Dear Ted and Co,
Years ago I requested a pod to control memory and VFO. It did not
happen and I requested again but then assumed it a lost cause and looked at
the fine K3 in front of me and the service given and decided well maybe
there is a reason and that is that. Other solutions came out but it was
still not really what I hoped for. Then out of the blue Elecraft brings in
the K-Pod which is far better than anything ever expected.
In time some of the many other requested features may be introduced but
it is an Elecraft decision whether either practical or worth while. If you
have a better radio available purchase it.
Meanwhile I am perhaps a bit cranky but if as a company I openly
solicit suggestions the idea that they would be recorded by a third party
who would dictate to my enterprise well maybe I would be thick and stop
bothering with a reflector.
For me the fact that Elecraft has done so much development on an
existing product and kept older versions of the product up to date is just
wonderful. Then quietly Elecraft goes off and develops the KX2 post KX3 -
oh I will never need one of those. Then I saw the KX2 at Friedrichshafen
and fell in love all over again. Let us not be too critical and let us
appreciate the ability to talk to the design engineers who own and manage
Elecraft.
73 Doug EI2CN
-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Dauer,
Edward
Sent: 17 February 2017 14:11
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Tracking Elecraft Feature Requests
I agree fully with Don and Dave (messages below) and others who have made
similar points. To me it's very simple: We are customers, not
shareholders.
There are features I wish their products had, and I have had no hesitation
to mention them on this reflector. Perhaps uniquely among producers of the
type, as I understand it Elecraft monitors these posts. If an idea has
merit, acquires some me-toos, and would work within the financial and
technical framework of the company and its processes, I have confidence it
will be considered. But I do not believe the company owes me even so much
as an acknowledgment. No more than I owe them an explanation about why I
haven't yet bought a KX2. Elecraft is a very good amateur radio equipment
maker. I am a happy repeat customer. So long as I like their gear and
their service, I'll keep buying it. If it were a publicly listed company I
might very well buy stock in it. But it isn't, and I haven't.
Ted, KN1CBR
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:14:44 -0500
From: Don Wilhelm <donw...@embarqmail.com>
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Tracking Elecraft Feature Requests
Message-ID: <8c06109e-9e67-081c-ca5d-838185010...@embarqmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
I agree with Kevin's "Why"
Tell me of another amateur radio manufacturer who maintains such a list.
This is *not* open source programming.
If such a list exists for any other amateur radio manufacturer, they
would come out with an "improved" new radio (Mark VI) version and if you
wanted the "upgrade" you would have to buy the new radio.
With Elecraft, you get those "upgrades" at no cost, just download the
firmware. You knew (or should have known) the capabilities of the radio
when you bought it - you did review the specializations and features
before you purchased it, did you not?
I don't think we need to have visibility into the Elecraft engineering
resources, and prioritization of requests for added functions.
Those at Elecraft *do* listen and often respond to such customer
requests, but the prioritization of those requests must be on Elecraft's
terms for reasons of availability of engineering resources and the sales
benefit of those changes.
Bug reports will get a different response than those requests for
changed operation. If bug reports are proven valid and repeatable, they
will be attended to promptly.
73,
Don W3FPR
On 2/16/2017 7:54 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Why?
>
>
> On 2/14/2017 10:56 AM, Joe Stone (KF5WBO) wrote:
>> [js] It's important that we have visibility not only into features in
the
>> pipeline, but also proposed features which have been rejected.
>>
------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:37:35 -0700
From: David Gilbert <xda...@cis-broadband.com>
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: Re: Tracking Elecraft Feature Requests
Message-ID: <deb1a247-7844-7f67-83c4-628afa017...@cis-broadband.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Except that you explicitly and repeatedly whined every time you brought
it up that Elecraft wasn't willing to do those things, and in my opinion
they have zero obligation and little practical reason to do so. If you
want someone to maintain such a database, do so yourself (or talk
somebody else into it) without getting all moralistic about it. It
might be important to you, but it isn't important for Elecraft to do it
for you.
Dave AB7E
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to turnb...@net1.ie
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
