls as they come, spares customers complex and eternal phone menus, and even helps customers who haven't paid extra. Dell customer reps stay with customers throughout the life of a complaint. Consumers actually have a name and a number to call, even if the problem takes days to resolve.)
But as the Jupiter survey suggests, tech support generally remains miserable for most people who buy products online or need technical assistance. I'd love to see a survey of how much time and money has been spent by people trying to reach companies that abandon them to elaborate phone menus, keep them waiting for hours on hold, then often can't or won't help even those who survive the access process. As bad as it's been, apparently tech support sucks even more than it used to.
Ohh gawd, this one is easy! (Score:2)
customers want an unreasonable amount of support (Score:2)
When a customer installs programs they dloaded from the web, and their registry explodes, they are angry it happened and want it fixed NOW!
When a cust doesnt know how to move an icon or format a word document, they want the pc seller to fix it NOW!
a tech worked with had a great metaphor for explaining what we didnt support to customers. If you buy a car from a dealership, do you expect them to give you driving lessons? If you wreck the car and bring it back, do they fix it free? If someone keys your car, is it the dealership's fault? of course not. But that is the level of support that ppl expect when they buy a PC.
plus, ppl are dumb. you dont know how many MY SOUND CARD IS BROKEN calls are fixed by having them plug in the speakers.
I know what you mean! (Score:5)
Problems began when schematics no longer included. (Score:5)
This allowed:
(1) people to fix problems themselves or
(2) allowed local "fix it" shops to proliferate and do repairs.
Ditto with software. Source used to come standard. In the early days, on Unix for example, it was a given that "/usr/src" always had source in there. Now the direct is there but is empty on any non GNU/BSD Unix unless you (an one of many buyers of the product) pay enough to cover an entire years salary of one of the vendor's programmers, and then have to sign NDAs up the ass.
Today source and schematics are all considered "proprietary, burn before reading" secrets, with laywers ready to have you bankrupted and jailed for reverse engineering anything on your own.
The result? No one but the company that made the product can help fix it when it breaks, or troubleshoot problems. And they get swamped since lots of 3rd party tech support (software) or 3rd party repair shops (hardware) can no longer exist because their tools have been taken away by the mega corps.
The mega corps want things to break so you will buy a new frob or buy their $599 "upgrade" to Adobe Premier. Heaven forbid you should be able to fix things yourself, or have shops sell "pre debugged" software that they BOUGHT, modified and recompiled and are now selling.
And don't tell me how "everything's ASICs" and how schematics are useless today. Most electronics that fail, fail in the standard components OUTSIDE the ASIC (e.g., regulator burns out, resistor melts, etc.)
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:5)
First off, you get to be the "hero" on a daily basis. Maybe some hotshot coder made the fix, but he made the mistake in the first place, being shot for being the messenger is one thing, but it also feels good for being praised for being the messenger too. That's what I love about this job.
Also, I just like working with computers, and I've tried programming, and frankly, I just don't have the time and patience for it. I understand it, but I don't want to spend months of my life getting involved in trivial API details that are going to change the minute Microsoft feels paranoid that the competition is catching up.
And let me tell you that the worst thing about being a support rep has nothing to do with dealing with retarded or frustrated customers. It has to do with dealing with retarded (sales) managers, and primadonna programmers who take it personally when you suggest that their code is flawed, or needs to even be looked at; and all the political fallout that results from that. You have to handle these people with kid gloves, all the while, commiserating with the customer to make them happy, and trying not to let that feeling rub off on you. The second you "go native", is when you get screwed.
I've been doing support for years, and I think I'm going to keep doing it. I do love it. I really don't see myself becoming some anal IT jerk who gets off on modeling his life on BOFH, and while it would be nice to be a programmer and try to code things "right the first time", trying to do that would shatter my illusion that it can actually be done right the first time. (I have a strong subconsious suspicion that in reality, that's impossible - in THIS computer industry).
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
You say consumers are getting dumber. This isn't true. What's happening is, computers are becoming more widespread. Most of the people who are too dumb to use a computer simply weren't using computers a decade ago. Now, in an effort to increase sales, companies have managed to convince those people that they're not too dumb anymore.
On top of this, there is a huge number of people who, for some reason, seem to believe that computers are inherently scary things. Say something that normally makes perfect sense in any other context, and the moment they get the idea that it has to do with computers, they are suddenly reduced to drooling idiots. These are the people who believe that plain-English status and error messages are a secret code that can only be decyphered by computer people. This is the sort of delusion that people need to get over.
--
Re:From the front line. (Score:2)
In my experience, the problem with our organization (I'm in California) is that it was viewed by the company as just tech support, when in reality they actually have a bunch of CM Administrators with people skills. I dunno about Europe, but the west coast operation has a hard time keeping people (at least, non-HB1 workers) once they realize they (a) can get 30% more someplace else thanks to the training they've gotten, and (b) don't have much of a meaningful future within the support organization.
It is unfortunate that support of interesting and somewhat difficult products (like the aforementioned CM tool) tends to get grouped together with the guys answering the phones at AOL.
----
Oh poop. (Score:2)
One of our competitors has support that you basically can't get on the phone. Their programmers are in France and don't even speak English, so you're certainly not going to get any response back. Their price is higher than ours for most configurations. Their ad budget is fifty times what ours is.
Guess who sells more?
Hint: It ain't the guys with the good support or the best price. It's the guys with the big ad budget.
Technical support is crappy because Americans only give lip service to support. What it all boils down to is that most Americans are sheeple. They buy a product because they've seen the most ads for a product or because it's "popular". Support never enters the equation. How else to explain the popularity of Microsoft?
-E
Most companies can't afford tech support.. (Score:3)
So, let's say you provide internet access to a customer at $20/mo. This includes dialup, e-mail, personal home page.
Let's say that most of your clients call tech support once a year and their problems are resolved within 15 minutes of technician time. If your average technician makes $8/hour, that cost $2. You don't mind eating that cost.
Let's say you have clients who call twice a week and haggle for a half hour. That's $32/mo. Wouldn't YOU drop this customer?
Most companies have no interest in providing quality tech support. The companies that do find it essential because while that loses them money, it at least reflects positively on their organization and can hopefully bring on larger business. But even they can draw the line.
We provide decent quality tech support because it makes us the friendly neighborhood ISP that you can count on for everything please consider speaking highly of us.
These impressions don't matter at all to companies that saturate the market with advertisements and try to scoop up commodity dialup customers at an already discounted rate.
We must be the only tech company today that has a human being answer the phone within the second ring when you call tech support. We'd like to believe that our customers will see this as a gesture of good faith and speak well of us. Most companies find it pays better to just ignore their existing customers and keep advertising instead.
Re:Customer Support. (Score:2)
Of course, with some organizations, there's no choice, because the support organization is set up to dead-end issues that need development attention, and in that case, going through the manager is the only recourse the customer has. Organizations that don't set up clear and honest escalation policies (and train their senior staff properly to avoid needless escalations), are doing themselves a disservice, because the customer has nowhere else to go but to bark up the wrong tree.
Re:The Inside Story (Score:2)
I've talked to customers who made WAY more than 2 times my salary, who couldn't work their way out of a wet paper bag, I've talked with dyslexic IT admins who could not tell the difference between / and \ (I told them to use an unshifted ? and |, that worked).
And I've also helped IT admins who were grossly underpaid. One extreme example, was a Novell admin back in the early 90's, who should have been making $50k considering the work he was doing, and competency, and he was making about $16k. He needed a dental plan more than anything else (more than anyone else I'd ever met! yeesh!). I guess he was just too much of a wuss to figure out what he was worth and get it. .
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:2)
just experienced at buying and owning American, Japanese, and European cars.
In every case, with regards to maintenance and reliability, the American cars (Dodge Dart, Chevy Camaro, Impala, Malibu, Ford Escort) I've owned were not even close to that of my Japanese (Acura Integra, Isuzu Trooper) and European (Volvo 240, 740 GLE Turbo, VW, Porsche 944) cars I've owned.
American cars are empirically garbage, plain and simple.
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:2)
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:3)
You must not buy American cars. . .
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:2)
As others pointed out, if you go to my homepage, I do indeed own an Infiniti G20 which is Japanese made.
