Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 20:24 UTC
Legal Well, this was rather unexpected. As it turns out, Commodore USA's CEO Barry Altman isn't particularly pleased about the article I wrote earlier today in which I placed a considerable amount of scepticism with regards to Commodore USA and its business (and website). He (not his lawyer) sent us a threatening email demanding we take down the article, post a new correction article, the whole shebang. The entire email - as an image, you'll want the original formatting - after the break. Our reply? We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Thread beginning with comment 439059
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sketchy doesn't even BEGIN to cover it
by deathshadow on Wed 1st Sep 2010 23:16 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Though "sleaze it out any old way" making it look fly-by-night does.

When many of the pages still show you the CSS at the top:
http://www.commodoreusa.net/Commodore_Phoenix_computer.html

Or have horribly broken layouts
http://www.commodoreusa.net/invictus.html

It's hardly a surprise for anyone to react negatively to their legitimacy. Fonts in PT size, 500+K pages, 70-80K of markup per page to deliver 3k of plaintext and 10-12 content images -- it screams "we don't know how to make a website" before we even peek under the hood!

With their new home page having 18 validation errors it's rubbish -- but many of the subpages have hundreds of validation errors meaning they don't even have HTML, they have gibberish. You take a look at the code, we can see willy nilly nonsensical indentation, Tranny doctype which is for supporting old/outdated/half-assed coding techniques, CSS inlined in the markup, javascript for no good reason since there's nothing on ANY of the pages which should warrant it's use, presentational markup, redundant properties, properties and attributes no coder should be using after 2002, tables for layout, nonsensical heading order, tag abuse, presentational images in the markup, javascript doing CSS' job, font-family lists that don't resolve on anything but a Mac, inlined style on EVERY P tag (which screams some crap WYSIWYG like frontpage or dreamweaver)...

There is more of 1997 to their site than 2010. They don't want to get flamed for their crappy website here's some advice - hire someone who knows something about building websites to do it for you instead of having some ten year old barf it up in Frontpage.

A CMS behind it wouldn't hurt either since it all appears to be static pages. Even a "poor man's" include system would be an improvement.

Of course I'm trying to figure out how they even show up on the search engines with empty meta fields, and zero actual content on the home page.

Edited 2010-09-01 23:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Lol, ever saw sites from small tech companies, they suck! But just because they suck doesn't mean you can call there business shady. I think Thom, once again, made himself fool by pulling this as "evidence". But I guess Barry decided to raise bets by pulling "suing CEO" card, not wise. But then again he does shed some light. Hyperion Entertaiment has never sued them, nor have they made any statement in there site, just small post on Amiga forum which I would call highly SHADY.

The Good: Fixing false information on Thoms original article
The Bad: Waving "I sue" card immidiatly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Lol, ever saw sites from small tech companies, they suck! But just because they suck doesn't mean you can call there business shady. I think Thom, once again, made himself fool by pulling this as "evidence".

Err. It's okay for a website to look bad, but when they have stolen images in there... well, THAT'S what I would indeed call shady, would you not?

Reply Parent Score: 4

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

A shoddy website does not mean the company is not legitimate, it just means they hired a cowboy web designer or tried to do it themselves...
I encounter a lot of legitimate businesses, some of which are fairly large (30+ employees working in an actual physical office, real customers, actual products or services you can buy etc)... Who have absolutely appalling websites full of validation errors, shoddy/outdated/bloated markup and even spelling mistakes.

Their site actually offers products for sale, has anyone actually tried purchasing one of them to see if it gets shipped?

Sure, their products may just be rebadged versions of someone else's products, but how many other companies do just that, or even just reselling without even rebranding?

And how many other companies announce vaporware products, many of which never see the light of day... Anyone remember WinFS?

Reply Parent Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Their site actually offers products for sale, has anyone actually tried purchasing one of them to see if it gets shipped?

You mean, someone with some money to... what would be the most appropriate verb here? squander? spend? risk?

Reply Parent Score: 1