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 439174
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
yardstickwhack
Member since:
2010-09-02

"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?"

Not necessarily. I've worked for small tech companies that have been far from shady, but have had poorly made websites and not the best practices with sourcing, because of an insistence by the CEO's to build the websites themselves(sp?). Once a real web developer was hired, things became much more professional, but I could see how many would interpret the site as a sign that the company was shady. Even I, not being a web developer, could have made the sites much better.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I understand what you are saying, but its not a good idea. To a certain extent, image matters. It is a n industry where vaporware is an everyday occurance. There is always some company tryign to market their small, relatively insignificant product idea as the next big thing. If you really do have a decent product, your goal should be to not look like a vaporware company. Comodore USA presents its self as a company that isn't well financed and doesn't have a clue how to present itself as a company or its products. I don't have much confidence in them as a company. I am not willing to risk buying a piece of hardware from a company that will not be around to support it ( or even ship it).

A new company that doesn't look like it will survive very long as a company is the very definition of shady. Now, that does not mean I think they are a con. That really depends on your definition of con. I thik many small companies are trying to con venture capitalists into getting funding. That doesn't mean that they are trying to take consumers money without providing the product. It means they are trying to take the consumers money, to convince venture capitalists to give them significantly more money, in order to really afford to make the products that they've promised to make for the consumer. That's definitely shady. As someone who wants to protect fellow consumers, I could not in good conciousness recommend the products to anyone else, and fell compelled to advise them the reasons for avoiding them.

Is that harsh? Yes, very. Starting a business is not easy. Most fail. You have a very limited window of opportunity to succeed. All mistakes are increasingly more damaging the earlier you make them. Google can afford the failure of wave. Commodore, may not survive their crappy website and juvenile behaviour of their ceo.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It is a n industry where vaporware is an everyday occurance. There is always some company tryign to market their small, relatively insignificant product idea as the next big thing. If you really do have a decent product, your goal should be to not look like a vaporware company. Comodore USA presents its self as a company that isn't well financed and doesn't have a clue how to present itself as a company or its products.

As always, first image counts and these guys failed totally with that.

For one, they are selling computers and computers break all the time. As such it is important for the company to be able to provide support. However, their website looks like crap and makes you wonder if you'd get any kind of support whatsoever if you bought something from them. Hell, the website already makes you wonder if you'd get the product itself either.

Second, their CEO is throwing around baseless threats and clearly has no understanding of the law. As such can we as customers trust he knows any more about the laws regarding running such a shop and all the things he'll be liable for? And if a company's CEO doesn't understand the laws he's dealing with can such a company be trusted?

Third, atleast I find them untrustworthy the instant I see them using images taken from others without permission. Yes, it may be that the CEO just doesn't understand copyright laws, but that doesn't really make it any better: either the CEO doesn't understand the laws he's dealing with, or he has no respect for others and would screw them over as long as it benefits him.

They should have just hired a professional designer to do the websites right from the start. Good-looking, professional website creates a positive first image and I doubt they'd have gotten even nearly as much flak as they did now. And their CEO should have taught himself some things, like patience and basic understanding of copyrights, and refrained from posting such idiotic threats. And most definitely, they should have gotten themselves atleast a few dozen machines at hand and perhaps offer them for a review on exactly the sites who try to cast a negative image on them.

Reply Parent Score: 3