Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyparanoid
    Doesn't work for me. Nor a few others that have posted in that thread either...
    Bummer but I bet you found that out by using the trial before you bought it.
    “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
  2.    #62  
    "I am siding with those folks possesed of common sense."

    So much for the thread not getting personal. Obviously if someone has an opinion different than your's they must not have common sense, right? What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than everyone. Gimme a break.

    "Why not just download the beta that does work and quit yer b!tchin?"

    I tried the beta, this was discussed earlier in the thread.

    "It said any palm os 3.5 or later"

    No, it also says "ANY PALM OS HARDWARE" Isn't the Treo 650 Palm OS hardware??? Oh yea, that's right, it's my fault for not verifying the truth in advertising ahead of my purchase.

    And YES.. If Palm OS 7.2 was on the market, and the site said OS 3.5 and up, I would think it would work on 7.2? And I'm the one without common sense?

    It's not my responsibility to know when certain hardware has been released or not. You may know when the Treo 650 was released, but don't assume that everyone that owns these devices knows this type of thing.

    I still don't understand how it's okay for there to be a message on the developers site saying that it doesn't work on all Treo's, but when I think there should ALSO be a message where it is being SOLD, I'm wrong, no common sense, buyer beware, etc etc.

    How about even a hint? A clue? Some note from the dev at the purchase point that says 'No refunds' or 'Test compatibility first!'... This is too much to ask? Check out the mapopolis site, you'll see that they do a fine job of this.

    The message I get from both the dev's and the supporters of 'common sense' is that I should have ensured via the trial version that what they were telling me in black and white was true.

    Incredible.

    b
    Last edited by Bjackson; 01/11/2005 at 03:26 PM.
  3. #63  
    Bjackson - I'm curious, did you order the software from PalmGear? If so, on the download page, on a line by itself, it says, "Free 7 day evaluation period". At this stage I guess that's beating a dead horse and I commented on that a few pages ago.

    My question to the general population is, who is responsible for the PalmGear description, assuming Bjackson purchased from PalmGear? Is PalmGear responsible for the content on their site or do they just post what the developer tells them? Is it the developers responsibilty to check-up on PalmGear and make sure they have the most recent information on a product (the answer is probably, yes, on that one).
  4.    #64  
    MarkY -

    If you follow the page closely, the add to cart button on Palmgear is very very visible, while the text links for the trial version are not.

    I'm not sure whose responsibility it is, and I have contacted Palmgear regarding this.

    During my research into both the Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Commercial Code, I found the following cases and rulings from the US Court of Appeals specifically dealing with SOFTWARE. I have quoted relevant points and the case names...

    Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link -
    "As a matter of public policy, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) says that any product comes with a warranty of merchantability unless the seller specifically excludes it.9 This is a modest warranty. It doesn't require that a product be bug free or that customers like the product. It only says that the seller promises that the product is "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used"10 and that it conforms "to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label."11 If you sell a word processor, it has to write memos, it shouldn't erase the customer's hard disk, and you shouldn't say on the box that it's compatible with the LaserJet IV if you don't mean it"

    Also in Daughtrey v. Ashe:
    "2-313(b) any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description."

    Also in this case the following ruling applies:
    "The precise time when words of description or affirmation are made . . . is not material."

    So the argument over when the Treo was released versus when the description was set is irrelevant according to this.

    Clearly, the goods did not conform to the description, and the compatibility 'on the box' was incorrect.

    So according to the law I should be protected, but according to some here, that's a lack of common sense on my part.

    b
  5. #65  
    So much for the thread not getting personal. Obviously if someone has an opinion different than your's they must not have common sense, right? What a burden it must be to be so much smarter than everyone. Gimme a break.
    it has nothing to do with your opinion being different. It's the fact that you wont accept the responsibility of your action.

    The whole point of a trial is to allow you to test the software with your hardware BEFORE you buy. I am not smarter than everyone but I am smart enough to see the point of a trial.

    Just because you didnt do that you are trying to find anyway to blame the developer for no refunds and alleged misleading statements.

    You could have looked on here before you bought to see if there were issues but no you jump into your purchase and then whine and complain because you were a victim.

    Maybe I am smarter. I trial software with that option and I rarely buy software that doesnt offer a trial. And I always do research on a potential purchase before I buy especially if it could screw up my expensive toys.

    Fact is bj you screwed up. Sorry I havent glazed that fact with sugar to make you feel better. Ask around. I am famous for no sugar coating. Just be thankful that you didnt spend $1000. Don't buy from BnB anymore, but be sure to learn from this eh? Trials are made available for a reason.
    “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
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjackson
    MarkY -

    If you follow the page closely, the add to cart button on Palmgear is very very visible, while the text links for the trial version are not.

    I'm not sure whose responsibility it is, and I have contacted Palmgear regarding this.

