sac90286@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/14/89)
Please, someone, say it isn't so! I have a Microsoft InPort mouse (the white two button 200dpi model). I recently discovered that my cat apparently dislikes mice, because she chewed completely through the cord. "No problem," thought I. "A couple phone calls and a trip to the computer store ought to snag me a replacement cord toot sweet." Well, it wasn't quite that simple. None of the dealers in my area carry a replacement cord. My next step was to go directly to the source. I gave the folks at Microsoft a call. Pam at Microsoft informed me that in order to have a mouse cord replaced I would have to ship the entire mouse back to Microsoft and pay a $15 fee for the cord. With visions of a mouseless 6 weeks running through my mind, I asked if they would just send me a replacement cord, knowing that it's a one minute replacement job and that I could limp along with the current spliced-with-electrical-tape cord in the meantime. She told me that they would not do that. I repeatedly asked her why, and the only response she could give was "we just don't do that." This, to me, seems just a tad bit ridiculous, so I thought I'd ask those of you on the net who have had a similar experience (or work for Microsoft): Is what she told me true, and if so, WHY??? If my mouse can't be fixed reasonably, I guess it's time to replace that MS mouse with a Logitech or perhaps a Mouse Systems optical. Of course, I'll check first on their parts replacement policies... Please email replies to: khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
swh@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold) (10/16/89)
Re: Replacement cord for mouse While I'm not condoning MS's refusal to just send you the replacement cord for your chewed up mouse, its position is quite usual for any supplier of any goods. Consider the page in your novel that you spilled coffee on. Would you expect the publisher to send you just that one replacement page? Consider that gasket that you need to replace in your dishwasher. Would you expect the manufacturer to send you just that one piece instead of some kind of fixup kit with a lot of redundant hardware? The problem boils down to the cost of inventory. There is no way any profitable supplier can provide a part number for every single part that comprises his products. The part mix is constantly changing even though the product specifications remain constant. (As a matter of fact, software suppliers do this too; just knowing the version number is often inadequate, as they also need to know the dates of the files on the disks.) The following paragraph is pure speculation: How do you know which of three connectors were used inside your particular mouse to connect the cable to the rodent? Since the mouse is only known as the MS Mouse, how can MS know which connector is present unless they look inside? Should they send you three cables, each with a different connector? Should they charge you the cost of one cable or for three? Since this cable is not normally considered a consumable (like spark plugs), is it reasonable to set up special bookkeeping to track cat chewing problems? If the manufacturer did indeed provide for all these possibilities, it has to be paid for somehow. Should I be elated that my cost for his product is going to be higher? (And I don't even own a cat.) Please don't get me wrong. Emotionally, I'm on your side with respect to the needed repair. All I ask is that you consider your problem in light of everything else that is going on.
pnelson@hobbes.uucp (Phil Nelson) (10/18/89)
In article <-286529977@hpcupt1.HP.COM> swh@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold) writes: >Re: Replacement cord for mouse > >While I'm not condoning MS's refusal to just send you the replacement cord >for your chewed up mouse, its position is quite usual for any supplier >of any goods. I don't think it is usual for manufacturers of electronic equipment. If Microsoft does not want to be responsible for replacement parts, they should stick with software. If they manufacture it, they should supply replacement parts. Even if they have it manufactured for them, it has their name on it, they should, at least, refer you to the manufacturer for replacement parts. >Consider the page in your novel that you spilled coffee on. Would you >expect the publisher to send you just that one replacement page? This is not a good example, novels are not designed to allow the replacement of individual pages, and are cheap enough that it is not worth the trouble. >Consider that gasket that you need to replace in your dishwasher. Would >you expect the manufacturer to send you just that one piece instead of >some kind of fixup kit with a lot of redundant hardware? Maybe not, but I would certainly expect to be able to buy a replacement power cord. >The problem boils down to the cost of inventory. There is no way any >profitable supplier can provide a part number for every single part that >comprises his products. ... text removed ... I would be astonished if Microsoft (or whoever does the actual manufacture of the mouse) did not have a part number, inventory count, etc. etc. for each and every part that goes in to the mouse. