In the thread "D-Link Warranty Information-How much time do you have?" a customer seeks help regarding a defective product before his warranty runs out. He points out that D-Link has had every opportunity to correct the problem, and that it seems likely that D-Link is simply stalling, because they know they can't fix the problem.
A forum moderator tells him to RMA it in for repair - not that replacing it would fix a design flaw. It would not be out of line to call this a further stalling tactic to allow more warranties to run out. (If that seems unreasonable, read on...)
He's then told that he's being "completely unreasonable". He's brushed off with "You would have no insight as to the timeframe required .....". (As the customer pointed out, D-Link has close to a year to fix a problem that should have been fixed before release.) The thread was then locked, denying him a chance to respond.
I'm in a similar situation, with a D-Link product with what's undeniably a design flaw. See the thread "D-Link Enterprise / DES-1228P / DES-1228P all lights red on switch" for details. We have four D-Link routers, and in just over a year we've had seven fail. Others are reporting the same thing: This isn't merely a very high failure rate; it's a greater than 100% failure rate.
Routers have been sent back for repair again and again and again. With no recall, remedy or communication from D-Link, it's obvious that they're simply stalling until the warranties run out.
If you're doing this to your enterprise customers, I shudder to imagine what you're doing to your home and gaming customers.
So....
What IS a reasonable amount of time to expect a problem to be solved? HOW MANY times should you RMA a defective product (and the defective replacement for it and the defective replacement for that) before you're not being unreasonable when you complain?
Author
Topic: Please define 'Reasonable'. (Read 3543 times)