Prior to this, however, I owned an Acura Integra. This car also happened to be japanese made.
The Integra also happened to be require bimonthly trips to shop for maintenance. It therefore rates into my HUNK OF TRASH category.
It would be rather foolhardy to make a claim that Japanese cars are better, at least not based on my experiences.
However, I would have to say Infiniti is better than Acura.
I never trolled rec.autos.driving. I did respond to an awful lot of trolls, and it sounds like perhaps you are one of them?
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:2)
I owned an Acura Integra.
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:2)
This hasn't been the case.
But it should be.
Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:5)
Throughout my childhood we had Zenith televisions and radios. A 26" color console in fact.
Did he have schematics?
Yep, we had the schematics, he had the design specs. He knew exactly how this thing was built from his work at Zenith.
And the fact of the matter is... YOU HAD TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THAT TELEVISION WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I'm not saying it wasn't a good TV for the day, but once a year some tube would blow out, and we'd make the regular trip down to Radio Shack or wherever to get a replacement. This was pretty common for televisions of that day and age.
They finally replaced it with a Magnavox 26" which used transistors around 1980 or so. That worked for 15 years before the powersupply went bad and couldn't be easily repaired.
The point is, over the years the quality of the televisions improved to the point that you no longer need schematics... BECAUSE THEY DON'T BREAK ONCE A YEAR!
The same is true of automobiles. The VW Beetle used to be regarded as a wonderful car. Not because it was good to drive, not because it was comfortable to ride in... it sure didn't have a working heating system, etc.
The reason it was regarded as a good car at the time was because you could overhaul the engine on the side of the highway with a small box full of tools.
And once again... You had to do this because the blasted thing would break down on the side of the road once a year and require an overhaul. IT WAS A HUNK OF TRASH!
I don't have to do that with my car today. Yes I change the oil, yes I put air in the tires. But in 28 months of ownership I have not yet had it break down, stop working or otherwise require maintenance outside of oil changes.
As a consumer, I should not need schematics...
I should not need source code. Your product should work as designed. If there is an API call into the OS it should be well documented with defined inputs and expected outputs. It should work exactly as documented.
If I need source, if I need schematics, if I need service manuals... Your product is a hunk of trash and I don't want it.
Re:I can't believe I am saying this...... (Score:3)
For example, the situation in January when, after 2 weeks of having my cable modem installed, I was still getting randomly dropped packets, and a generally unstable connection (cable link light flickering).
After troubleshooting it myself (hooking up a local network and testing connectivity and file transfer with >1gb files, replacing every bit of coax and cat5 I could get my hands on (out to the wall socket - I would replace the line from the socket to the basement, but it goes into a lockbox, so I can't get at the basement end of it) - I couldn't fix the problem. So, I assumed it was either a bum modem or problems down the line. Either way, I needed to call support.
So...I gathered up some logs, did a few traceroutes, and basically got as much evidence of the problem as I could. Then I started the process.
The problem continues to this day. I've called them 3 more times, and gotten the run-around each time. I've asked SPECIFICALLY if I could get a tech to come to my apartment, open the lockbox, and allow me to replace the coax that drops from the apartment to the basement - nope - they can't do that. Even if I supply the cable, run it to the basement myself, and have their tech watch over me as I make the switch.
DSL won't be available until August - even then I am leery of getting it, considering the recent troubles in THAT industry. I can't get a stable connection to a dialup ISP through the 50 year old copper in the building anyway...
I've been considering 2 way sattelite, but that is MONSTROUSLY expensive out here.
Re:the source of this... (Score:5)
So it's really no wonder that the techs don't want to be there. Overworked, underpaid, non-respected employees have a valid REASON to not want to be there.
So they bide their time until they have the skills to move elsewhere. Then they quit, and move on to a job with better pay, better hours, better respect, and less "public" contact.
This isn't to say that tech support should suck - it's just saying that there are valid reasons why it sucks, and until those reasons get addressed, things aren't going to get better.
And this doesn't even touch on the fact that the people you need to deal with, as support personnel, are generally VERY clueless - to the point that seemingly SIMPLE instructions are NOT simple to them. I'm not even going there. You've all heard the war stories before.
c0m|ng frum da i|\|siderz d00dz (Score:2)
Let me present People's Exhibit A.
People wonder why tech support isn't helpful? Well, they can't spell, capitalize the word I properly, or use punctuation. Yet you expect them to somehow be able to, from 1500 miles away, instantly determine the current state of your computer, and tell you in one sentence that doesn't contain the phrases "regedit", "dynamic link library", or "virtual memory addressing", how to fix whatever it was you were doing that caused your computer to break in the first place.
I don't mean to harp on n3r0.m4dski11z in particular....sorry about this. But people need to realize that we're putting people with no "people skills" in a position that not only requires them to be technical, but to be technical and translate to non-technical, and to do so while the person on the other end wants to know why their coffee cup holder keeps cutting their styrofoam coffee cup in half, and paying them marginally more than minimum wage.
The companies JonKatz mentions above - well, have you compared the price of their computers to the price of what people buy at OfficeMax or Walmart? They're significantly more expensive. Do you know where that money goes? Customer support. You can't expect the same amout of customer support when you buy a computer that has 15% of the profit margin that computers sold be companies like Dell or Compaq or IBM have. You get what you pay for, either on the front side or the back. Sure that $300 computer is a sweet deal, but you're gonna be calling Bob's mom for tech support, and she just got her second computer 6 months ago, so she's the senior tech support person at that store. If you want good backend support, you need to pay good frontside money.
Just like n3r0.m4dski11z says - he's the tech. He's not being paid to be customer support, and doind so not only gets you bad customer support, but destracts him from his job of being a tech, which causes more problems in the manufacturing, which creates a need for more tech support...you see where this is going?
Tech Support is not free. You will either pay for it up front when you buy the computer, in the price tag; or you will pay for it on the back end, when Microsoft tells you that it's 49 bucks per call to diagnose your problems. The trend of "Free just for name recognition" is coming to an end; the free web sites are just the first to go. The ISP-cobranded computer (AOL, MSN) will be next, I think, then all sorts of other amenities people have gotten used to. The idea that tech support should be free worked well when the only people that needed tech support were people that had at least half a clue what went on in a computer and could cause things to break. Now, when someone's monitor resolution gets screwed up, they get all freaked out and run to tech support. Tech support doesn't have the time to help these people and the ones that really need help. Not only that, but in order to help them with whatever they broke, they need to spend 3 times as long explaining enough to get the customer to the point where they understand the explanation about how to fix what is broken.
In summary: You get what you pay for. If you paid $50 for your computer, you have no right to bitch about bad tech support - you should have known there was something you weren't getting when you saw the price tag.
Re:It's too complex (Score:2)
It's too complex (Score:5)
Imagine a computer with three buttons: Send Mail. Read Mail. Browse Web. And a keyboard, a one-button mouse, and a big 'Go' button for when the message is composed. You could support that easily enough, except when the user goes to a website which itself is broken. You'd need to certify websites to some standard which says they will work with your software, and (trickier) that their user interface works the way the user expects. And of course you can forget all about third-party software.
Does a sofa have any of these problems?
Tech support and OSS (Score:4)
The "community" isn't enough for many enterprises and organisations, either. They need to be sure that they've got 24x7 access to tech support for the applications (and OSes) that they rely on, and until we have a robust model for providing that support, it's one area that will continue to hold back take-up of OSS software. None of the models we see at the moment see to provide enough yet: Linuxcare and their ilk are having difficulties (maybe because they cast their net too wide, and didn't concentrate on particular apps), IRC and web-based guru services aren't going to convince large businesses. The Sendmail model is an interesting one, but what about scalability? Could it handle Evolution, for instance, when that goes 1.0?
I think that this is an issue which we, as a community, really need to address.
Re:Customer Support. (Score:2)
When *you* can't do anything, I want you to do your job and HELP. Find someone else that CAN and WILL help. If your supervisor can't, tell him to find someone that can.
When I sit on hold for 2 hours (<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/04/2
There is absolutely NO reason that someone cannot find an experienced tech rep that can help w/ANY problem.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
It's common in the Northeast USA, at least in the mid level city I work in.
I have a BSAE, and I started as a contract, then became a direct hire tech support person. Now I'm called a Technical Support Engineer, and rarely talk to customers.
