#Don't Go-Amigo!!
16 messages in this thread
Well, the GO-AMIGO saga continues: after 2 phone calls to SAS and 4 calls
to GO-AMIGO the situation is that, although SAS is supplying free upgrades
to purchasers who bought Lattice C 5.0 since the release of 5.1, the
upgrade must be obtained through the retailer. GO-AMIGO just can't be
bothered. Originally (the day after I received the package) they offered to
take back the Compiler package they sent for a $20 restocking charge. Add
the shipping onto that and it would come closer to $30. Then they would not
have refunded the original shipping charge to me making the expenditure
about $33. The upgrade costs (if I purchase it form SAS) $40. Since I
ordered 5.1, and since according to SAS I should have ended up with 5.1 I
don't feel I should end up having to pay beyond the GO-AMIGO high price
anyway ($200).
So its no more Mr Nice guy! I'm stopping payment on the credit card order
and keeping the compiler since I opened the package and the disk envelopes.
(SAS also informed me that they used the 5.0 boxes they got from Lattice to
ship 5.1, that 5.1 was all they wer shipping and that the stores should not
be selling 5.0 anymore. The upgrade was to cover customers and resellers
who had 5.0 put into their posession after the 5.1 release. Since there was
no external indicator of the compiler rev, SAS advised that I go ahead and
use the compiler as GO-AMIGO would be supplied free updates for people
caught by stale product, like I was.) I opened the compiler. lc says 5.04
but there is a 5.05 readme on the Master disk. So at least the compiler is
useful, but the package can no longer be returned anyway.
Bottom line, since GO-AMIGO obviously lied about shipping me a package they
"just received this week" from the SAS, and there "manager" never calls
back and is not showing good faith, I go to hard-ball mode. 1. Stop payment
on the charge card; 2. Complain to SAS that GO-AMIGO preformance is
damaging their reputation of being a reputable source of Amiga software;
[ MORE ]
Wayne –
If your situation makes you that mad about GO_Amigo I would do
everything you plan on doing – EXCEPT you should return the product that
you are not paying for! You have no right to keep it and not pay for it!
Don't worry about you openning the package and the disk envelopes. It is
expected the you should open those two things and you can still return the
product.
Although I feel that you a blowing this whole thing out of proportion,
you should try to settle your differences with Go_Amigo. Call them back,
insist on talking to a manager – Don't hang up and wait for one to call
you, stay on the line. Then, very calmly, start from the beginning and
explain what problems you are having. Explain that you would like to
exchange the product for the most current version, Explain that you do not
think you should pay a 'restocking fee' and that you will return the
product in exchange for the new version. You should ask them to ship the
new product to you for free shipping, but you should also expect to have to
pay the shipping on getting the product back to them.
In any event – if you do not get satifaction from them, that still
doesn't mean you get to keep the product for free! You are going to have
to pay to return the product to them one way or another. Either you will
be expecting to receive the current version back from them, or you will be
stopping payment on your Credit Card order. If you don't return the
product you are just asking for more trouble and they will have the law on
there side.
P.S. Before you return the product, call them and get an RMA#. And from
now on keep notes & records of ALL communications you have with Go Amigo.
You should probably send them some written communcations detailing your
complaints and keep copies of that for your records.
– Roy Pahnke – Crazy Mountain Software
Casper, Wyomin' – 1-800-76 AMIGA
My reply over in AmigaTech to this says pretty much the same thing, with
one addition: it's usually the manufacturer/publisher who takes care of
upgrades and not distributors/dealers, and if you buy a package within a
month of so of new update becoming available, the publisher (SAS in this
case) will almost always give you the update for nothing or next to
nothing.
Since 5.1 only came out within the past month, I'd fully expect that
distributors would still have 5.05 on their shelves and as such I think
Go-Amigo is being unnecessarly chewed out.
-Mike
Mike, I think its safe to say that both Go and SAS are both being idiots
about his, IMHO. BTW, what's your policy? 🙂
Ron
From the description, it sounds more like Go-Amigo's caught in the middle
more than anything else. I don't know any distributors who like to handle
update stuff.
I'm not sure that Manx has an 'official' policy regarding buying an 'old'
version right before or after a new release comes out. I can say though
that I've seen lots of individual cases where we've given the update at no
cost when the time period was reasonably close.
-Mike
Gee, Mike. When I purchased Manx's 3.6 version (from a dealer), I was told
by Manx (via the dealer) that my 5.0 upgrade would be free, since my
purchase was after 5.0 was "rumored" to be available (but well before the
eventual reality of its availability). Since I already owned the
competitor's product, I was waivering about the purchase, but this promise
of the free upgrade kind of pushed me over the edge, and I did purchase the
product.
Many months later, when 5.0 finally did ship (<grin>), my "free" upgrade
turned out to not be exactly "free", but cost a small shipping and handling
charge (I believe it was $15). Yes, this was significantly less than the
"regular" upgrade cost for 5.0, but it most certainly was not "free".
Of course, _I_ don't live in a glass house! <grin>
…BobR
White Wolf Productions
Free update offers are generally done within a month or so of the
_actual_ release date – rumored ones generally don't count 😎 As it was,
you had the use of 3.6a for the months prior to the 5.0 release, and after
being able to use it for that period of time got 5.0 for only 15 bucks
extra. I'd call that a pretty decent deal myself, especially since the
general 3.6->5.0 deal was for $75!
If you had bought 3.6a at the end of January 1990, then that would have
been a whole other matter entirely, and that's the current situation with
SAS 5.1. Apples and Oranges, ya know.
-Mike
> Free update offers are generally done within a month of so of the >
_actual_ release date.
Granted that this is standard procedure with many software publishers.
However, I was explicitly told by Manx at the time of my purchase that my
upgrade would be free. Did they lie to me? Or is this just an example of
"creative newspeak"?
