Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by MacJunkie
    Clearly, the issue is not this simple. The product does work, and it works very well...but apparently this is true for some people but not for others. This is nothing new. Some people may find that a specific piece of software will not work for them, either because of a quirk of their hardware or because of software conflicts or because of user issues.
    It sure would be nice if they let you take the software for a "test drive" like they do with cars before buying it. That way you could test it out on your configuration before you buy it. If only....



    [hey, this is my 4,400th post. Wow.]
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 01/10/2005 at 06:35 PM.
  2. #42  
    I'll jump in here for the sake of arguement and agree w/ BJackson. There seem to be two parties who made a mistake (Bjackson for not trying the software, and Bits n Bolts for the false advertising), but the mistake BJackson made shouldn't cost him his $10 IMO. If PalmGear said it worked with most 650's, or usually works w/ 650's, then the fault would completely lie with BJackson. But he bought a piece of software that they said would work with the Treo 650, when they've admitted that there are some issues with the 650. They didn't give BJackson a reason to install the trial, and furthermore they gave BJackson two assurances that he didn't need to install the trial. They told him it would work with both his OS and his software.

    Granted, I install all trial software before I buy, and I think BJackson will too from now on. But just because they offer a trial of their software, that does not give them the right to list it's compatibility with hardware that it's not compatible with. I fault bits n bolts for poor customer service. I think if they could do it over again, $10 is a small price to pay to not have a thread like this develop on a highly trafficked forum.

    For the record, I can clearly see the other side of the arguement, and it does have it's merits. I am in agreement though that the developer should not get off this easily. Interesting debate.
  3. #43  
    The version of BackupMan that PalmGear sells is v1.51. The listing clearly states that it was last updated on August 11, 2004 (see attached screenshot to see the listing).

    August 11 was, of course, about 4 months before the Treo 650 was released. It is not a stretch to conclude that the software obviously could not have been intended for use with the Treo 650, since the 650 did not even exist when the software was written.

    Now, what does the Treo 650 users guide say about installation of older versions of software? In the section on upgrading from an older model PDA, it says:

    From the Treo 650 User Guide...
    Incompatible applications can lead to numerous issues including soft or hard resets, "system error" warnings, crashes, etc...Check with the third-party-developer of each program for software updates and for information regarding compatibility with Treo 650.
    If one checks the developer's website, it is clearly stated (as of Dec 1, 2004) that v1.52b is the appropriate version for the Treo 650 and the Tungsten T5 and makes this beta version available for download.

    Considering that (1) the software you bought clearly could not have been written with the Treo 650 in mind, and that (2) the user guide of your hardware recommends that you check with the developer of a third-party program regarding compatibility of older versions of software prior to installing, and that (3) the developer's website clearly displays this information about compatibility and offers FREE OF CHARGE a beta version which works on your hardware, I think it is wildly unfair to say that Bits n Bolts misrepresented their product.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by MacJunkie; 01/10/2005 at 07:17 PM.
  4. #44  
    All good points MacJ.
  5. #45  
    It is pretty common, however, not to offer refunds on software. The problem is that once they give you a code, there's nothing to "return."
  6.    #46  
    "The product does work, and it works very well"

    This is not a true statement, go to the developers website and they state right there that it in fact DOES NOT work on the 650. It MAY work, but they list several outstanding issues that are not annoyances - rather they render the software useless. Also, in the email from bitsnbolts they clearly state that it works on *SOME* 650's. They advertised that it worked on "Any Palm OS Hardware".

    "August 11 was, of course, about 4 months before the Treo 650 was released. It is not a stretch to conclude that the software obviously could not have been intended for use with the Treo 650, since the 650 did not even exist when the software was written."

    Come on, this is ridiculous. As a consumer, I should IGNORE where it says it is compatible with "Any Palm OS Hardware". Then do some research to find out the month in which my Treo was released, then lookup the software release date, etc. etc."

    All I was looking for is a hint from the developer at the time of purchase that this software MIGHT not work. Stop thinking like geeks that test, tweak and try everything and consider this from a consumer perspective. It's so simple to me that I am baffled by the amount of folks that are standing up for this type of service...

    Again: They told me before I purchased it would work on "Any Palm OS Hardware" running OS 3.5 and up. It did NOT work for me. When I contacted them, I then find out there are KNOWN issues, and that I cannot get a refund because I should have tried their software first, instead of believing their product description."