Some of my coworkers on the hotline have:
as well as lots of 2 year degrees.
Most of the 4+ year degree people I know have moved on to become developers, debug engineers or managers.
Cynically, I think our hotline prefers 2 year degree people, since they have a much harder time moving on, as the other divisions demand a 4 year degree before you can transfer. If you get into the hotline with a 2 year degree, you're stuck forever.
Lack of TRAINING... (Score:2)
Cobbler's kids are bare foot. (Score:2)
Instead we get ignorant kids (they can't help it, they're kids, they literally don't know any better yet,) answering the line as a form of punishment detail for as near minimum wage as firms can pay.
The last time an expert system was used properly for support on a complex problem in this industry was XCON the RC1 based expert system for configuring DEC Vax'es.
Not a trivial problem and one which would have destroyed DEC in the early eighties if they hadn't solved it.
Re:luserz. (Score:2)
But Jon's point was that other industries aren't like that, and this is in part because our industry is arrogant and elitist.
Don't you think that saying our companies don't see customers as people. rather, they are simply a number at the bottom of an excel spreadsheet somewhere. supports his argument? It's a rather arrogant, elitist attitude, wouldn't you agree?
-
Re:Weak argument (Score:5)
That's because we're arrogant enough to assume our products are usable without support, and elitist enough to not care whether the people who need support get it or not.
They're "lamerz" or "lusers", and should "RTFM" before they call support, right?
Jon has, as usual, hit it right square on the head for the exact reason that he's not a part of our industry.
You can't see the forest because you're a tree.
-
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Weak argument (Score:2)
Just consider. If you install some Linux distributions, and have trouble connecting to ppp, the instructions say to log onto a web site and check
Part of this aspect of the problem is that if the problem occured to someone while the system was being created, it was likely to be communicated to someone who would fix it, so the only problems documented tend to be those that don't happen (they've been fixed!). But the problems that occur anyway
OTOH, I am told that "in the old days" everyone learned to hand configure their text files. Somehow I never happen across the documentation that they must have used. (Actually, I have some of it, and it doesn't help that much. I suspect that a lot of it was oral tradition.)
But if I am having a problem with, say, TarboCUD, to disguise the name slightly, the only answer that I can get is to buy the newer edition. Now I have a strong suspicion that the real problem is that they aren't backwards compatible to Win95 without IE4.x installed, but they won't admit it. They just try to sell an update. I bought one twice, but never again.
Now I don't know whether they are clueless (There isn't much info to give them. All I can say it "It installs fine, but it won't run".) or just greedy (this would be the company rather than the techs of course). But it left me rather permanently displeased with them. Books? The only one's I seen are totally useless wrt this problem. Usenet help? Where? This isn't a major product from a major company. And there aren't that many Win95 users anymore, but for other reasons there is no alternative to Win95 that is acceptable.
So. This is, from my point of view, poor tech support. From the company's point of view, I'm not sure. Perhaps they don't have a fix, and don't intend to. In that case they sold two extra copies.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Weak argument (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Customer Support. (Score:2)
I can accept that given the management structure you have, etc., you are doing the best job that you can. But I wouldn't like to have that job done to me.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Liquid Audio laid off Customer Care dept. today (Score:3)
Shows you how much they think of Customer Care.
---
Just last night (Score:2)
The problem was that we don't have internet service right now thanks to the twin horrors of Northpoint going out of business and Ameritech being predatory (that too is another story though). QuickBooks, which I remind you is accounting software, requires an internet connection to run. I cannot tell it to just use the old tax tables for this cycle, I cannot tell it to use a disk. It requires an internet connection.
Worse still is that I called to find out what the deal is and, at 5:30 PST, no one could help me. I was told that I must call the tax table people during business hours the next day.
So, my $350 ripping cool accounting package had me resorting to looking up peoples last checks, writing down the deductions (fortunately salaried staff, not hourly) and manually entering them into the forms (oh, another thing. I had to write them down because QB makes the paycheck detail a modal window so I can't open two of them and just copy from one to the other. I had to open one, copy the info, then open another and type it in).
Thanks for the great service guys! I appreciate it.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Just last night (Score:2)
without personal computers. I'd seriously consider paper-based options, using the computer
only for recordkeeping.
Yes, they sure did. However, my accountant no longer accepts paper records. Hasn't for years. I understand why.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Just last night (Score:2)
I tried, but found out this morning that my accountant only deals with Quickbooks. He said he'd be happy to consider other things, but at some point the trouble becomes larger than the value of the statement I'm trying to make. And thus a monopoly is maintained.
Oh, and too the moron that marked my initial post offtopic. Next time read the note and sit on your hands. My beef was that I couldn't get support for the product. That actually seems quite on topic.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Just last night (Score:2)
And why should I have to do that? Have I not a right to expect my software to not have stupid and onerous requirements? Have I not an obligation to tell people about such software? Without such feedback capitalism, which relies on an educated consumer, fails. As witnessed by the fact that QuickBooks has a monopoly.
b) read the damn box and understood that an internet connection is required and also understood that this might mean under certain circumstances there might be trouble.
The box did not specify this. Nor did experience lead me to think this would be the case. Previous versions operated fine without a net connection. There was no business reason to make me think that had changed.
Thanks for playing.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Brilliant (Score:2)
-Wintermute
re: why tech support sucks (Score:3)
It costs money to provide tech support. Therefore, companies that have good support must charge more for their products. This gives consumers a choice: buy from the cheaper vendor with no support, or from the more expensive vendor with adequate support. Consumers routinely choose the cheaper alternative, even when they know that the support will be terrible.
Witness the runaway success of vendors that have a reputation for having flagrantly bad service. Fry's electronics is a perfect example. Everyone who goes to Fry's ends up saying that they will never go back. Then Fry's runs an ad for RAM at $5 less than their competitors, and all those consumers who swore them off go right back to Fry's.
If people were willing to pay money for support, and people flocked to the vendors offering more service, then companies would be climbing on top of each other to offer more support. People don't actually want support, despite what they say. People say one thing and do another. What they prefer is to save the $5 and forgo the support, then bitch for 2 hours about how badly they were wronged and how bad support is nowadays, then they pocket the $5 and repeat the process.
Re:View of an old tech support minion..... (Score:2)
I've heard about the "18 month mark." My friend in tech support lasted over 2 years. He's not a quitter, so he hangs on under really awful cnditions. I'm hoping he's managed to move on (I'm awaiting word as I type).
As for the psychological trauma of tech support, it isn't a joke. I've seen people so sick of tech support they hate to TALK over the phone to others.
Knowing Casualties of Tech Support (Score:3)
One currently has lasted two years, and is completely burnt out. He gets paid pretty well and gets good benefits, but over time the demands have gotten higher and the management more insane. At this rate he's ready to quit and find a different job rather than put up with it.
In my experience Tech Support is getting worse all over. It's a nasty cycle:
Your best alternative is to make sure you, your office, your company have knowledgeable people on staff. You can't count on many companies out there - and if you find those you can count on, hang onto them.
Re:Yea...but... (Score:2)
And how do you know that the extra service at the small shop is worth the extra price? For some people it is, and for some it is not.
A very simple example -- in my town there is old/small/family hardware store, and a Home Depot close by. Small items (hangers, adapters, boxes of nails, etc.) cost one and a half to two time more in the small shop than they cost at Home Depot. For technical questions (such as "can I use widget foo with attachment bar and do I need qux for it?") the salespeople at the small shop are about as useful as the Home Depot droids, which is to say not at all.
To me it seems that the small shop just cannot compete. I don't see any additional benefit to me from buying stuff there, so I don't. I would assume that most people around do the same thing.
Now, why again, "paying for the extra service at the small shop is worth it"?
Kaa
Re:It's too complex (Score:2)
...
Basically the problem is that computers are open-ended and there's too much that's outside the seller's control.
The key expression was "intrinsically complex problems". My point is that life is complicated and there is very little anybody can do about it, even if [shudder] it was all under the seller's control. Very-limited-functionality devices work in some cases and do not work in others. Why do you think electric/electronic typewriters disappeared? They are much simpler to use than word processors, aren't they?
