<snipped>
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party
> application, not the other way around?
V Green wrote:
> Why not?
>
> ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it.
> So it's ZA's problem?
>
> Get real.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say
> otherwise... Leave out any specific names.
>
> The original manufacturer of an original product released a
> patch/upgrade for their original product. The original product had
> been modified in this case by a third party product. The original
> manufacturer has no responsibility to test all the possible third
> party add-ons/changes you can perform on their product - because
> they simply would not have the resources or time to do so - nor is
> it probably logistically possible/plausible. Therefore - if a
> change (critical) is made to the original product and the third
> party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it
> would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make
> it right.
>
> I responded like this in another location already - if you have
> someway to legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad
> to read. This is what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many
> ways to what I wrote above - but perhaps seeing it described in a
> couple of ways will allow more people to understand the point...
> And if there is another side to it - perhaps be able to explain
> that point of view.
>
> ( begin repost )
>
> No offense meant below - honest question...
>
> You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original
> product you purchased because you have modified the original
> product with the addition of a third party product that has no
> relation with the manufacturer of the original product other than
> the fact they made their product to fit 'on top of' that original
> product - and your complaint is with the original product
> manufacturer?
>
> Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who
> made the third party product you chose to replace the parts of the
> original product when you decided you wanted to modify it?
>
> P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about
> Microsoft, Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left
> out names in my actual query completely.
>
> It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if
> you chose to modify it with some third party product and then some
> recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you
> honestly believe the manufacturer of the original product should
> find out every modification you *could have made* to their product
> is and make sure their upgrade/update for their product works with
> all of those possibilities? Or would it be more logical to place
> the responsibility of maintaining the third party modification to
> the makers of said modification?
>
> ( end repost )
>
> In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that
> it is the end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are
> the one who made the conscience choice to change the original
> product for 'supposed' more protection with a third party add-ons;
> and then, when the original product is changed in some way (by the
> original manufacturer) and that makes the original product fail
> unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the choice to
> utilize that product?
>
> But that's a completely different point of view than the one I
> originally presented - but one I could see someone taking and being
> able to defend.
>
> Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would
> actually like to hear it because I am finding it difficult to
> fathom it right now. Perhaps you have a generalized way of
> explaining it where I can see your point of view.
V Green wrote:
> Sorry, but no. I don't screw over MY customer base that way.
> If you choose to live life doing that sort of stuff, then
> we must just agree to disagree.
>
> And good luck with customer loyalty...wait a sec, Windows
> is a monopoly. Happy Customers, what are those??? They don't
> have a choice (go ahead and argue that if you wish, you KNOW
> it's true and I won't respond to it) so what do we care about their
> "user experience"?
I am going respond because you decided to literally side-step the question
and just dis-like some specific company instead of making a logical argument
based in reality.
If you do not answer - that is your choice. However - if you don't
respond - my thought is you could not come up with a logical, non-biased
argument *not* based on anything specific and/or you will respond with
another seemingly personal attack.
This is nothing personal - this has nothing to do with you or your business
practices. You have somehow decided to attack me personally and what you
feel is my personal belief system instead of what I presented as the reality
of the situation from almost all situations like this.
If you were to buy a chevrolet vehicle and modify some part with a third
party product and chevrolet did a recall and the recall/replacement part
made your modification either not work or caused you to be unable to do
something else (like close the hood, etc) - whose responsibility is it to
fix it?
If you had a whirlpool dishwasher and you bought a third party utensil
basket that was larger but still fit the door and then they
recalled/replaced the door on the unit for some reason and their replacement
was larger and thus you could no longer close the door and latch it with
your third party utensil basket in it - whose responsibility is it to fix
it?
So please - if you can - present your case in a generalized form. Be
realistic. See the examples I gave above and tell me if I am not correct in
my assumptions on who would be responsible in those cases.
Please - don't take this as some personal attack - it is not. Please do not
make it into a personal attack, as it seems to me you have already somewhat
by assuming my presentation is anything more than the way things usually
work - and how it makes sense to me.
This is supposed to be a discussion on why you believe if someone buys
something, modifies it, gets a replacement/upgrade/fixed part from the
original manufacturer of the original item that makes their third party part
fail/invalid - that the original manufacturer of the original part should
have known/tested for that and/or have been the one to remedy the
situation... And not the way I presented where the third party part
manufacturer and/or the end-user themselves have to take responsibility for
the fact their old part (the way it is at that point) has issues that need
to be resolved to work with the now-fixed original part. I
f you believe the way you have presented - that is fine - but *why* - what
is the actual basis beyond a 'good feeling' - or is that it?
If - however - you do not consider the entirety of the posting (as you seem
to have done previously) - please consider at least the following
question(s).
Please explain - quite simply - why it is the original manufacturer's place
to make sure every third-party change possible (including personal
modifications not published to the public, perhaps) will work with every
modification they deem as critical to their original product - which is the
only thing they are actually responsible for?
Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person
modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something
that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take
responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the
problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge?
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html