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect Microsoft to stock replacement parts. Possibly because they are a software company the need for replacement parts did not occur to them, if so then they should be told now. >If the manufacturer did indeed provide for all these possibilities, it >has to be paid for somehow. Should I be elated that my cost for his >product is going to be higher? (And I don't even own a cat.) At least some of the added cost of stocking replacement parts can be recovered by charging more for the parts, this is standard practice. I have a Microsoft mouse, if I had known prior to purchase that it would not be possible to buy a relacement cord for a reasonable price, I would have looked for another brand who would make it possible, or for a brand that was cheap enough to be considered a throwaway. I, for one, do not consider a $99.95 mouse to be a throwaway item. Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for) OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson Tymnet, ?McDonnell Douglas? Network Systems Company Voice:408-922-7508 UUCP:{pyramid|ames}oliveb!tymix!pnelson LRV:Component Station "YOUR PASSWORD WAS LAST CHANGED 964 DAYS AGO. IF NOT CHANGED IT WILL BE DELETED SOON!!!" -1022
rick@NRC.COM (Rick Wagner) (10/19/89)
In article <-286529977@hpcupt1.HP.COM> swh@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold) writes: >Re: Replacement cord for mouse > >While I'm not condoning MS's refusal to just send you the replacement cord >for your chewed up mouse, its position is quite usual for any supplier >of any goods. > >Consider the page in your novel that you spilled coffee on. Would you >expect the publisher to send you just that one replacement page? A novel is not considered a serviceable item. Even if I mailed it to the publisher, they probably would do nothing but offer to sell a new one. It is fairly well understood that a book is non-serviceable. But an electro/mechanical device such as a mouse is usually assumed to be serviceable, and that there be replacement parts available. MS did in fact offer to repair the mouse, implying that parts are available. > >Consider that gasket that you need to replace in your dishwasher. Would >you expect the manufacturer to send you just that one piece instead of >some kind of fixup kit with a lot of redundant hardware? If I understand the original author correctly, MS did not even offer to sell the "fixup kit". True, I could not fault a manufacturer for packaging parts into service kits. But I would still be annoyed if my dishwasher manufacturer told me "Yes the kit is available. No we will not sell it to you; mail us your dishwasher, along with $$$, and we'll get it back to you in 6 weeks." Again, it was not the position that the parts were unavailable, but that they refused to sell them, if they didn't make $$ for doing the repair. > >The problem boils down to the cost of inventory. There is no way any >profitable supplier can provide a part number for every single part that >comprises his products. The part mix is constantly changing even though >the product specifications remain constant. (As a matter of fact, software >suppliers do this too; just knowing the version number is often inadequate, >as they also need to know the dates of the files on the disks.) But MS said they would fix it. So, they must have the parts. > >The following paragraph is pure speculation: How do you know which of >three connectors were used inside your particular mouse to connect the >cable to the rodent? Since the mouse is only known as the MS Mouse, >how can MS know which connector is present unless they look inside? I flip it over, and read off the label. On my mouse it says "InPort mouse". I then say "I need the cable that runs from the mouse to the little in-line box." (BTW, does anyone know what that little box is for? Is it just to give a connection point for the various short interface connectors?) Most reasonable manufactures at least put on a rev # or manufacture date, allowing identification of replacement parts. >Should they send you three cables, each with a different connector? Only the one I described. If they only have kits, sell me the kit. >Should they charge you the cost of one cable or for three? Only the one I asked for. > Since this >cable is not normally considered a consumable (like spark plugs), is it >reasonable to set up special bookkeeping to track cat chewing problems? Is your dishwasher gasket consumable? Not really, but it is subject to failure. Does the manufacturer have a special code for every worldly event? A check box for "xxx chewed it up", "Truck drove through kitchen", etc? I think not. It probably has codes for "Failure due to manufature defect (describe)", "Failure due to customer neglect/abuse (describe)", etc. > >If the manufacturer did indeed provide for all these possibilities, it >has to be paid for somehow. Should I be elated that my cost for his >product is going to be higher? (And I don't even own a cat.) But the manufacturer does have to, and apparently does, provide for them. Again, they did offer to repair the mouse, but only if you paid them for doing the repair. They would still charge you additionally for parts. They would still have to account for the part in and out of inventory. If they track the cause of failure, they would still have to do that. Every thing is the same, except who supplies the labor, and whether or not the author is out of service for xx weeks. > >Please don't get me wrong. Emotionally, I'm on your side with respect >to the needed repair. All I ask is that you consider your problem in >light of everything else that is going on. And I ask the manufactures to consider the impact on their paying customers. It would not surprise me that service departments for many companies are money sinks, costing more to run that they bring in. But in spite of that, many companies do have service departments, to keep their customers happy, and returning to buying more stuff. -- =============================================================================== Rick Wagner Network Research Corp. rick@nrc.com rick@nrcvax.UUCP 2380 North Rose Ave. (805) 485-2700 FAX: (805) 485-8204 Oxnard, CA 93030