Computers are open-ended for a reason -- they are general-purpose devices for manipulating symbols. Yes, for some people that's too much complexity to handle. But they are probably the same people that stand before a soft drink dispenser in McDonalds for five minutes pulling a lever on which "Push for ice" is written (yes, I've personally seen this. After five minutes the guy went to the counter to complain that the machine is broken).
"Make something that any idiot can use, and only idiots will use it".
Kaa
Re:It's too complex (Score:3)
"Make it idiot-proof, and somebody will make a better idiot"
Imagine a computer with three buttons: Send Mail. Read Mail. Browse Web.
Making a very-limited-choice interface is not a solution for dealing with intrinsically complex problems.
"Send Mail" button. OK. Wait, my mail returned to me with the "address unknown" message! The button doesn't work!
"Read Mail" button. OK. But where is my "Print" button, and "Reply to" button, and "Delete" button, and "Move to folder" button, and how do I deal with make-money-fast messages a hundred of which is sitting in my inbox...
"Browse Web" button. Hmm... You mean it is just a shortcut to Internet Explorer? Or is it supposed to do something else? And what are all these buttons on websites? I was promised I would need only three buttons and this site has four! Oh, here is a simple site, it just says "type your AOL password here and click OK" -- that I can do...
Kaa
Web Sites the worst (Score:3)
Nowadays I don't even bother to send in bug reports for anything, except on the Sun Java JDK, which has an excellent and completely public bug-reporting system. If I reported every crash in every piece of software I use, I'd be a full time beta tester.
Anyway... what was the point of this article? Oh yeah, tech support sucks. So do taxes, death, nukes, and movies with Julia Roberts.
Most tech support people are lucky (Score:3)
They don't have to deal with The Terminator [sekurity.com], aka Arnold Schwarzenegger [sekurity.com]. (These are MP3's of prank calls using some movie clips, they're great.) I really admire the tech support people here who kept their cool and kept trying to help despite Arnie's insolence.
(See more fun non-tech support prank calls at http://badlinks.brutal.com/arnie/ [brutal.com]. The limo driver is one of the best. To get the links to work you might have to manually change spaces to "%20"s)
And Too Much Is Expected (Score:4)
The need for tech support (Score:5)
The problem with the tech industry is the lack of knowledge of the end consumer. It is the complexity of the technology that is causing the need for tech support unlike any other industry. You don't see a sticker for 24hr technical support on a couch now do you?
Until the end user is better educated in how computers work (read: take a fuckin class), tech support workers will be overworked and the quality of tech support will look poor because of the sheer volume they must process.
When I worked as a tech support person I received 30-50 calls per 10hr shift, the majority of which required long periods of time to resolve due to the damage originally caused by the customer's trying to do things they didn't understand the consequences of and then their infamiliarity with the technology when I was stepping them how to fix it. If customers were only contacting tech support for 'real' problems as opposed to ones caused by user error and lack of knowledge, the perception of quality of tech support (specifically in response time) would drastically rise.
If you want good support, you have to pay for it. (Score:3)
However, it's a double-edged sword.
1. Most Companies do not want to pay for technical support of their products. Therefore, the least competent people are put into it.
2. The companies that do put competent people in tech support charge you a lot of money for it.
Speaking as an Oracle customer, who spends $2,500+ per server per year on silver-level support, it's nasty. I have to spend that to get an operator on the phone with a decent wait time who knows what they are doing. However, I don't consider Oracle as inherently complex as Windows 98, simply because there's less stuff to break. Oracle also doesn't bundle Internet Explorer, the bane of support operators everywhere because it can and will break anything in a system.
This ties in with the fact that there aren't even dependency lists for what things a program installer screws up. Most software manufacturers just don't let support communicate to the developers.
Did I mention how much developers and engineers usually despise the end-user support people? There is a definate hatred there, and I've seen it way too many times.
Technical Support, in most cases, is isolated from the rest of the company. Microsoft is especially guilty of this, unless you pay $250 per incident for support. Oracle is better, when you pay them a lot of money for Silver or Gold support.
However, most users don't have that money. They also are stuck using extremely buggy products, like Internet Explorer, and software that can and will change every DLL and system library to the version it was built against (ICQ, Visual Studio, Internet Explorer, and Office 2000 are especially guilty) and not run if it doesn't find the right version. It's an unfortunate situation here, and not even the best tech support operators can handle these issues over a phone.
What needs to happen is for software to be built right, documented, and then supported right. Unfortunately, the consumer technical support is not there because the margins must be the same as computer hardware as they are for software, razor-thin. Ideally, stable build environments for the software made these days too would help, since 90% of the problems I have run into are because of version dependencies.
Then, maybe, I won't have to pay out the nose to get support like I do now on non-enterprise products. I'm more than willing to pay for support if I get extremely competent people on the phone.
From the front line. (Score:5)
The stupidity of some people in our industry (and I am talking about IT professionals here.. I support a large CM product) is incredible.
The people who really suffer are the clever ones, who have read the manual, checked the FAQ, understand the product in the first place, and only call when they have a -real- problem. By the time I get to them I am generally fried from saying RTMF 25 times and the speed and completeness of my response to them suffers as a result. Plus you have the disconnect between what marketing/sales will sell, vs. the actual capabilities of the product, guess who is expected to sort that one out (hint, it's not the salesman, he already has his comission).
I'm getting out of support and going back to sysadmin, at least I can call someone an idiot and then justify it face-to-face with their manager.
EZ
Customers even more clued-out than before... (Score:4)
I am sure anyone here who has worked with end users has answered calls along the lines of "I have a foppy here that is too powerful for my version of the internet. Can you help me make my connection to hotmail faster? I think that there is a problem with the server."
There is just too much information and too many words being bounced around for the average joe user to handle... It has almost become the case that to operate a computer without hassles, you must understand how to build one. Can you imagine if Ford said that they expected everyone to know how to build a car before they could expect to be able to drive?
I had a friend call me up the other day who had gotten the "mystical spiral" on his screen from the haha@sexyfun.net virus... It was impossible for me to explain over the phone how to fix it, like this:
As things get more and more complicated with individual PCs, I thnk that there will be a lot of money to be made for the first person who starts an app-server like network in which there is NO maintainence to be done on the user side. If you do person-to-person support it is easy to see the gulf of knowledge that is creating the unquenchable demand for tech support...
Congratulations, you just reinvented the Mac! (Score:5)
Re:The need for tech support (Score:5)
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
Re:Yea...but... (Score:5)
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:5)
i'm convinced there are few jobs as thankless as technical support. Nobody you talk to is glad to hear from you, even when you have a solution for them. If the company you work for has in any way wronged that customer, you will hear about it. In my particular form of technical support, it often involves cleaning up colossal messes the customers have made of their own files, due to not understanding the (admittedly complex) software. But that's my fault too. All of it.
I have been insulted, sworn at, i have had my intellect questioned, and heard every possible form of invective that doesn't involve my mom.
Maybe technical support does suck. Maybe all of it adds up to be poor service. However, just because you only talk to people that tell you to reinstall windows and reboot, doesn't mean that all tech support people are incompetent. Sometimes they're hardworking, knowledgeable people that bend over backwards and work weekends to help you. So don't pay them back with your anger.
Re:I know what you mean! (Score:3)
"Bill? I just have a quick question this time. I know you said stop calling but this will just take a minute."
Redials
"Bill - yeah, it's me. I know, I know. Hey why do I have to reinstall NT if Publisher crashes and burns? Since Microsoft wrote both the OS and the app can't you release a patch? Bill? Bill?"
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
One major problem is that whether or not there is a problem, customers tend to be unable to articulate what they're experiencing in an adequate way to the support representatives. This wastes a lot of time on the rep's part, because they need to ask a zillion little questions in order to slowly build up a picture of what's going on.
Another major problem is customers who try to diagnose the problem. Sure, you and I may be able to determine something like "the SMTP server is down" but most customers can't... but that won't stop them from saying it. I've encountered customers who describe every problem as "The printer is broken," because ultimately someday they would want to print the document they were working on so no matter where the entire computing process went awry along the way, it must be the printer's fauly. I encountered one customer who called and told me "The terminal is broken" and refused to give me any more detail. Every question I tried to ask was answer with increasingly angry responses of "The terminal is broken and I want you to fix it!" I couldn't tell what sort of machine they had, what they were seeing, what they thought was wrong, whether they were trying to get help with hardware or software, or if indeed anything was actually wrong.
