|
 Originally Posted by Kupe
So you're saying the blame really DOES fall directly back onto Palm. If Verizon, the network provider, told Palm, the phone provider, "32 MB is plenty," and Palm, with their reputation at risk said, "sounds good," then who's really to blame?
Youre assuming here that Palm thinks their reputation is on the line.
OK lets use your logic in an analogy.
Contractor builds houses. Contractor offers certain house to Develoer A with certain specifications. Developer A orders houses to these specs and they are built. Process is repeated throughout a large subdivision and the houses are identical, feature wise (i.e. carpet, countertops, appliances etc.) Customer A buys one of these homes.
Same contractor gets involved in another subdivision. Developer B wants to offer these new homes with better carpet, granite counter tops, high end appliances, central air, etc. Customer B buys one of these homes.
Using the Palm suing logic, the Customer A should sue the contractor because the home of Customer B has better features. Am I the only one who thinks this is asinine? No one MADE Customer A buy from Dev A. That was his CHOICE!!!
Yes this is not the exact same as a phone but the concept of the argument is the same. Its the manufacturers(Palm/contractor) responsibility to provide its customers (Verizon/Dev A - Sprint/Dev B) with the products they ask for. It is not their responsibility to anticipate the wants and whims of every end user and provide every conceivable feature.
|
|
|