Originally Posted by Pascal-lf
seeing as you hm1 was perfectly adequate, the only reason to rush the release is because they were getting short of cash - in no way is it of benefit to users
Missed this comment when I posted above. I'll address its 3 points separately:
"seeing as hm1 was perfectly adequate"
I'll agree it was adequate. "Perfectly" adequate is perhaps a stretch, depending on who you ask. Many found it lacking in areas, and there were a number of features and fixes that people have been clamoring for for years, that have (or will) only see the light of day in HM2. Regardless, "adequate" should never be an attribute that either customers or businesses accept as a reason to not demand improvements.
"the only reason to rush the release is because they were getting short of cash"
I'm not privy to their business operations, but as someone familiar with the software industry, I agree this likely has some merit. But it's not the only reason.
First, some beta testers and impatient non-testers have been whining for some time that it should be released already. It's been in development for over a year, in alpha testing since early this year, and beta for months now. People were getting antsy. I wasn't one of the ones whining for a release, but in the back of my mind I was wondering what was taking them so long, since the latest betas had been very solid and GM-quality as far as I was concerned. Plus they have a major competitor who is also working on a next-gen version of their product, and history shows that the first to market stands to gain a huge advantage.
Second, to your point, as a software vendor -- particularly of a vertical market product like poker software -- you cannot sustain a business model, beyond the point where the core mass of users have bought your product, without introducing a new revenue stream. Especially in the post-Black Friday US market, where a huge percentage (majority?) of your market has seriously diminished. To continue to incur a revenue stream that sustains innovation, development, and support of your product (software developers are not minimum wage employees) means you've got to eventually put something out that regenerates revenue. This is particularly true of corporations who have a responsibility to their shareholders (not sure if HM has any public shareholders).
So yes, I'm sure it was in part a business decision to get this out there now and start getting some money rolling back into the coffers. But I can reasonably assure you that there were strategic, competitive, and customer-focused reasons as well.
"in no way is it of benefit to users"
Now this I have to . While your first two points had some subjective merit, this one is simply ridiculous. Thousands of us are benefiting from it. Some more than others. I would hate to have to go back to HM1. This sort of comment tells
me you've either never tried it, or that you fall into that small minority of users that have show-stopping issues with it. It may not be to to your liking (or where I want it to be, for that matter), but to suggest it's of no benefit to anyone is just plain silly.
Originally Posted by Colbefc
My thoughts on trying HM2 was that it just had TOO many things going on and it was just too complicated and not as intuitive as HM1 which I found a lot easier to get the hang of.
I and I suspect 99% of HM users just want the basic stats, I use it mainly to keep track of my sessions and I never use it for NL as I very rarely play NL cos I am rubbish at it but I do find the HUD a good aid when I multi table PLO but I really do not want to spend hours analysing every hand I have played cos to be honest I am not intelligent enough to do that , maybe that is why I will never be more than an average player.
It may look better and may even be better but I am sticking with HM1 for as long as I can
Fair enough, and I would agree for many of those in your situation. There are lots of folks who barely scratch the surface of what a tracker can do for them. I wouldn't say it's anywhere near 99% as you suggest, but a significant portion to be sure. In fact I don't think I leverage it nearly as much as I could. If all you want is a HUD that works and that's as far as you take it, then any tracker should work for you as long as it supports the sites you play at. In that case, I agree that you should stick with HM1. If all you care about is a HUD with VPIP/PFR/CBET/3BET/F3BET to better make multi-tabling decisions, and you never run a report, check a graph, look for leaks, or anything else, then you wouldn't notice a difference between any of the trackers on the market, new or old. Stick with what you've got.
As far as being intuitive, I find HM2 more intuitive than HM1, but that's because I've had a lot of time to get used to it. That, and I'm a software geek who appreciates complex software, as long as its complex from being feature-rich and not just complex from poor design. I do
have some design issues with HM2 (as I did with HM1) but these are more philosophical, software-engineering disagreements than what I'd call outright stupid design.