What Is Fair Technical Support From a Manufacturer?

VincenzoRomano asks: "One year ago, I decided to buy some 'enterprise grade' firewalls, in order to replace the old ones used by a former ISP. Before buying, I did a bit of a survey. I browsed the product 'data sheets' from the manufacturer web sites, and in some cases, asked for more details by email. I finally choose a top product, that had been on the market for a year and a half, from a very well known and reputable company. The product showed a number of issues as soon as it was unpacked and put to work, that you would not expect from something 'enterprise grade', like not being able to keep a VPN up and running for more than a few minutes, or doing bad IP routing on our LAN. I've spent the last year to make the equipment working, accordingly to both their data sheets and the features expected from an 'enterprise grade' product. Important issues are still open while the technical support is actually relying on my own stuff and setup, and on my personal availability in order to do troubleshooting, firmware beta testing and other experiments. I've finally decided that the product was far from being ready to market or even usable for beta testers, and have requested some kind of compensation for all the job I had to do. What's your opinion about such a behavior in a company? Is it fair?"

Comments

Re:Welcome to IT?

[BVis]

I think the computer world in general needs to do a lot more in this regard - consider a television. It's got a relatively simple interface (depending on the model, but they're all usually pretty similar), and it's got "uptime" and MTBF that would make any server manufacturer more than proud.

A television is a far simpler device than a modern computer. No hard drive, no networking, etc. Comparing a television with a PC is about the same as comparing a digital watch to a PC. The more complicated and powerful the system, the more that can go wrong.

And what the hell is "the computer world in general"? I think it's pretty safe to assume you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I bet you've got 12:00 still flashing on your VCR.

Why would the general population want to watch TV on their PC when (a) the TV is cheaper, (b) it works right out of the box, and (c) it's not going to be buggy or go obsolete suddenly (the impending HDTV changeover notwithstanding).

My current television cost 5 times what my current computer cost. ($2000 HDTV versus about $400 for the PC I put together myself.) The TV has crashed on me a few times. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I suggest you catch up to the times.

Software manufacturers (including you programmers who read Slashdot) - spend less time adding the next new feature and more time making sure the existing features work. Stop using us as your beta testers!

Stop yelling at the programmers. Programmers have about as much to do with when a product is released or how much testing it gets as the guy who empties the trash at an auto factory has with the quality of the product.

Granted, better programming USUALLY leads to fewer bugs, IF they're not crippled by terrible managers more interested in getting ahead based on other people's work, IF marketing doesn't make outlandish promises involving technologies that don't exist and/or statistics that mean absolutely nothing, IF there are enough programmers on a project to make things sane, IF IF IF.

Case in point: I work for a software company as a research engineer. In a meeting about a month ago, the VP of Sales (who tragically is making all the engineering prioritization decisions) asked our QA manager how long it was going to take to test a product before it could be released. The QA manager replied "Two weeks." The VP IMMEDIATELY said "One week." QA: "Two weeks" VP: "One week, you never give QA as much time as they want." No explanation, no justification other than "Oh QA always takes too long, just release it." Given the option, programmers write good code. They're rarely given the option.

Perhaps you should consider being part of the solution as opposed to just bitching about the problem. Failing that, try using some actual facts or reality-based information in your arguments.

Re:Firewall

[bernywork]

'Fit for purpose' is defined in Australian law, and is quite often sided on the side of the consumer and not the supplier / manufacturer.

In Aus, it's defined as part of the "Trade practices Act 1974". As the parent rightly said, it's in various consumer rights and various legislatures including the US.

I would turn around and ask for a refund citing as reference all the helpdesk cases you have logged and the fact that it is not working as advertised. I don't think however I would be asking for more. The only option if you want additional compensation I would suggest would be to start a civil suit for recovery of costs. Whether that's worth it or not probably won't be your decision.

Berny