Official Word From Replay - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:23 PM
Member
 
avhokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
It sounds to me that you weren't interested in buying a Replay at the real price, correct? I mean no offense to you, but I'm not sure how Replay loses by not selling units to people who aren't willing to pay the real price for them?

They certainly lose by having all those units go out the door at (what we believe is) a loss..
I wasn't really in the market, but couldn't resist this deal. And maybe with good service and support, I would have convinced my friends to buy ReplayTVs instead of Tivos.
avhokie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:24 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by tarfin
Not sure where you got your understanding of business and consumer protection laws Ray but you might want to revisit that. This is called fraud -plain and simple. Sell a product that does x then remove x from the product. Doesn't matter how much was paid for it, the box and insert clearly stated 3 years of service. DNNA's CSRs stated that 3 years of service was included as well.
Again, what is stated on the box isn't relevent. DNNA has the discretion to change the terms of its offer. If they informed CC to take the damn stickers off, but CC never did, that is not DNNA's problem.

The point is, X was never given to you, so it could never have been taken away.
rayw69 is offline  
post #63 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:25 PM
Member
 
vivarey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
I'm still curious to know why people believe they deserve to be "enriched" (ie get service activation that should cost $300 for nothing) when they can be "made whole" by returning the unit to the retailer?
I think people just feel like they were duped. It's just not right to be told one thing by a company, then have them go back and change everything after folks have paid money, hooked everything up, etc.
vivarey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:25 PM
Member
 
winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69 There is accountability. CC is going to take your stuff back and give you a refund. They aren't legally required to offer you anything. Now, if they want to offer you a GC for your trouble, they can do so. [/b]
CC shipped the unit to me. That cost $22. Are they going to refund my shipping cost? Are they going to pay to have it shipped back to them? Yea right...
winter is offline  
post #65 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:26 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by winter
CC shipped the unit to me. That cost $22. Are they going to refund my shipping cost? Are they going to pay to have it shipped back to them? Yea right...
They damn well should. If they don't, then CC is the problem. I am 100% in agreement with you that you have a valid complaint if they don't refund shipping.
rayw69 is offline  
post #66 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Will Collier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Again, what is stated on the box isn't relevent. DNNA has the discretion to change the terms of its offer. If they informed CC to take the damn stickers off, but CC never did, that is not DNNA's problem.
Quite right. But neither is it the buyer's problem, nor is it his/her responsibility to clean up for the retailer's (or DNNA's) mistake.

This looks an awful lot like an agreement that one side decided to change after the fact (even if the agreement was a mistake in the first place; that's not the buyers' fault). Whether it's ethical or not, the buyers have every legal right to hold DNNA and/or the retailers to the terms of that agreement...
Will Collier is offline  
post #67 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:27 PM
Member
 
NearlyGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Akron OH
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Again, what is stated on the box isn't relevent. DNNA has the discretion to change the terms of its offer. If they informed CC to take the damn stickers off, but CC never did, that is not DNNA's problem.

The point is, X was never given to you, so it could never have been taken away.
So when you buy something you can't except it to include what is stated on the box, in a brocure, on a website and what is told to you buy the salespeople? Where do you live because I would love to sell you something, since you can't reasonably except to receive what I sell you. Isn't consumerism great?
NearlyGod is offline  
post #68 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:28 PM
Member
 
Crrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
It sounds to me that you weren't interested in buying a Replay at the real price, correct? I mean no offense to you, but I'm not sure how Replay loses by not selling units to people who aren't willing to pay the real price for them?

They certainly lose by having all those units go out the door at (what we believe is) a loss..
No offense taken.
Yes, you are correct. I have two TiVo's and I'm very happy with them. I would like a 3rd DVR for my workout room, but I haven't been willing to spend the ~$600 it would cost to get a 3rd unit.

I almost bit when Replay was offering refurb 5xxx units with lifetime for ~$350 (IIRC), but I hemmed and hawed long enough to miss the deal.

When this deal came along, I didn't even think about getting in on it until I read the confirmations from people talking with Replay CSR's - then I was all over it, and I was lucky enough to order a unit from CC before they went out of stock.

I agree that DNNA is probably losing money on this deal, but that's not my fault - they're losing money due to their own stupidity as well as that of their retailers - it's not my fault, and I have a valid contract that OUGHT to be honored according to it's terms.

Some people have suggested that Replay would win in the long run - once TiVo guys like me got one in our hot little hands, we'd quickly realize just how superior Replay really is over TiVo. We'd then Ebay our TiVo's and snap up every ReplayTV we could get our hands on.

I don't know enough about the economics of this product to know if that scenario is likely or not (my guess is that DNNA would still end up losing money overall), but what I do know is that if the terms of my contract are not honored, I'm not going to get to know this Replay unit well enough to determine if I really like TiVo better or not.
I'm also not going to be willing to look at ReplayTV first if I ever have to move from the TiVo platform - believe me, this has left a bad taste in my mouth, and I will diligently research any available alternatives.

I believe this was a screw-up, but it just shouldn't be hard to properly inform your CSR's to give out the correct information.

Let's see if I can give a decent analogy - This unit says it records 40 hours of TV. We all know that it only does that on the lowest quality setting. We also all know that the average consumer doesn't know that.

Suppose I buy a unit, leave it set to the highest quality setting, and take 3 months to fill it up. When I notice it's deleting stuff a lot sooner than I thought it would, can I call up Replay CSR and say - hey, you didn't sell me the product you advertised, I want my money back!!
No, I can't. They'll point out the section of the manual that explains quality settings, and let me know that the only way I'm going to get 40 hours out of this thing is if I watch it on a 9" screen without my glasses :)
They'll say, sorry, sir, you agreed to the terms of service, and all of this was clearly spelled out, and you know what? They'd be correct.

