Re: Third-party books vs docs (Was: Good/bad docs)

[Tim Huddleston <thuddles -at- MINDSPRING -dot- COM>]

<snip>
>Was the third-party market originally driven by SW piracy?
>I've assumed that people stole the SW but not the book,
>which the SW vendor naturally wouldn't distribute by itself.
>The millions of people with pirate software then became an
>entrepreneurial opportunity for the publishers of the third-party
>books. The in-house writers now have out-house competitors.

>Anyone in the SW biz care to comment on the economic
>interaction between in-house and third-party books? Do SW
>vendors hate it because it encourages piracy, or do welcome it
>as a chance to cut costs by reducing the quality of their own
>documentation? Does it harm the in-house writers?
<end snipping>

Steve -

I'd like to address your questions from the *other* side of things, having
worked in-house in retail computer book publishing for several years. (I now
am a freelance writer and editor working in both the computer book
publishing and software documentation fields.) Perhaps someone from the
software industry can pick up this thread and offer another perspective.

The following are lessons I learned back in the mid 1980s--the "early days"
of third-party computer book publishing. Believe it or not, we felt like
pioneers back then, exploring markets that had yet to show their real
potential. (Why would anyone buy a book about WordStar?) Anyway, it was
widely held that third-party publications were needed for the following
reasons:

1. Product documentation was inadequate for many users because it often
failed to address specific tasks that users felt were important. It was
common for a doc to say that "you can" do a task, without telling you how to
actually do it. Complex tasks, such as macros, were often ignored entirely
by docs. This complaint was especially loud among more experienced users, or
the truly "brave" users who delved into the guts of a product to get the
most productivity from it.

2. Product documentation was, in general, poorly written and illustrated.
This wasn't because doc writers were inept; it was really because so many
issues still needed figuring out. The software industry was young. The need
for exhaustive documentation wasn't clear yet. Besides, documentation was a
cost center for many software companies that weren't yet wealthy, and it was
expensive to create thick docs or multiple doc sets that addressed multiple
user levels.

3. Docs that tried to be "all things to all users" usually failed. If you've
ever tried to write a tutorial/reference, or a book that appeals to
beginning/intermediate/advanced users, you know how difficult this can be.
Such docs tried to avoid alienating any user by offering bland, generic
examples and explanations that ultimately applied to few, if any, users or
situations. In the end, this approach actually drove readers away because
they felt the docs didn't focus on their unique needs. This is still true
with many doc sets, but I think the situation has improved tremendously,
making life more difficult for the third-party publishers.

Were pirates a major source of our revenues? Probably. After all, if you can
"borrow" the disks from the office and then spend $30 for a book, why pay
$500 for the software?

However, I have established long-running relations with many software
developers over the years, and I can honestly say that I never heard a
single one say that third-party books contributed to piracy. Piracy will
probably happen anyway, as long as people think they can get away with it
and figure out some way to use the product. Pirates doubtlessly benefit from
third-party books, but that fact alone won't stop any developers or
publishers from continuing their work.

Today, software developers are pretty well enlightened when it comes to
working with third party publishers, and most software vendors go to great
lengths to support the publishers' efforts, providing beta (even alpha)
software, technical support, access to confidential information, and so on.
This is even true of Microsoft, despite the fact that it has such an
interest in Microsoft Press.

Most software companies view third party books (and other types of
references) as marketing vehicles for their products, and as a way for
customers to get extra support. If users can get more information about
software, and if this makes them more comfortable and knowledgable about the
software, then they are more likely to use the product and become devoted to
it. Any dollar the software company does not spend on additional
documentation or customer support drops to the bottom line, so the books are
widely viewed as bringing value to everyone's table. As a result, the
developer/publisher relationship is widely regarded as symbiotic, not
parasitic.

Third-party books won't go away any time soon, even though docs are better
than ever and improving all the time. (Compare the docs for Word 3 to Word
97 and you'll see what I mean.)  Nor should they go away. Can a software
company realistically document EVERY aspect of its products, or target
different types of coverage to drastically different users? Maybe, but they
don't want to.

Do third-party books hurt in-house doc writers? That's a good question, but
I don't have an answer. While I'm sure many individual doc writers can offer
a personal perspective, I'd be interested in hearing a more industry-wide
perspective.

Many software companies contract their paper and online publishing needs to
third-party companies (such as mine). Why? Perhaps internal resources are
scarce. Or perhaps they don't want to be publishers; it's not their
strength, and while they're willing to pay for it, they don't want to devote
more resources to it than absolutely necessary. This creates opportunities
for third-party publishers who are willing to devote resources to the "hot
topics" and take the risk of marketing their products.

Thanks!

tim

Tim Huddleston
The Publisher's Resource, Inc.
E-mail: thuddles -at- mindspring -dot- com

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=