sac90286@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/19/89)
>While I'm not condoning MS's refusal to just send you the replacement cord >for your chewed up mouse, its position is quite usual for any supplier >of any goods. Really? Since when did you have to ship your car back to detroit (or to Japan) just to get a fan belt replaced? >Consider the page in your novel that you spilled coffee on. Would you >expect the publisher to send you just that one replacement page? This is hardly an appropriate example. Pages in a book are not attached to the binding with 9-pin Molex-like connectors. >Consider that gasket that you need to replace in your dishwasher. Would >you expect the manufacturer to send you just that one piece instead of >some kind of fixup kit with a lot of redundant hardware? Yes! Just as I can get a replacement thermostat gasket for my 1972 Mustang without buying a thermostat, hose kit, and replacement heater core (and without having to send my car in to have the parts installed). >The problem boils down to the cost of inventory. There is no way any >profitable supplier can provide a part number for every single part that >comprises his products. I remind you that Microsoft can replace the part, so they obviously have an inventory of them. My complaint is with their insistence on installing the cable themselves, rather than allowing me to do it. I feel it is silly to have to do without an otherwise functional mouse for any length of time when the replacement part could just as easily be shipped to me. Surely this does not sound unreasonable to you? >The following paragraph is pure speculation: How do you know which of >three connectors were used inside your particular mouse to connect the >cable to the rodent? Since the mouse is only known as the MS Mouse, >how can MS know which connector is present unless they look inside? Unless MS has used several radically different connectors which are visually identical, I can simply tell them "It's the white one with 9 wires coming out of it." I find it much more likely that MS has used the same connector on all of its 200DPI InPort mice, (it costs $$$MONEY$$$ to change connectors, so they're likely to have done it only when absolutely necessary). >cable is not normally considered a consumable (like spark plugs), is it >reasonable to set up special bookkeeping to track cat chewing problems? No one is asking them to track cat chewing problems, although I might point out that I have received several email replies from people who have simply spliced/soldered their broken mouse cables. Since the cable is not exactly sheathed in armor plating, I would bet that broken cords (for whatever reason) are a common enough problem. >If the manufacturer did indeed provide for all these possibilities, it >has to be paid for somehow. Should I be elated that my cost for his >product is going to be higher? (And I don't even own a cat.) Most likely, the cost will be passed on to me (in the form of $15 for a cable made from $1 worth of materials). >Please don't get me wrong. Emotionally, I'm on your side with respect >to the needed repair. All I ask is that you consider your problem in >light of everything else that is going on. Ah, Devil's Advocate mode, eh? Well, I should mention that none of your arguments have convinced me ;-)
gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Dwight Gordon) (10/19/89)
In article <111700157@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> sac90286@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >>While I'm not condoning MS's refusal to just send you the replacement cord >>for your chewed up mouse, its position is quite usual for any supplier >>of any goods. > >Really? Since when did you have to ship your car back to detroit (or to >Japan) just to get a fan belt replaced? > :-) ON :-) :-) :-) My Sony VCR (which has been in the shop for 26 of the last 30 months) would probably have been fixed faster to have WALKED to Japan for want of a simple part! It serves me right for buying a VCR from a company that, at that time, advertised its quality. :-) OFF :-) :-) :-) -- Dwight W. Gordon, Ph.D. | 913-532-5600 | gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu Electrical & Computer Engineering Department | dwgordon@ksuvm.bitnet Kansas State University - Durland Hall | rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon Manhattan, KS 66506 | {pyramid,ucsd}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (10/19/89)
There seems to be an assumption: 1. MS has parts (which it won't sell) 2. MS will repair the mouse with the parts (that it won't sell) It is more likely that they will just throw away the mouse and send you a new one. Given a small number of returns for repairs or defects, it is a far more effective policy than repair. Consider: Actual cost of mouse = $15-20. Cost of labor to repair a mouse = $30 (includes reapir, cleaning, testing, shipping, etc. so that it works to original specs so that you won't comlain that they didn't fix it.) Basically, the service charge covers postage and handling. You are probably getting a new mouse free. Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily and do not represent nor in any way imply of any other sane person and especially not employer. "I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we could get to some more important bickering." -- David Bedno