    How you can argue with that eludes me.

    It is an interesting debate however...

    b
  7. #47  
    If you want to ignore the explicitly dated source of the information that "it works with any Palm OS hardware", that's your business. They put the "last updated" information there on the listing for a reason. It's not hidden in small print, it is right up there near the top, next to the screen cap of the application.

    You wouldn't buy software and try to use it with Windows XP if it were marketed in 1995 with the label "compatible with Windows" on it, would you? No, you'd look for a more recent version that was made to be compatible with Windows XP.

    And yes, you should be willing to do a few minutes worth of research before you load software on a piece of electronic equipment you payed $600 for.

    Furthermore, their website does not say that BackupMan doesn't work with the 650, as you insist. Here is what it says, copied directly from their website...

    BackupMan v1.52b5 has been released as a public beta in order to deal with several of the most common problems with the Tungsten T5 and Treo 650. The only outstanding issues at this point are as follows:

    * Out of memory error during Backup/Restore operation (Dm 0201): This error is caused by a bug in the Treo 650/Tungsten T5 that 3rd party developers cannot work around. Essentially, the more data you read/write from the NVFS system on the device, the more likely you are to see this problem. This problem also can show up as a random reset (Treo 650) or Fatal Exception (Tungsten T5). Power users with nearly full memory are likely to experience this often, users with fewer applications and less data will experience it much less frequently. We are hopeful that palmOne will fix this problem in the near future, and we will continue to update this website with further information as it becomes available.

    * Photos and Videos will not be backed up on the Treo 650/Tungsten T5.
    In other words, the beta does work, may cause resets if you have nearly-full RAM, and will not back up your photos (which is not a problem if you store your photos on the SD card, which you should do anyway to keep the RAM freed up).

    I have now made several backups and TWICE restored from hard resets to convince myself of it. Their statements quoted above are accurate. The beta version works. The beta version does not back up photos and videos. And since I am not low on RAM, I am not getting a reset, but I have heard others say this can occur.
    Last edited by MacJunkie; 01/11/2005 at 09:21 AM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjackson
    Come on, this is ridiculous. As a consumer, I should IGNORE where it says it is compatible with "Any Palm OS Hardware". Then do some research to find out the month in which my Treo was released, then lookup the software release date, etc. etc."
    Simply? Yes! If you are buying a part for your 2004 Corolla, wouldn't want to make sure that a part made in 2002 is compatible? There are certain standard steps you should go through before plunking money down on software. If they allow you to download and use it for free the logic of blindly accepting the programmer's dated information instead of trying it out elludes me.

    (I can't say the following loudly enough)

    They gave you the option of installing a fully working version which you declined to do before paying. I therefore think you are completely out of line when you say it is their fault.
  9.    #49  
    Well, I'll let this die now, it's obvious that the folks here are in the corner of the developers.

    "If you are buying a part for your 2004 Corolla, wouldn't want to make sure that a part made in 2002 is compatible?"

    No. I would go to an auto parts store. I would ask or find the proper part. If it was marked as a part for my car I would purchase it. If I then found out it didn't work, or was for a different car DESPITE being marked for mine I would then return the part and get a full refund.

    Apparently this logic doesn't work for software sales, since they gave me the option to troubleshoot their software ahead of time, right?

    Also, to address macJunkie, the following text is a direct copy from an email I received from the developers. "I would suggest you download the Beta version from our website, it does work on most Treo 650 devices. " The keyword is MOST. Meaning that they are aware that it does not work on all devices.

    Thanks for the debate, I find the blind allegiance to poor service appalling honestly. I remember a time when regardless of the circumstances if a product didn't work and the manufacturer was aware of the issues, a refund would be a very reasonable expectation.

    Apparently in the new digital world our rights as consumers to be told about possible limitations ahead of time have been revoked for a new system of trial and error. I should spend the time figuring out if what they tell me is correct or dated properly.

    I think you are all missing the bigger point. I can completely understand how this type of thing can happen, my biggest issue is that I believe I clearly deserve a refund.

    The bottom line is that I purchased a product that was supposed to work. It didn't. The maker of the product knows that it didn't. This is NOT being disputed, but I don't get my money back.