As a customer support rep, one of the first things you learn is to discard anything the customer tells you about what they think is wrong (no matter how calm or logical they may sound) and diagnose entirely from specific solid facts (like what the DHCP control panel says). If you don't, you'll be able to help power user customers more quickly, but you'll spend eternities trying to make sense of what everybody else says. It's not inherently obvious to the rep whether you are a power user or not.
But all that said, I agree that tech support sucks, but for different reasons than stated here. What I have always hated about most tech support is that it seems designed not to help the customer, but rather to make the customer go away. If you call the application vendor they blame the problem on Microsoft. If you call Microsoft they blame the application vendor, or the hardware manufacturer. If you call the hardware manufacturer they blame Microsoft or the application vendor. Nobody will take responsibility. I once had a PDA from Sharp. One morning it wouldn't turn on. I called tech support, thinking they'd tell me how to get it repaired, and they told me it was a software problem and I'd have to call the OS company.
I don't call tech support any more. I keep my own computer running. (Easy enough, I use a Mac.) If I get any additional hardware or software that I can't make work with the help of the manual, I return it. My time is too valuable to waste in vague hopes that the tech support rep will be able to help me.
Tech support doesn't have to suck (Score:5)
Believe it or not, tech support is my chosen profession. I *like* helping people fix their problems. Fortunately for my sanity, I've gone from taking calls about why a cheap PC that someone bought for their kid to have for Christmas doesn't work out of the box, to managing a small group that supports extremely high-end storage on *nix servers. The difference is profound, both in the type of support offered, the business model behind the support, and the level of expertise exhibited by the end users. All of these things are important when you talk about tech support's deficiencies, or lack thereof.
The business model for the world I live in is that you pay to play. Yes, the product comes with a one year warranty, and we will cheerfully help (on the phone) anyone who's ever bought our product if they call during business hours. But that's where the good part ends, unless you've purchased a support contract. The company I work for has set up my group as a profit center. They pay us very well, and we work as hard as it takes to keep all of our customers happy. But good support (from the vendor's point of view) can't be overhead costs. Having former *nix admins man your support center is really expensive, and that's what it takes to do the type of support we provide. This cost is passed on to the customer. But in turn, the customer expects (and receives) a very high level of response.
Since the stuff we sell is fantastically expensive, and gets attached to very high-end big iron, the people who call us are never without a clue. We're pretty confident that any time the support hotline phone rings, we won't be walking someone through how to move a file off a CD and into their file system. Yes, they can still be irate, but that's a reality of the support world. But the frustration of trying to help people who really need an education, rather than tech support, doesn't come into it.
All of these things add up to a great support group, for our customers, the company I work for, and the people who actually provide the voice on the other end of the phone. Take away just one part of it, and tech support goes back to being the nightmare job that NO AMOUNT of money will make worth doing.
"Moral" Responsibility? (Score:3)
My question is this: Is Katz correct when he asserts in the first paragraph that standing behind a product is the "seminal moral responsibility of any manufacturer, both in terms of what's smart and what's right"?
Is it possible (and I know this sounds bizarre, but it's the argument that Katz is making, I think) to make a moral argument for tech support? My initial response is no, it can't be done.
His is essentially a "meta-ethical" argument: an attempt to apply ethics and morality to entities other than humans. I'm no expert on meta-ethics but I'm curious about it. And I'm curious about whether or not Katz is right and, if he's right, where "corporate ethics" are derived from.
What does it mean, for example, when you say a "person is responsible for his actions?" Or when you say: "A person ought to do this?"
And how is this different when you replace the "person" with the corporation: a corporation ought to do this? Or "a corporation is responsible for its actions?" (Is the corporation responsible for its actions only when those actions conflict with or harm the larger social matrix in which corporations play distinct roles?)
I'm not vexed by the genesis of morality when we're talking about humans. Morality is derived from structure of human relations. It strives for goodness, or virtue, or whatever you want to call it. This makes sense to me.
But when you're talking about corporations -- and especially critiquing a corporation when it fails to do what it "ought" to do -- then here, at this point, I find the genesis of "rightness" to be murky.
Corporation are created by humans but their very nature makes them into a quite different entity. They're a collection of humans, yes, but legally (and here's another problem, I guess) they're defined as a "thing".
Where is the "ought" located when we talk about a thing that's not human? A corporation "ought" to do this or that -- but based on what?
Its relation to other corporations?
Its relationship to law?
Its relationships to captialism and democracy?
It relationships to its customers? ("It makes good business sense. Ergo, that's the way the moral compass should point.")
It's possible to define morality -- or at least narrow its scope -- when we talk about non-human species that are very close to humans in their genetic makeup. Chimps, for example. Or apes.
But how in the world do we define the "morality" of something far, far different than human beings? And who in the world can say that a corporation has a "moral obligation" to do something.
I guess you could argue that lack of tech support harms the public; therefore, corporations must provide tech support. But this seems a narrow argument: it depends on how you define "harm" and it depends (I assume) on whether or not the corporation made a good faith effort to create a usable product. Is it the corporation's fault that you (specifically) can't get their product working? Have they fulfilled their "obligation" by simply making a good faith effort to design a competent product? (And how do you prove incompetency? "Smoking gun" memos?)
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:4)
(1) fixing a faulty product and
(2) explaining the complexities of a working product.
Case (1) is problematic because it's not always the case that the product is at fault when a fault occurs. (The OS, for example, can cause a working product not to work.)
Case (2) is problematic because a complexity -- or subtlety, however you want to spin it -- is sometimes misdiagnosed as (1).
One could (and while I do, I don't like it) make the logical leap that what Microsoft is doing with their attempts at a "closed" computer -- by, among other things, not allowing user installable cards and by forcing MS approved drivers -- is to make sure that case (1) no longer exists.
This is (in one -- and really only one -- sense) laudable. MS is acknowledging case (1) and is attempting to fix it. Of course it goes without saying that their fixes cause all kinds of problems not directly related to technical support. (Privacy problems, I suppose, top the list -- not to mention monopolistic concerns.)
The problem with this sort of approach -- apart from privacy and monopolistic business practices is that by fixed case (1), they'll cause case (2) problems to sky-rocket which will (I assume) cause a new case to be created -- case (3) customer ill-will which could obviate concerns for case (1) and case (2) since some pissed-off customers will ditch your product entirely.
Yea...but... (Score:3)
What do you expect for $49 ?? (Score:4)
Now in truth, many people who buy the product won't need tech support at all, but still, take a look at the price of computer hardware and ask yourself how many minutes of time you've paid for of that technician's time.
The fact of the matter is that the computer market is very competitive, and most consumers (home end-users) shop almost exclusively based on price, or at least getting a "good deal" is among the top concerns. Businesses are usually a bit wiser, taking into account the fact that it's expensive if things don't work, but again, price is still a major concern. Time and time again, better but more expensive has lost the battle against cheaper and "good enough"... at least in computers.
Just like everything else, you get what you pay for, and indeed in the computer business, very little is paid for tech support.
Weak argument (Score:4)
How does it follow that the lack of tech support is due to arrogance or elitist? I think it basically comes down to the fact that the cost of tech support is not factored into the cost of most products.
To praise microsoft for their level of support while paying for it, and condemning those who offer it for free, but don't charge is ignorant.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:4)
However, the conclusion that people who do tech-support don't really want to be there and therefore may not always do their job very well is probably correct.
Look at bad tech support in a larger perspective (Score:4)
UCITA [cptech.org] is another example. It's no surprise Microsoft fields lobbyists to tout the virtues of UCITA - a law that permits software publishers to sidestep fundamental warranties (like the implied warranty of merchantability, which simply means that a purchased product should act as it is supposed to) and disclaim liability for damages caused by software sold containing known defects.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
What about the poor workers? (Score:5)
On 2nd thought, this post leaves out one of the key casualties of the entire tech support world: The Workers (and on May Day, too).
A lot of people who have contact with tech support workers will say that tech support workers don't deserve mention, since they are weasally liars who don't care about one caller to the next. And in some, cases, that would be correct.
But before you look down on someone who is answering the phone for ripping through a script, lying, and then hanging up on you, keep these things in mind:
So, there is a May Day lesson on what tech support workers go through, and why they are the way they are.
