Market: How will situations of product failure be handled after a build update ? - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
+1
If that's the concept, you shouldn't be waving your fists about.
You misunderstood about the "singularity" of the option. It was the only one at the time I wrote about it. Now there is already a modified and even other variants. The "singularity" train has already left. :)
OK, let's assume that every opinion is the only one at the time it was written :) The only one for the author of the opinion :) Irony, of course.
The work continues even after the product has been put on the Market. And it won't take long to test it on a new build.
Are you sure that everyone writes programs with all modules in use all the time and immediately? And that no one has modules that are plugged in once every fortnight or once a month. With this kind of code, bugs can be detected "as they go along" far in advance, and by customers.
OK, let's assume that every opinion is the only one at the time it is written :) The only one for the author of the opinion :) Irony, of course.
Are you sure that everyone writes programs, all modules of which are used constantly and immediately? And that no one has modules that are plugged in every fortnight or every month. In such a code, bugs may be detected "in the course of work" far from immediately, and by customers.
The decision will be made by the developers of the trading terminal. Before making it, they will consider the issue from so many angles that we could not even dream of. In the end, everything may stay the way it is. :)
Do you have any variants of solution of this question? Or which of the proposed options do you think is closest to what it should be?
I gave you an example of what a buyer would read if there were the words NOT LIABILITY in the sentence.
Just in case, let me remind you that human perception is selective. A well-known fact of cinema: if the film does not interest the audience in the first 20 minutes, then it can be anything, any puzzling stunts and generally heavenly beauty, but the cinema at this time is empty, check out this beauty no one.
The same applies to sales, the well-known in our country brand Zhiguli, in Italy had to be renamed Lada, as it is very reminiscent of gigolo, well, what kind of sales can there be if a buyer comes and he is offered a "very cool modern car" with the name gigolo :) then how to ride on it that? I can imagine excited exclamations of Italians, look, look, a gigolo has arrived :)
It's just surprising that most of them see the problem only from one side. And from topic to topic. Let me explain for a specific case.
There was an author of the programme, there was the programme, there was a customer. The program worked fine for a while, but then a bug in MQ caused it to stop working. What is an unbiased conclusion? - That is correct, if MQ was the source of the problem, it is responsible, and issues should be addressed from that perspective. What do most people do? - They begin, in one way or another, to divide the duties and interests of the author and the buyer, and propose variations based on the relationship between the author and the buyer. In other words, they leave the reason behind. To solve a problem and to offer variants it is necessary to proceed from the reason of a topic, instead of from consequences of the reason for the author and the buyer...
Special clause: no deviations from the topic.
Yedelkin, stop mixing up the discussion of your personality and suggestions on the topic in your post.
I'm not at liberty to delete your post in its entirety, it has phrases on topic. Neither can I delete individual sentences from a post off-topic.
A warning has already been issued to you - don't turn the topic to your personality.
Do you have any options for dealing with this issue? Or which option do you think is closest to what it should be?
Judging by the number of posts, accusations of trollishness are about to pour in :)
... The first option, as they say "on the fly", has already stated it. If you think that a constructive discussion is possible only if there are a bunch of diverse options - now I'll think. Although the vector of thought indicated above.
Yedelkin, stop mixing up the discussion of your personality and suggestions on the topic in your post.
I'm not at liberty to delete your post in its entirety, it has phrases on topic. Neither can I delete individual sentences from a post off-topic.
A warning has already been issued to you - don't turn the topic to your personality.
OK, I delete the "messed up" post I made, you delete the post I quoted, and the current post. Agreed?
As for the "warnings" - it was you who moved the thread to my identity. Even if you subsequently deleted that post yourself. So let's not play the warning game.
Do you have any options for dealing with this issue? Or which option do you think is closest to what it should be?
Option 2. If there is a desire to formalize the relations under the Russian law, it is necessary to invite experts on Part 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to solve the problem. See, for example, Article 1296 of the Civil Code "Computer programs and databases created by order". As I understand it, if the buyer has started using the program, there is nothing to demand from the programmer - all claims are against MQ as the source of a possible bug. Whether MQ is able to reject such a claim is a matter for them. ...Maybe others will see a different solution in the Civil Code.
Option 3. The buyer of the Marketplace should not only be informed of the availability of a new build, but at the same time "in the same stream of information" to make such buyer aware that this build is approved/not approved by the author of the program. If the build is not approved by the author of the program - do not allow this build to be downloaded at the terminal level on the computer of the purchaser of the Market (or do not allow the program from the Market to be loaded with the new build). This will result in:
===Somehow, details can always be clarified/added. I'll tell you right away: I was asked for options - I generated them. I hope the idea is clear. Suggested what I came up with now. To questions "how do you imagine such an implementation" can not answer. Definitely will not defend the options, based on unfortunate experience.
(c2) if the author is not committed to maintaining the product on the Market when new builds are released
this is the point in question.
the rules and even hypothetically meta-quotes did not include such a clause in the Market agreement. This implies that new builds cannot affect operation of MQL5 product. And it's not so in real products.
And this is essential. Since the product performance after the release will depend on the developers, not the mql programmer.
this is the clause in question.
in the rules and even hypothetically the meta-quotes did not put such a clause in the marketplace agreement. Implying that new builds cannot affect operation of MQL5 product. And it's not so in real products.
And this is essential.
I was not aware of such subtleties. That is, at present it is MQ who (willingly or unwillingly) assumed the entire responsibility in this part, isn't it?
As for the Agreement, it's not a reinforced concrete foundation, it's subject to improvement :) If this point is so important for the authors of products - emphasis should be put on it too in order to come to a mutually acceptable solution.
Moreover, civil lawyers have this approach... To put it in a nutshell: the manufacturer can give its warranty on one part of some obligations and the shop can supplement this warranty. Well, remember Mvideo, for example? - There they give a guarantee of free exchange for 2-3 years for 100-200 dollars. So, the point is that the manufacturer of the product is responsible only for the part of the obligations that he took on himself, the shop - for the rest.
So if I were the author of the program, I would try to use the first option, namely: in advertising the product would indicate thatt is responsible only for "so-and-so", "so-and-so" and "so-and-so" (long list). But I am not responsible for "this" (the short list). And if the rules of the marketplace remain unchanged, then the responsibility for the product beyond the duties I cover will lie with the shop administration (because their rules are like that).