    Anyway, I'm done with this thread - thanks for the participation, but for the $10, I can't keep getting my blood pressure up reading the support for the devs in this situation.

    Thanks,

    b
  10. #50  
    Poor service is no more appalling than blind faith undertaken in an abrogation of personal responsibility.

    Do you try on a pair of shoes before you buy it, or do you act on the faith that the number printed inside is accurate?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by MacJunkie
    Poor service is no more appalling than blind faith undertaken in an abrogation of personal responsibility.

    Do you try on a pair of shoes before you buy it, or do you act on the faith that the number printed inside is accurate?
    Hehe, I had to look up abrogation.....
  12.    #52  
    Can you try on shoes over the internet? No, so yes. As a matter of fact I have purchase several pairs from zappos.com. One pair did not fit as the size indicated and I received a full refund. And it's ludicrous to compare software and apparel just because it fits your point.

    Btw- I was browsing looking at the mapopolis software, and I found this VERY refreshing on their detail page: "Software is not refundable. Please download trial version from www.mapopolis.com before making final purchase" ... Novel idea.

    Also, regarding personal responsibility (buyer beware) and how it relates to Consumer Protection Law...

    Here is the definition of Buyer Beware from Law.com, and this has also been verified through britannica.

    "caveat emptor (kah-vee-ott emptor) Latin for "let the buyer beware." The basic premise that the buyer buys at his/her own risk and therefore should examine and test a product himself/herself for obvious defects and imperfections. Caveat emptor still applies even if the purchase is "as is" or when a defect is obvious upon reasonable inspection before purchase. Since implied warranties (assumed quality of goods) and consumer protections have come upon the legal landscape, the seller is held to a higher standard of disclosure than "buyer beware" and has responsibility for defects which could not be noted by casual inspection (particularly since modern devices cannot be tested except by use and many products are pre-packaged)."

    The definitions for implied warranties are as follows: (taken from the UCC Code)

    * Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,
    * Would pass without objection in the trade
    * Is adequately packaged, labeled, and contained
    * Conforms to the promises made in the label

    There may also be an "implied warranty of fitness for a particular use". This warranty is created when:


    * At the time of sale, the seller has reason to know the uses the buyer has for the goods, and
    * The buyer relies on the seller’s judgment in selecting the goods
    * This implied warranty is not created if
    * The buyer’s knowledge of the goods is as great as the seller, or the buyer has a professional consultant,
    * The buyer supplies specifications to the seller

    FYI - Implied warranties and Consumer Protection laws came onto the landscape in 1986 with the Consumer Protection Act.

    Buyer Beware is/was an antiquated and unfair practice. This is why the Consumer Protection Act was put into place. Argue all you want, but I believe my situation clearly fits under the umbrella of an implied warranty.

    b
  13. #53  
    You try on shoes because you know that not every size 9 shoe fits every size 9 foot. If someone said to you, "I bought these shoes and they don't fit.", you would respond, "Did you try them on?" Upon hearing they didn't, you would be befuddled that anyone would buy shoes without trying them on at the store.

    Likewise, do you really believe it's reasonable to have an expectation that all software will work with all computers without conflict EVER? That is pure naivete and, unless you are a neophyte, I don't believe that you really believe that.

    The peddling of wares that are falsely purported to work with a particular computer is unfair to consumers, I agree. But you fail to appreciate that expecting refunds when users have not taken adequate steps to ensure they are purchasing the right product is unfair to developers (and no, I am not a developer).

    Software is not like a physical item where the seller can take back the item at the same time they are refunding your money. Developers could be (and have been) put in the position of refunding money to consumers who falsely claim that the software doesn't work. This is why most retailers won't give refunds on opened software.

    Then came shareware. Shareware was born of the notion that you shouldn't pay for a piece of software before finding out if (1) it does what you need it to do and (2) it works on YOUR system with the other stuff that YOU have installed. Some developers like to give out intentionally-crippled versions of the software which only become fully functional when you purchase a key. I hate this practice, since it prevents you from trying all the features of the software. What Bits n Bolts does is much better...they provide a full-feature version that will work for a limited time.