Re:who needs tech support... (Score:3)
A large part of the problems people call computer tech support for prevent them from getting on the web and searching USENET. If you're trying to find out why you can't seem to connect to your ISP, and they've determined that it's a problem with your computer and not their end, you're stuck with either calling the OEM's tech support or asking that geeky friend of yours.
Just because you're capable of trouble-shooting issues doesn't mean Suzy Secretary who's trying to do work at home can troubleshoot her modem and then go online to ask for help on USENET for this annoying problem with Word crashing two seconds after it loads. In order to get help on USENET, you're going to need to have an idea as to what the problem is - yeah, I've always been able to solve stuff by looking around the web a little or just playing with the broken software/hardware. It's unfair to expect your Average User to know enough to troubleshoot their own computer though. In theory, that's what tech support is there for.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:4)
Hey, I am sorry your life is tough dealing with people that aren't computer-savvy, but you chose that line of work.
Now, from the perspective of someone who _can_ use a computer with a high degree of cometancy - tech support is getting worse. Everytime I deal with a help desk, it is a nightmare. My cable internet service will have problems - I'll tell the guy, "You're smtp server isn't responding." He asks me to check whether I have File and Print sharing enabled - heh - nope - not using Windows. I repeat myself, he wants to look at DHCP settings. I repeat that I can access every other host I try, but not the smtp server, he says he will put me on hold and elevate the call to a "Level 2". I mean come on! Its like pulling teeth.
I had an issue with a friend's Iomega USB drive and Win2K. Iomega brshes me off as a 'hardware conflict' - ya whatever. The other 3 USB periphs work fine.
My point is simply this: you sold the product, and you are responsible for supporting it. If you don't like it, quit. The majority of techs I deal with, however, are undertrained, underequipped, and not very willing to help. Most of the time I find better help in the newsgroups, and frankly, community based support is a large factor in my use of linux at home.
You get what you pay for (Score:5)
Customer Support. (Score:5)
Re:Weak argument (Score:3)
Also, anybody who seriously uses computers does not rely on help desks for anything other than reporting hardware defects.
Most of my "tech support" for software comes in the form of books with black&white drawings of animals on the front covers. :)
The louder somebody complains about poor tech support, the more likely it is that they are a clueless luser, mad that they had to wait 2 days to get an answer to a spreadsheet question that they could have found in the on-line documentation if they spend 15 minutes looking.
Re:Weak argument (Score:4)
I know I am splitting hairs a little here, but I did not say that all complainers are clueless. I said that as you hear more and louder complaining about support headaches, the probability that the person is a clueless luser begins to approach 100%. :)
I think most of the problem is one of expectations. A good example is how people react to air travel. When I fly, my expectations are fairly simple: "Get me there, don't kill me, and try not to lose my luggage." Most of the time, the airline pulls that off and I am happy. People with higher expectations ("don't make me wait more than an hour, feed me a meal I like, let me drink as much as I want, don't sit on the runway waiting for clearance to take off for a long time, etc.) are never happy.
The same is the case with tech support. If your expectation is, "I will submit a detailed description of the problem, which will probably be read by a rookie tech who knows less than me about this application, but eventually they will get the message that something is broken," you will be satisfied almost all the time.
If you think "I will leave a voice mail saying 'your shitty software keeps crashing on me' and they will send an on-site tech who will debug and recompile the program for me before I hang up the phone," guess what? You will not be happy, and people like me will get the pleasure of hearing you piss and moan about "poor support" over lunch, chuckling silently to ourselves that we are hearing about an "id10t error" from the perspective of the failing keyboard interface. :)
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:5)
Too many people don't know how to use the tools required to do their jobs.
Bus drivers know how to drive, lumberjacks can operate chainsaws, but our business culture is jam-packed with office secretaries that can't even do a simple "mail merge" with MS-Office.
The companies that think they have the best helpdesks are the ones who invest in proper training for their employees. They sit their new hires down in a class room, and make sure they know the OS and all their common applications.
Companies that don't do this end up with helpdesks that spend 90% of their days training people while they are on the job (usually, when they are 10 minutes from some crucial deadline or another, too). The help desk gets all the heat, but it was short-sighted management that created the problem.
The very best companies put support much higher on the foodchain (and the org chart), and pay their support people accordingly, while insisting that RTFM is not only a valid answer in some situations, but demand that their support people give it when appropriate, so they are not wasting time that could be applied to real problems. Alas, such companies are very rare.
Re:Schematics and buying heaps of trash... (Score:4)
My mother and father built the family TV from them in 1974.
I own a VW Beetle, 1971 pan, 1968 body and an engine I built up myself. (and it's gone 60,000 and 3 years without needing the engine to be opened up. simple valve adjustment and oil changes are all. and if I hadnt been cheap, I would have gone with hydraulic lifters for the valves.)
My other car is a 62 Chevy Impala.
I've owned hondas and others but I want the schematics.
I learned to read schematics from the Radio Shack/Tandy electronic kits that had a bunch of components with springs for terminals, so I could easily connect and disconnect wires and learn what the components did.
The last stereo we bought that came with schematics was a radio shack am/fm tape reciever, in 1987/88.
I want the schematics, not because I want to use them, but because I want the assurance that 10 years from now when a small part blows, that I'll have a guide for finding it and paying $1.97 to fix it instead of junking it for a $300 reciever.
I may not enjoy pulling out the 'scope (another of my father's heathkits- wish they still made those!) to fix another cap that's gone sick on a logic board, or a chip in the chrysler fm radio that loses a channel- but I want to be able to in the event that this happens.
A world of closed boxes is not desirable. I want the option of reading the schematics, I want books published on how to fix dvd players in your own home, I want to be able to service the tivo hardware not just the software.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:Weak argument (Score:5)
Wrong. Aside from doorstop and paperweight manufacuturers, no industry makes a product that does everything out of the box without any consumer knowledge.
Using a computer for basic tasks like word processing, email, connecting to the Internet, etc. requires some basic skills. Consider that people spend months or years to learn skills like driving and reading, but expect computers to magically do everything right away. If consumers took responsibility for learning basic computer use, I bet it would eliminate more than half of all tech support calls. Either that or realize that companies will need to charge more to cover the costs of all this hand-holding that Katz demands.
I do want manufacturers to post good documentation on their web sites, write good user manuals, and create good interfaces. I don't want them charging me more money to subsidize the personal tech support required to teach other people skills that they should be learning on their own. I don't know much about cars (I'm not "part of the industry"), but I don't call Ford every time I need to fill up the gas tank.
Re:the source of this... (Score:4)
I think it's more symptomatic of the software life cycle than anything; in my experience, hardware manufacturers tend to provide better support (Dell, IBM) than software makers. My take on this would be that it is because hardware (especially big ticket items) last longer and are more likely to be replaced by a similar model from the same company. People tend to stick with what they like. Software, OTOH, is probably up for replacement in a year or two, and the publisher would rather sink money into marketing the new product than supporting the old.
A former `guru' speaks... (Score:5)
I used to find myself in the position of being a guru to friends, family, and neighbours. I'm very reluctant to do so now.
The big problem is complexity, as a lot of other posters have pointed out. Hardware is sourced from all over the place; the system manufacturers go for the bits that give them the biggest margins, and damn the quality of the accompanying documentation and drivers. Then there's the software. A lot of modern software is unforgivably arrogant [osopinion.com], sending its tentacles into parts of the system that it has no business going near and demanding the lion's share of the computer's resources. The result is machines that are constantly teetering on the brink of meltdown.
Now, I'm in this business because I like messing about with computers, but I got sick to the back teeth of sitting in friends' and neighbours' bedrooms, interminably rebooting their balky machines, hunting for drivers, and re-installing Windows, while the person I'm supposedly doing the favour for hovers over my shoulder, sending out vibes that this is all somehow my fault. Eventually, I had to stop. It wasn't worth the heartache.
