The NST boards contain a wealth of user suggestions for improvements in the software and complaints about broken and awkward functionality. What the boards don't contain, as far as I can tell, is even the slightest whiff of a hint that anyone from B&N is paying attention or working on any of these issues.
So those Ideas & Suggestions boards, posts from moderators, and PMs that various of us have engaged in with moderators are just there to make us "feel better?"
I wouldn't know about any PMs, and I've seen few if any posts from mods responding to any of the pressing concerns expressed recently, like the WiFi connectivity change.
I find this silence disconcerting, and I sense that many others here feel the same way.
Some may; some won't. I don't let it worry me. Some information must remain guarded until release to maintain competitive advantage.
Do the Nook software developers or managers read these boards? Does anyone from B&N who does read the boards send digests of suggestions and complaints to the software folks?
Don't know about the first on a regular basis; they may. Alex says he does do the later, and my interactions with him have given me no reason to doubt his word.
Even if there's no resource available for posting official responses here, would it be too much to ask for the Nook software team to follow common industry practice by maintaining a publicly accessible roadmap that lists planned software enhancements and the approximate timeframe for rolling them out?
I don't follow the software industry that closely to know if this is standard. Can you point us to those to some of those who do?
Sure. Here are a few:
- Microsoft often shares its development plans months or even years ahead of time. For instance, you can find information about the future features in Windows Phone here, here, and here. (That last link is to a blog run by MSFT senior employees, representing a great example of transparency.)
- Here's a hardware company, AMD, revising its 2012 roadmap. (See paragraph 4.)
- Here's a software company, Versant, announcing its 2012 roadmap.
I realize that there may be some hesitancy to implement a public roadmap due to fear that plans may change and deadlines may slide. But those things are normal. Folks will understand. It's much harder to understand what looks like turning a deaf ear to your customers.
People hate when software deadlines are blown. They may be used to late or vaporware, but they certainly don't like it. You know who hates it more? Investors. They want you to keep your promises: for earnings, sales, product roll outs, etc. Missing one of them by even a little can soil your reputation in the investment community.
I agree. That's why many of the press releases and other materials that include roadmaps include the cautionary language about "forward-looking statements," language that I believe is required by SEC regulations. In theory, investors are supposed to understand and account for this kind of risk.
For further reading, here's a financial analyst who gives a pretty detailed analysis of some of the pros and cons.
I would love for there to be more transparency; I just don't need it. I don't get a feeling they're turning a deaf ear, just that in a competitive environment they are playing their cards close to the vest.
