gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (01/03/86)
First, a meta-comment on USENET and flamers: Step 1: Someone submits an article to USENET. Stipulate, from an omniscient perspective, that the article is factual and accurate. Step 2: The readers of the articles fall into three general categories: a) those who know the subject. They see that the article is correct and don't say anything. b) those who don't know the subject, and know that they don't. They figure that they have nothing to offer and don't say anything. c) people who are not only ignorant, but they don't realize their own ignorance. These folks flame. The flames are inaccurate and/or illogical. Step 3: The original submittor has two options, he can ignore the flames, or he can reply. Replying is a problem, though, because the flames that he's trying to rebut combine a lack of grasp of the material with an inability to argue logically. Given this experience, it makes the most sense for the originator to never originate in the first place. This algorithm is wide spread, and is at the root of the occasionally-aired complaint, "why doesn't Microsoft say something about this issue?" Now, given that I am too naive to stop beating a dead horse, I'll make my last pass at it: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I discussed the issue of buying an item from an OEM, and the responsibilty to the end buyer on the part of companies that supplied parts to that OEM. I claimed that although GM built the climate control system in my car, I bought the car from AUDI and GM has no responsibility towards me. It is up to AUDI to support me and propigate any upgrades that GM invents and makes available to AUDI. > This is a specious analogy, at best. You are comparing apples and oranges. > If you want to use a more accurate analogy, let's talk about the tires that > came on your Audi. OK, you find a tire that's bad due to a design defect; > your Audi dealer won't take the responsibility for it. If you have a really > good dealer, he may "take care of you", but in the majority of cases, he'll > send you to the tire manufacturer for an adjustment. WRONG WRONG WRONG. I guess that Kim hasn't ever bought a car, or maybe he's found a car company that has poor policies. I've bought three new cars from three different companies, and in eac case the CAR MANUFACTURER (via his dealer) IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIRE WARRENTY. The manufacturer expresses the warrantee, I don't have the foggiest what the tire maker's warrantee policy is; I just know what AUDI's warrantee is. AUDI sold me the tire, and AUDI warrents it. Only if I go out and buy a tire from Goodyear or some third party does Goodyear's warrantee become an issue. This isn't because he's a "good dealer" and being a pal, its spelled out in black and white in my warrantee documentation. > Or let's say that fancy AM-FM-Cassette player in your Audi breaks. Audi won't > fix it for you. They may pull it out of the car, but then it goes over to the > people who designed and manufactured it. This same procedure applies to most > major assemblies in the auto-parts industry, be it domestic or foreign. (Major > assemblies means things like alternators, carburetors, fuel-injection units, > starters, radios, tires, etc.) Again, Kim speaks from ignorance. In fact, my AM-FM- Cassette player in my AUDI did break - it broke about 2 weeks ago. Audi is responsible for fixing it, and they did just that. They took it out of the dash and swapped it for another. I was even offered a loaner car for the 30 minutes that it took. I'm aware that a typical Japanese radio warrantee is for 1 year - but I have a three year warrantee, because my AUDI is warrented, in toto, for three years. My warrantee is, of course, with AUDI and not with the Japanese company. Perhaps Kim is saying that the Audi dealer doesn't employ an EE to fix it, but will in turn send it back to Japan, where it was made. This may be true, but this is just a detail. (Actually, they will send it to an AUDI regional center which employs or contacts out to said EE.) Its AUDI's responsibiltiy to fix it, and they did, by swapping it. They could have fullfilled their responsibility by employing a EE, or by black magic, for all I care. They sold me the radio, and they are responsible under the warrantee they offered. After they fixed my radio, they can play with their defective stock in any way they choose. > It should also be noted that if the climate control in your Audi has design > defects in it, and Audi has to replace them in all their cars, Audi will most > certainly seek legal recourse against GM for the cost, etc. of such replace- > ment ... they pay even seek punitive damages. But all this would be in the > contracts between Audi and GM, and invisible to the end-user, just as any > agreement between Microsoft and Fujitsu is "invisible" to a user. A ray of light - this is exactly my point. You betcha that Fujitsu has a support and update agreement with Microsoft - and you betcha that we live up to this agreement in every way. If Fujitsu doesn't listen to your complaints, or doesn't offer you the update, then thats their failing. We listen to them and update them, pronto. > It's rather strange then, that Fujitsu doesn't have the source-code for > "their" assembler. They *cannot* fix my problem, even if they wanted to. No, this isn't strange at all. They can fix your problem if they want to, and they do it in the way provided under their contract with Microsoft. That contract allows them to report bugs and requires us to fix them.
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (01/04/86)
> > First, a meta-comment on USENET and flamers: > ... > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > ... > I discussed the issue of buying an item from an OEM, and the responsibilty > to the end buyer on the part of companies that supplied parts to that > OEM. ... > > If Fujitsu doesn't > listen to your complaints, or doesn't offer you the update, then thats > their failing. We listen to them and update them, pronto. ... > [loads of material on Audi repairs omitted] That was a nice response. I still have two questions about Microsoft's behavior: 1)This must happen to Microsoft often - why doesn't Microsoft have a nice form letter (as well written as your response) which explains the situation. (I personally sympathize with the poor guy who is being told by each of two companies that the other one is responsible. I know that I get furious when that happens to me.) Even better would be to offer a way out of the difficulty. Hence, - 2)Why not let people in this situation purchase the upgrade (particularly if the other company, here Fujitsu) isn't selling it? Even if the other company is selling it, Microsoft might want to make a sale and gain a satisfied customer. (Unless Microsoft agreed in the contract with the other company to refrain from selling to such customers -- unlikely?) My main point is that this guy is getting the run around at both ends. Even if Microsoft is acting in a legally justified way -- they are not *helping* him, even though this could be done with no more effort than it took to refuse to help him. --henry schaffer #include <standard_disclaimer & affirmation of naivete>
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/09/86)
Say I buy a (car|computer) from (Studebaker|Fujitsu). I also buy, at
the same time, a nice (car stereo|assembler) made by (QRM|Microsoft)
because I have heard of that company and believe it to be a reliable,
responsible firm producing good products. I then discover that said
(car stereo|assembler) has problems; not mine in particular, but all of
that model, due to a manufacturer's design flaw. I discover that
neither (Studebaker|Fujitsu), from whom I bought the product, will
support it.
Ignoring all questions of legality, indemnification, and the like, you
can damned well expect I will *NEVER* buy a product from *EITHER* firm
again, and every time I think of them I will say, "God damn their
impertinent souls. May they roast in hell for a million years!"
Microsoft's actions in refusing to support their customers (even
indirect customers) are possibly legal. They are at best ethically
questionable. They are certainly irresponsible.
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarymwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (01/12/86)
In article <1055@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >Microsoft's actions in refusing to support their customers (even >indirect customers) are possibly legal. They are at best ethically >questionable. They are certainly irresponsible. I've been dealing with Microsoft for most of the last ten years. What do I think of Micorsoft support? "That's a nice idea." The only Microsoft product I ever used that I couldn't find bugs in (all non-trivial programs have bugs; the question is whether they interfere with your work) was the original Microsoft Basic (Mbasic 4.xx or some such). As for the rest of the bugs, the best response I got was "that's not a bug." No, they didn't say it was a feature. They also didn't think that it should be documented. Probably because it revealed truly awfull things about the workings of that product to the knowledgable. I have, as much as possible, disassociated myself from MicroShaft products for the last three years. It's possible that their attitudes have changed, but this discussion makes it look like they haven't. <mike