What pisses me off about the whole thing is that people like me are in a way responsible for this whole cock-up. We're the early adopters who played with the first personal computers in the '80s and told anyone who would listen that computers were The Next Big Thing. It was our evangelism that made the fortunes of companies like Microsoft and IBM. And it is our unpaid tech support, in our roles as gurus, that sustains their fortunes. Think about it: each time you unwedge your next-door neighbour's Windows box, that's one less irate customer onto Microsoft or Corel or IBM, flaming them for the fragile, barely-usable crud they have been inflicting on customers for years. Of course, the execs of these companies have built themselves a nice thick insulating layer of minimum-wage phone jockeys between themselves and their customers so they never have to listen to the anguish.
So, if any friends, neighbours, or relatives ask me to look at their computers anymore, I decline politely. If they persist, I ask to be paid. People do get snotty at that, but I'm fucked if I'm going to let the assholes in Microsoft or Compaq off the hook by providing free technical support for their customers.
Gurus of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. And, um, most of your friends. :-)
who needs tech support... (Score:4)
Seriously, I've solved a lot more problems in my career by searching the 'Net than by calling any phone numbers. And I bet most /. readers have similar experiences. The geek community already supports itself better than any helpdesk could hope to achieve.
Of course, we don't represent the typical case here, either. The ordinary home user wants real, live, effective human support. I'm just not sure how they're going to get it. I don't see the industry changing its tech support ways any time soon.
No way (Score:4)
Manufacturers' support is usually very, very good. It's the resellers that provide the bad support. Lots of OEMs are required to provide support for Windows because they preinstall it. This is where the support goes to hell. Think Best Buy. Think Office Max. Have you ever known anyone who's had a pleasant experience with Best Buy's customer service? If you buy a system from them, you have to go to them for support. If you buy a system, say, direct from Dell, guess what? Dell's support is phenomenal!
luserz. (Score:5)
That's because we're arrogant enough to assume our products are usable without support, and elitist enough to not care whether the people who need support get it or not.
no, it's because companies are cheap, and don't see customers as people. rather, they are simply a number at the bottom of an excel spreadsheet somewhere. the quality of the service doesn't matter, it's how low you can bring the end user price to sucker them in.
case in point...
i used to do Verizon DSL tech support. It was a miserable, thankless job. the day after our 500,000th customer signed up, the entire call center i worked in was laid off. why? because we had the highest-priced, best trained techs in their support hierarchy. but now that there's half a million customers, the service doesn't count any more. no matter how many cancel the service, they've achieved a critical mass that keeps them from losing money as long as they can keep suckering people in with the low monthly price.
and as long as they can pay undertrained phone monkeys half what they paid us, the monthly price stays low.
_that's_ why tech support sucks. because people are too fucking lazy to tell a company to go screw and hurt the bottom line - they'd rather bitch about it on slashdot.
--saint----
Why Tech Support Really Sucks (Score:3)
> and would never even consider throwing someone that actually
> has a degree into the tech-support pit.
Maybe the reason why tech support really sucks is because companies consider it "throwing someone into the tech-support pit". It never seems to cross anyone's mind that it's possible to find people who like to do tech support (I've been doing it for seven years, I have no desire to get out of it, and I'm paid more than the programmers because my longevity is valuable). If you take the time to find people who like the environment, then work to make the environment likeable as well (good management and decent pay and such), it's easy to get and keep good tech support reps. The problem stems from companies that seem to go out of their way to make tech support departments suck, and then they wonder why they can't get good help. It's not easy to build a good attitude on your help desk, but it's possible (our company lives and dies by its tech support so it's a big priority here), and the difference it makes in the service level our customers get is phenomenal.
Virg
It's all about the bottom line (Score:3)
Of course, let's not forget money, after all that's what drives these companies. From the cheap underhanded customer service policy I described above to the low pay and wretched working conditions for the phone reps, they have taken care of their financial interests.
Re:the source of this... (Score:3)
The answer to all of this is to use sharp objects to get managers' eyes off of the "metrics" they're using and get their minds wrapped around the idea that the people answering the phone must first sound knowledgable, and second be knowledgable, and be capable of fixing the problem. That is all someone calling tech support wants. They do not want to hear that industry standard metrics are being applied to their problem, they want to hear that it's quick and easy to fix.
How would they do this? Well maybe they could start by training the help desk personnel to be an IQ point smarter than a bucket of mud. Then they could try giving them an encouraging environment to work in, where they are mentored by 3rd level techs who already know how it works. Then they could try paying them more than slave's wages. Then they could try giving them a path for advancement if they do well. All of this would require effort and investment on the corporations' and managments' parts, and until they're willing to do that help desks will always suck.
Re:Customer Support. (Score:5)
As someone who has worked tech support for Dell (outsourced, but the same program, and you'd never know we were outsourced except for our smaller paychecks) let me clue you in.
First off, the 2 hours hold time really is not our fault. We know you're there, but so are 1000 other people, and they called first. We take them as they come in, and either you get someone who's just looking for good call times who will blow you off (which gets you on the line faster to be blown off) or you get someone, like me, who doesn't really care about call times but will try to fix your problem (but, then, of course, that means you'll have a longer hold time). Those are your two choices...there are no others. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Secondly, is that a lot of folks call tech support with basic (l)user questions. I'm a sucker for them, and will try to answer them as best as I can. Of course, these folks aren't the best equipped to handle the answers, so I usually end up having to rephrase my answer a few times. Once again, this is going to lead to higher hold times. Sorry about that, but if it was you or your grandmother on the other end of the phone, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me helping her out.
Third, when people yell and scream and bitch and moan at me for something which I have no authority to change, well, that takes time too. Just get down to the problem and I'll try and help you. Bitch and moan, and I'll sit back and read /. until you calm down, or, in extreme cases, I'll "accidentally" hit the disconnect button.
And, if I say there's nothing I can do for you. That's it. There's nothing I can do for you. Mgmt and/or Level 2 techs aren't going to help you either. I'm not Michael Dell, nor do I get a personal audience with him. There's no way in hell I'm going to get Dell to change their policies. Live with it, or complain to Customer Service. Tech Support is there to fix computers, not to handle complaints.
Fourth, you must understand that we provide a limited support. Don't expect me to fix WinAmp. Don't expect me to teach you how to use a spreadsheet. If there's something wrong with your hardware, I'll find it. But you may need to reinstall. Sorry, but that's a valid way of diagnosing software problems.
As for finding someone else to help, you've got to realize that in a room of 300 techs there's 300 people on the other end of the phone as well. If you've been on hold for 2 hours, that means every tech is busy as well. So, what do you expect me to do? Walk around and ask all the techs if they know how to fix your problem? Perhaps I should just stand up and make an announcement? We don't have time to discuss things, except perhaps for the 10 minute smoke break we get every 2 hours. And, yeah, everyone really feels like talking about your problem at that point...no, really, we do. Riiiggghhhht.
Oh, and my supervisor is a manager. That means he's a paper pusher. He monitor's call times and queue loads, etc. He has no technical knowledge, and couldn't help you even if he wanted to. Which he doesn't, and I can't make him.
All in all, I'd say I'm a pretty good tech. I help people when I can, and if you want to bitch and moan, go right ahead, I'll just sit back and pull in my $10/hour to hear you complain. Cuss me out if you want, I really don't care. Not that that happens often with me. Within a year of working there, I've had 2 job offers, one invite to a woman's house boat, and 3 gifts mailed to me. But, hey, I guess I'm the exception.
Katz missed the mark...and so do consumers! (Score:3)
1. Margins on hardware are extremely thin. So thin, in fact, that a single 1-hour tech support call to a vendor can often wipe out all of the profit in a given sale. Add up the cost of having to have a knowledgable person on the other end of the phone for that hour, the cost of the phone for that hour, that desk and cubicle, the software that tracks trouble tickets, etc. It's really quite expensive to offer tech support.
2. In order to save money, less scrupulous vendors will hire less knowledgable (and therefore cheaper) support staff. Or they'll hire fewer of them, causing long wait times in the queues.
3. Because of item number 2, knowledgable and skilled support workers are more scarce. Those who are good get promoted out of it or they are only using it to get some experience in the industry and quickly move on to better jobs. This causes even more headaches.
4. Customers (consumers) are always looking for something for nothing, or the best deal they can possibly get. So they tend to favor vendors with the lowest prices over vendors with equivalent products but higher prices (and usually better support). Then they complain because they don't feel that they're getting proper support. But they still continue to feed situations 1, 2, and 3.