    The fact that you are getting the product online instead of in a physical store is irrelevant. They are offering you the opportunity to do the equivalent of going into the shoe store and trying the shoes on. In fact, they're offering you more...they're allowing you free use of the product for 7 days (or, in the case of the beta, indefinitely until the final product is released). Try going into a retail computer store and asking for 7 days to try software out before you pay them for it. And if you do pay for it and take it home and find out it conflicts with your system, try gettting a refund on opened software.

    I'm sorry you lost $10, but I can't blame them for not offering you a refund. The reality is that the advantage is HUGELY with the consumer when it comes to shareware. Many more copies of a particular piece of software are pirated or used without registration than are legitimately purchased.
    Last edited by MacJunkie; 01/11/2005 at 01:11 PM.
  14.    #54  
    "Likewise, do you really believe it's reasonable to have an expectation that all software will work with all computers without conflict EVER? That is pure naivete and, unless you are a neophyte, I don't believe that you really believe that."

    NO, NO, NO. Again, I think you are missing my point. What I expect is that if they TELL me it will work, and it doesn't work, then I get a refund. If there was ANY indication that it might not work, I would have used the trial version.

    "taken adequate steps to ensure they are purchasing the right product is unfair to developers"

    I can't believe that reading in black and white that this product is compatible with both my HARDWARE and SOFTWARE is not an adequate step to ensure I'm purchasing the right product.

    "Many more copies of a particular piece of software are pirated or used without registration than are legitimately purchased."

    Please quote me a source on this statement if possible, I believe this is not the case. While I agree that piracy is rampant, to state that more is pirated then sold is a pretty large jump, and a wild generalization. Also, I'm not a pirate. I paid for this software, and it is a KNOWN issue, not one that I made up and said it didn't work. Also, by your logic here I don't get a refund because someone else stole the product???

    I can't really argue with the shoe thing, because I can't seem to logically connect a piece of software purchased online with a pair of shoes purchased in a store. I don't think it's a valid comparison. But let me ask you this, seriously... If the shoes you purchased said on the tag 'FITS ANY SIZE 9 FOOT ON THE PLANET' and you bought them, took them home and they did not fit your size 9 foot. Would you expect a refund? How would you feel if the sales person told you "I know we said it fits every size 9 on the planet, but you could have tried them on"?

    That's exactly what happened to me.

    b
  15. #55  
    In my opinion we've all done more than $10 worth of damage to our health in this thread. We should end it.
  16.    #56  
    Agreed, but I do think that it has been a very interesting debate, and I'm glad that it did not turn into a personal-attack or flame-war. Shows the quality of people that participate in this forum.

    b
  17. #57  
    If you feel that their claim made in August should apply to a device which did not even exist then, there is no purpose in commenting further.

    As for the pervasiveness of internet software piracy (not that it applies to your case, but since you asked) the best data we have is from the Business Software Alliance (http://www.bsa.org/usa/antipiracy/). Their study in 2002 showed the following:

    - 46% of internet users download software and 70% say they would not be likely to pay a fair price for it.

    - Fewer than half the people who download commercial software regularly pay for it.

    - 80% of Internet users agree that "it makes no sense for software companies to charge consumers like me hundreds of dollars per user license for programs that cost them only a few pennies to reproduce"

    and most disturbingly...

    - most internet users engage in situational ethics when it comes to downloading software that might be unlicensed

    And this is what people freely admit to!!!

    The estimate is that in 2002, software piracy cost the worldwide software industry $13 billion in revenue and that the impact in the US was 105,000 lost jobs, $5.3 billion in lost wages, and $1.4 billion in lost tax revenue.
  18. #58  
    got to add my 2 cents on this.

    BnB didnt indicate that it would work on your treo650 on the palmgear site. It said any palm os 3.5 or later and then had a last update date on Aug 2004.

    That strongly implies that it will work on any palm os 3.5 or later device released prior to that date. They cant say for certain that it would work on any released after that datebecause they dont know what changes have been made to the os or future devices.

    You cannot reasonably expect that they mean their software will work on a device with palm os 7.2 (assuming that ever exists) because of the current info on that site.

    The fact that there is a trial is a point I don't think I need to make. Just common sense there.

    I am not siding with the developer. I am siding with those folks possesed of common sense. Why not just download the beta that does work and quit yer b!tchin?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  19. #59  
    Amen, brutha.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    ....Why not just download the beta that does work and quit yer b!tchin?
    Doesn't work for me. Nor a few others that have posted in that thread either...
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions