At 9:08 pm -0500 1/3/01, Michael W. Wellman wrote:
>> So, when Joe Soap goes into Computer World and browses the Mac
>> Software shelves (or should that be shelf?) he sees Microsoft
>> Office:Mac and the box says "Syncs with your hand-held!" without
>> spelling out some serious limitations. Isn't he entitled to get just
>> as upset as he would in the previous examples?
>
>Nope.
>
>One, hand-helds are still mostly in the hands of early adopters (well, maybe
>a step beyond early adopters, but still far from mass market). They know
>better.
>
>Two, the software does two hundred and thirty seven gajillion other things;
>the speakers just sit there not working.
>
>Three, what does it mean "entitled to get...upset"? ;-) I'm not into
>entitlements or rights (I'm getting really intolerant in my old age).
I remain at the 'I disagree' stage on this topic.
Where the box/advertising makes a claim, and that claim is
demonstrably false, not because of some unique combination of
differing hardware, operating systems or solar cycles but because
there is a shortcoming or failing in the implementation of that
feature the publisher failed to mention, the buyer should be entitled
to recover the cost of the software AND any other costs incurred in
the process of discovering that the shortcoming was such as to render
the software unsatisfactory for his purposes. I also belive that this
final requirement is only fair as well - the user should be able to
demonstrate that the shortcoming directly affects the usefulness of
the software for him, otherwise you would get a string of spurious
claims for esoteric, unnecessary features not working as advertised.
--
=Barry Wainwright=
Common Sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for
every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it. -- René
Descartes, 1637
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