    During my research into both the Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Commercial Code, I found the following cases and rulings from the US Court of Appeals specifically dealing with SOFTWARE. I have quoted relevant points and the case names...

    Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link -
    "As a matter of public policy, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) says that any product comes with a warranty of merchantability unless the seller specifically excludes it.9 This is a modest warranty. It doesn't require that a product be bug free or that customers like the product. It only says that the seller promises that the product is "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used"10 and that it conforms "to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label."11 If you sell a word processor, it has to write memos, it shouldn't erase the customer's hard disk, and you shouldn't say on the box that it's compatible with the LaserJet IV if you don't mean it"

    Also in Daughtrey v. Ashe:
    "2-313(b) any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description."

    Also in this case the following ruling applies:
    "The precise time when words of description or affirmation are made . . . is not material."

    So the argument over when the Treo was released versus when the description was set is irrelevant according to this.

    Clearly, the goods did not conform to the description, and the compatibility 'on the box' was incorrect.

    So according to the law I should be protected, but according to some here, that's a lack of common sense on my part.

    b
    Never said YOU lacked common sense. I said it was common sense (to most) to trial software before they buy if the option was available.

    I can't believe you are wasting all this time for $10. Write it off to a life lesson and move on. Sheesh dude, dead horses NEVER get up.
    “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
  7.    #67  
    "alleged misleading statements"

    Explain the alleged portion to me. It states it works with any Palm OS hardware. It doesn't work. No allegedly involved.

    "You could have looked on here before you bought to see if there were issues but no you jump into your purchase and then whine and complain because you were a victim."

    I could have looked on some message board instead of believing what I was told, and that relieves them of their obligation of a refund? I found this board AFTER I purchased, for the record.

    The fact is I did not 'screw up'. I bought software based on a description and compatibility listings. Afterwards I find out that the statements were not misleading... they were completely WRONG. And the developers have admitted that.

    I don't want or need any sugar coating. I want developers of software to either A) tell me the whole truth when I buy or B) give me my money back if it doesn't work AS YOU STATED AHEAD OF TIME.

    Please honestly answer this question for me...

    You are basically saying that the makers should be able to say anything they want in the description, at the point of purchase - that it will run on your toaster, and walk on water, etc etc.. NONE of this has to be true as long as they offer a trial version for you to figure out on your own that they are lying... And if you purchase based on their product description (which I remind you is a legal expressed warranty), and it doesn't do those things, tough sh*t, your fault, you're whining and trying to blame the poor developers, etc etc.

    Trials are made to ensure that you understand the product, that it meets your needs, not to know if the description is a lie. If the purpose of them having a trial was so I could test compatibility, why not put a note stating this, instead of the lie that it is compatible.

    b


    One last note. The situation leading up to the purchase is relevant to a point, but even without all of these circumstances, I still should be entitled to a refund. I legitimately purchased software from them, it doesn't work because of a KNOWN and DOCUMENTED issue. Period. End of story. I didn't make this 'bug' up, I didn't want a refund because i don't like the icon color. It doesn't work, they sold it to me. Give me a working product or my money back.
    Last edited by Bjackson; 01/11/2005 at 04:14 PM.
  8.    #68  
    LOL @ dead horses never get up.

    I really am trying to let it go, it's obviously not the $10. I am a software developer, and I am just seriously baffled by their response, but even moreso by the fact that the majority of people here agree that I am at fault.

    b
  9. #69  
    I DO NOT agree with the majority that it is your fault. Nor do I agree that it's the developer's fault. But let's be practical and fair about this. We, as consumers, should put ourselves in the developer's shoes (since the topic of shoes came up). Since you're a software developer, what would you do if the roles were reversed. If a customer bought your software and was unhappy, would you give him a refund? If yes, then your customer just got himself a free app. Would you just take it on faith that your customer will no longer use your app, or, worst case, distribute it to ALL his friends? So from a business standpoint, what is fair?

    On a similar note, what if you have two apps that are not working well together but do well what they advertise only by themselves. One of the developers added features that now introduced incompatibilities with your other app. Do you ask for a refund for the one that you can't use?

    Answers are usually plain to see once we put ourselves in the other's shoes. No?
    Palm III > Palm V > Palm Vx > (Sprint) Kyo 6035 > Handspring Treo 300
    > Handspring Treo 600 Oct.'03 > Palm Treo 700P May'06 > Treo 755P Aug.'07 > Pre(-) June'09 + TouchPad July'11 LONG LIVE webOS!!!
  10.    #70  
    I definately can see the other side on this, but I would give them a refund if the problem they reported was a known issue.

    They know I purchased the software, and I could distribute it to all my friends regardless of the refund or not.

    The bottom line is that I'm out $10, and from now on I will use trial software, and not believe what I'm told in the software descriptions...But it doesn't make it right.

    Good thread though, I certainly got my $10 worth.

    b
  11. #71  
    Round and round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows. Wait, it stops here.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions