To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sparkyERTW,
"It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative."
Only to a point, but customers are entitled to returns for products that are broken or don't work as advertised. It's the stores responsibility to take it back within a reasonable period of time. May favorite computer parts store has a 30day return policy, which I've made use of at times for unsuitable products. Now they obviously don't like returns, but it encourages stores and manufacturers to improve reliability and advertise honestly, which is a good thing. It also helps customers gain confidence in buying products that look promising but are created by less recognized brands - ideally reducing the market stranglehold by large brands.
I'm all for "buyer be ware", but only on the condition I've had a chance to inspect the product ahead of time. We often lack the chance to do that these days so it's good to have rules for returns.




Member since:
2010-06-09
The store could not be blamed for something that was obviously under the responsibility of the company developing the product.
This really sums it up. Buying closed-source software is no different then buying a product from some big-box retailer or department store. You're trusting that the manufacturer builds their stuff well, provides good support, etc. If they burn you, how much of that is really the store's fault? After all, their job is to supply what is demanded by customers... and you bought it, didn't you? Sure, a good store can carefully review the manufacturers and products they plan to sell, but it's not really their function.
It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative.
I realize not all of us particularly like Richard Stallman or fully agree with everything he says, but this sort of thing is exactly what he's talking about when he talks about the unethical nature of closed-source software.