> As it was, you had the use of 3.6a for the months prior to the 5.0
>release, …
True, but you have to remember that at the time, 3.6a had been on the
market for quite a long time, and consequently wasn't a particularly "state
of the art" product. If I were purchasing that compiler on its own merits
(at that point in time), I would have expected an extremely deep discount,
or I wouldn't have purchased it.
> I'd call that a pretty decent deal myself
I'm not saying it wasn't a decent deal, compared to the "standard"
upgrade cost. For that there is no argument. However, compared to the
"deal" I was promised, it's not particularly decent. In fact, it's not
particularly honest.
Now, I possibly could have made more of an issue about this back when
these events transpired, but I did feel that it was more hassle than it was
worth (although it has left a bad impression in mind of Manx). The real
reason that I'm dregging this up now is that I feel that you are acting
improperly and unprofessionally (IMHO) in regards to the many comments you
have left here concerning the changes occurring with your competitor (SAS).
If you're gonna sling mud (or even merely stir up the hornets nest), then
you gotta learn to duck. At least you are here to respond to the innuendos
being made. SAS is not, and I feel it incumbent on you (as a non-customer
and a non-disinterested party) to stay out of the discussions concerning
them. There's a big difference between one of SAS's present or possibly
future customers commenting on their current practices and your commenting
on the same practices.
I hope that I've made my points clearly. I really am not trying to be
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
excessively confrontative here. Just trying to be fair (to all parties).
Respectfully,
…BobR
White Wolf Productions
I don't know the specific details of your case Bob, but in general we will
give free updates if you buy a new package within a month or so of an
upgrade. Buying a package predicated on a new release coming out, and said
release being delayed, is fairly grey area IMHO. How many months were
there between your purchasing 3.6a and the final release of 5.0a (which was
in January).
As for my actions being "unprofessional", well I'm a bit offended by that
remark (just a bit though 😎 Lattice and SAS representatives have never
failed to point out problems with our product and our company in general
(remember the ad with the bullet holes through Manx disks?). If some of
what I've said is true, or its only intent was to incite tempers (er, make
that "what I've said is untrue" ), then sure I could see there being a
problem. But I haven't said anything untrue here, and my comments are just
that – just comments, like lots of others here are making.
Is it unfair for me to comment on SAS policies when a SAS representative
isn't here to defend themselves? I think it is fair, for the simple reason
that this is an _open_ forum, and there's absolutely nothing stopping SAS
from getting a representative up here on CI$. In fact, they explicitly
_let go_ their CI$ representative, and that's got alot to do with what I've
commented on !!!!!
If you have a specific problem with stuff I've said, well then let me know
about it. If you're upset because a Manx representative isn't in love with
SAS and its policies, and speaks his mind about it, well then that seems to
be more your problem then mind.
-Mike
Aside from this SAS/Go-Amigo fiasco, let me share something…
At Syndesis, we've always had a policy of free bug fixes. But what do we do
when we truly add features? We need to come up with an upgrade policy, and
it always drives us nuts, because we try to be fair and reasonable.
There's the existing users… some have registered, some not. Presuming we
do a mailing that tells them of the upgrade, let's say we charge $20. But
what about the people who just bought an older version of the software?
Should they get a free upgrade? Should they pay $20 to get the newer
version just because the dealer and/or distributor has older product on the
shelves? What about the people who have a recognized buggy version, who'd
normally get a free bug-fix version? Do they get the improved upgrade? It
goes on and on…
John,
Yeah, a _bunch_ of tough questions…for which there are only answers
which are simple, straightforward, and WRONG.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Care to elaborate? Have you found a simple solution for this? One answer
is: don't update or upgrade the software on a regular basis… maybe once a
year, when you can do a real upgrade or near-re-release of the software in
a complete version 2.0, instead of incremental improvements. Another would
be to price the upgrades to cover the true costs of development of those
changes. After all, this is the rationale for charging more for any
significant upgrade. Another would be to charge a straight update fee,
regardless of the fix: whether it was caused by bug fixing or true
improvements. These are among the choices that tend to inflame consumers,
of course.
John,
I guess we failed to communicate. What I said was "there are only
answers which are simple, straightforward, and WRONG." Perhaps I should
have emphasized the word "ONLY" also. I've yet to hear of a "right"
answer. If _you_ do, please let us know as we've been struggling with this
one for several years also.
Roy, I disagree that Wayne should have to pay ANY additional charges
(including the cost of the phone call to explain how _THEY_ goofed up). In
particular, THEY should pay shipping BOTH ways. I suspect it was an
'honest' mistake, but why should the customer have to pay for the vendor's
mistake?
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
You are right, of course but…
A mail order firm with exceptional customer service would pick up all
cost of getting this matter straighten out, but with others it is simply
not part of their policy. Sure one can put up a fuss and argue and
probably finally get statifaction, but in most cases – and to get the
matter settled – it is usually easier to just pay for the return shipping.
(What's that amount to $5.00).
This is part of the cost of doing business with mail order firms. Read
the small print in the ads. "…product must be returned postage prepaid
with all orignial packaging." It's sort of an agreement one makes when
ordering from this firm. On one hand you go for the lowest price on a
product you can find and on the other hand you want full service – Some
places just don't work that way.
I should point this out – THIS IS NOT THE WAY I DO BUSINESS – I would go
out of my way to correct the problem. But, my point is that Wayne is
bucking the policy and if he wants the matter solved quickly he should just
pay for the return. However, if he wants them to pay, then he should sit
there and wait for them to send a "Return Pickup" slip. But I would
suggest he holds his breath while waiting. 🙂
BTW, Vic, you do agree that he cann't just keep the product and cancel
the credit card payment – don't you? ? ?