5. Consumers are stupid. Period. 95% of them can't tell you what they've done or what's wrong or what's not working. All they can say is, "It doesn't work." Even in a business environment I get people who tell me, "I plugged that one cable into the thing on the side of the computer where it looks like it fits but it won't sync." OK...could you possibly be any more vague? Do you really expect that I can help you when that's all that you give me to go on? Why would you possibly consider calling for support without a serial number or a product model number? How can someone be expected to diagnose a problem with a unit when they don't even know what the unit is?
Consumers buy complex systems and components without even stopping to think if there might be compatibility issues, let alone support for those issues. Yet the same people wouldn't think of buying a car without doing some research on the car or dealer first. And we all know that a computer is many times more complicated than a car, don't we?
People expect the same level of customer service when buying a PC as they do when buying a couch. But even though they may be the same price, the couch offers several times the profits of a PC for a MUCH simpler product. That makes support pretty darn simple to provide.
I'm not normally a Katz-basher, but geez...think about it for a minute. If you want support, pay a little more and go with a vendor that has a reputation for good support. Don't buy from Bubba's House of Cheap-o and skip the support contract just because it makes it as costly as buying from Sterling Reputation Inc.
Businesses have figured this out long ago. That's why we buy PC's from Compaq and Dell. We know that we can call in a problem and be on the phone with an agent within 5 minutes and have the problem fixed or a replacement on the way. Businesses know that you can't get something for nothing, and they know that support is a major something. Once consumers get their head out of their asses, they'll realize the same thing.
And yes, it is their fault for supporting vendors and markets that don't support them when there are reasonably priced alternatives that would support them.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:3)
The reason that people think they can use a computer without ever having any training or knowledge, is that they have been told they can!
I constantly speak to people whose first comment is "I am computer illiterate" expecting that this will change what I have to say to them. I don't blame them, I blame the marketing turds who have told them that they are OK to fly blind.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a new phenomenon. Back in 197mumble, a friend of mine sold BBC computers in kit form and had a customer complain that it wouldn't work. I mean, how could it when he had glued all of the components in place? What is new is that computers are now being actively marketed as tools which do not require training.
Tech support in general sucks, both for people who need it and people who work it. Part of the reason is that half of your day is taken up by people who either haven't taken the time to find out something about the tool they use or refuse to do so.
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:5)
In all fairness though, Katz is right. You just have to keep in mind it goes both ways: Tech support agents may be rude, apathetic, and overall uncaring, but they got that way by talking to retarded customers day in and day out for month after month. A new tech support agent on the phone who hasn't been "broken in" yet isn't like that. He/she might be an idiot, but at least they're customer service friendly...
Now that I think about it, in addition to taking into account the low pay, terrible working conditions, and unbareable monotomy - I think the equation you need to keep in mind with tech support is that Competance is inversely proportaional to Customer service. The reason behind this is because as the agent gets more experienced and knows more and more about the product, he or she starts to hate the "stupid customers" more and more. When they start on the phone it's the opposite, new agents are sort of scared and intimidated by the customers.
Ah well. And to what someone said earlier about promoting the talent out of tech support, that's the way it worked at the place I was at too. Instead, it wasn't into design jobs.. it was into management or IT. It's all about getting off of the phones.
You get what you pay for. (Score:4)
The way I see it, you have two options with tech support. Pay for it or shut the hell up.
-----------------------------
kaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeha!
-----------------------------
The devolution of Tech Support (Score:4)
It's not just IT (Score:4)
No other business would survive a month operating this way.
Don't bet on it. Customer service, over the last 10 to 20 years, has taken a nose dive in nearly every type of business I've come in contact with. I'm trying to refinance a second mortgage and keep having problems. 30-45 minute hold times only to be connected to truly clueless people. One woman heard my question and simply bounced me back into the hold queue. One person told me the underwriter wanted more info and that I needed to be transfered to another person. The person to whom I was transfer promptly informed me that the loan was declined. A call a couple days later revealed that my loan was still alive and well. The type of loan was wrong as was the duration. And the person I was talking to couldn't handle 3rd grade math without a calculator. No one will call me either. I have to chase them. Do they really want my business?
I'd say at least 30% of the bills we receive have errors in them serious enough for us to track them down. Especially health care-related bills where the health insurance company has lost it's mind. Our insurance company swears our perscription card works, but tell that to the pharmacist who says it doesn't. And they dropped my wife for no reason, without warning, and with no explanation. When we called and asked, they simply said they didn't know why and couldn't fix it.
Did you know that I have twelve aliases accoring to the credit reporting agencies? I do! They're all various misspellings of my name. (I have a very english name with an obvious spelling). And there's wrong/old information on my credit reports. Luckily, I've fixed 95% of it now. Have you ever tried calling a credit reporting agency?
Even the state of Indiana tried to claim that we hadn't paid our taxes last year. We sent them a copy of our return and a copy of the canceled check, return receipt of course. Then they claimed we never sent it. We faxed them the return receipt. They quit complaining.
I can't even get a person who speaks english at a fast food drive-thru anymore. Tomato != Mayo.
I want ketchup. Que? Ketchup. Que? Ketchup!
Re:why tech support sucks (Score:5)
why tech support sucks (Score:5)
Freshly minted BSEE grads from universities are normally stuck into either tech support or sales as their first, entry-level position.
Naturally, nobody does four years of engineering with visions of answering phone calls from people who can't figure out how to plug in their mouse, so these people try their darnedest to move out of support and into design-level jobs.
The talented people in tech support generally get noticed - and promoted out. The less talented generally get stuck in tech support. The Peter principle at work.
Re:Yea...but... (Score:4)
I take it you've never had to return something to Wal-Mart. It's a remarkably easy process. Their customer support desk is right by the front door, return something for almost any reason, and they'll give you cash if you have a receipt, and exchanges without one. They operate under the philosphy of "keep them happy, and they'll keep spending their money here." They can afford to "lose" money on returns.
On the other hand, I know of several small shops I've been to where the guy behind the counter has an "us versus them" attitude towards their customers, where you have to prove that the problem is the fault of the store's, because they can't always afford to give you a refund.
It's true that there are some exceptions to both scenarios, the fact remains that the bigger the store and the more sales they have, the more they can afford better customer service. One return out of 100 hurts more than 100 returns out of a million.
inconsistent expectations (Score:5)
I worked for 2 years in tech support, both answering phones, making house-calls and untimately as a supervisor. This situation is not as simple as the post makes it sound.
A major problem in tech support is everyone that calls is unhappy. Few are understanding that you are doing your best to fix their problem. It is not my job "to be yelled at because you are frustrated." It is not the support staff's fault the user messed something up, the programmers did something wrong or the testing staff wasn't thorough. That being said... it is not the job of tech support to teach users how to "right-click," copy files or even "double-click." I tend to believe the humorous tech support horror stories, mainly because the solution to one of our user's problems was "turn the computer on."
Overwhelmingly, many of the calls we handled involved items the user could have gotten step by step instructions for fixing if they had looked at our web pages. We asked each caller if they had checked out FAQ. Many said no, some lied and said yes. A few had honestly tried those solutions and they hadn't worked. The bottom line is many users want the solution spoon fed to them instead of typing the error into a search engine or checking the FAQ of the software or hardware vendor first.
Why is tech support "lacking?" User expectations do not match what it costs the company to provide that level of service. Between training, man-hours (*the biggie*), technical resources, tracking and auditing, etc., tech support is extremely expensive. There has been a dramatic push in recent years to move toward web based support, but as I said above, that leads to unhappy users who feel abandonded because they don't want, or are afraid, to look into the problem themselves.
Companies that charge for tech support are doing it right. They put the burden on the users that don't look up problems themselves to pay for their own "in-person" support. Of course, there are plenty of companies that Make crappy $oftware and charge for tech support. They suck.
RC
Re:Problems began when schematics no longer includ (Score:3)
Developers for non "open" platforms develop mysterious black boxes that are supposed to flawlessly integrate with thousands of other mysterious black boxes (closed hardware and software) automagically. As the model becomes sufficiently complicated this really becomes absurd.
Psychic knowledge is (slightly) too much to expect from a good developer, and way too much to expect from poorly trained tech support people (who you have to admire, if just for the futility of their job).
coming from an insider (Score:5)