All I am expecting them to do is honor the terms of the contract they freely offered through their retail chain. They would expect no less of me, I guarantee it.
Crrink is offline  
post #69 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:28 PM
Member
 
vivarey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Haha, that is very clearly not at the heart of our legal system. But that is beside the point. That's just a random comment you threw in to make your post sound better.

There is accountability. CC is going to take your stuff back and give you a refund. They aren't legally required to offer you anything. Now, if they want to offer you a GC for your trouble, they can do so.
Maybe you should look up the definition of accountability. It IS the heart of our culture.
vivarey is offline  
post #70 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:28 PM
Member
 
winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69 Again, what is stated on the box isn't relevent. DNNA has the discretion to change the terms of its offer.
No, they really dont. Not once the purchase has been made.

Quote:
If they informed CC to take the damn stickers off, but CC never did, that is not DNNA's problem.
Yes, it really is DNNA's problem. If the retailers they selected arent doing their job then they need to take it up with the retailers, not leave the customers holding the bag
winter is offline  
post #71 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wrecks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Land of Awes
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Go back to the original announcement and read what it says at the end.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DEAL YOU GOT, RETURN IT!

Sarcasm is a precious resource that too often goes wasted.
Wrecks is offline  
post #72 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:31 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by winter
No, they really dont. Not once the purchase has been made.



Yes, it really is DNNA's problem. If the retailers they selected arent doing their job then they need to take it up with the retailers, not leave the customers holding the bag
They changed the terms before you made the purchase, this is very clear.

The customers arent left holding anything. If CC jumped the gun, you get your activation. If they were right on 12/17, you don't get it. I don't think I can be any more clear.
rayw69 is offline  
post #73 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:32 PM
Member
 
Crrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Nobody ever laid claim that it was the consumer's fault. Certainly not me. the CSRs are idiots, thats not your fault either. Other people being wrong/stupid != to you being right. Read my above post.
...um...ok, so you're putting forth the idea that a retailer can sell a manufacturer's product and represent it any way he sees fit, and the manufacturer bears zero liability for this?

Sorry, that's not the way the law works, and that's also a crazy idea.

If that were the case then CC could sell you a cell phone under certain terms, and then when you get your first month's bill the service provider would be free to charge you whatever they felt like - all without informing you, all contrary to what is printed in the material they included with your phone, all contrary to what their CSR's told you when you activated.

It doesn't work that way - thank Goodness.
Crrink is offline  
post #74 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:32 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
Maybe you should look up the definition of accountability. It IS the heart of our culture.
You said the heart of our legal system, not culture. And seeing as how "our" culture is open to interpretation, I'm not going to agree or disagree with your new statement.
rayw69 is offline  
post #75 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:33 PM
Member
 
NearlyGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Akron OH
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Crrink


Suppose I buy a unit, leave it set to the highest quality setting, and take 3 months to fill it up. When I notice it's deleting stuff a lot sooner than I thought it would, can I call up Replay CSR and say - hey, you didn't sell me the product you advertised, I want my money back!!
No, I can't. They'll point out the section of the manual that explains quality settings, and let me know that the only way I'm going to get 40 hours out of this thing is if I watch it on a 9" screen without my glasses :)
They'll say, sorry, sir, you agreed to the terms of service, and all of this was clearly spelled out, and you know what? They'd be correct.

All I am expecting them to do is honor the terms of the contract they freely offered through their retail chain. They would expect no less of me, I guarantee it.
Cudos...

This is the best example I've seen yet. I don't understand how anyone could argue against that logic.

ReplayLydon??? Are you out there? Please put an end to this madness and let RTV save some face by giving the people what they bought. If you have to cover your losses, then you need to talk it over with CC, et al.
NearlyGod is offline  
post #76 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:34 PM
Member
 
avhokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrecks
Go back to the original announcement and read what it says at the end.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DEAL YOU GOT, RETURN IT!
I like the deal I paid for, don't like the deal they are trying to change it to.
avhokie is offline  
post #77 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:34 PM
Senior Member
 
tarfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Technically they did give me x. The unit works and downloads guide data, records, etc. Now I'm being told that unless I pony up $ it won't work.

Here's the definition of false advertising:

False advertising - misleading a consumer about some aspect of a product, which was an important factor in the consumer's decision to buy the product.

Taken from http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...and-fraud.html

Special note here I'm not particularly interested in suing DNNA, but this is bait-and-switch at its best/worst. I've been a happy 5040 owner for several months but this experience may be enough to sour me on the company. The ONLY way DNNA has even an inkling of a chance at being right is if they told retailers to ship back the boxes for repackaging. Even then the CSRs and website were giving out the wrong information. IANAL but this is about the most slam dunk case of a winnable class action lawsuit that I've seen. This one SNAFU will flush the brand unless DNNA steps up and does the right thing. Its a sad note that customer service is non-existent in today's world. People are so gullible that they are led to believe that corporations can deceive you and all you can/should do is take it.
tarfin is offline  
post #78 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:35 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Crrink
...um...ok, so you're putting forth the idea that a retailer can sell a manufacturer's product and represent it any way he sees fit, and the manufacturer bears zero liability for this?

Sorry, that's not the way the law works, and that's also a crazy idea.

If that were the case then CC could sell you a cell phone under certain terms, and then when you get your first month's bill the service provider would be free to charge you whatever they felt like - all without informing you, all contrary to what is printed in the material they included with your phone, all contrary to what their CSR's told you when you activated.

It doesn't work that way - thank Goodness.
No. In this case, the retailer should be held responsible. They aren't free to misrepresent product they sell.

Manufacturers can't be held directly responsible for the actions of the retailers. As for the CSR thing, yeah, they f-ed up royally there.
rayw69 is offline  
post #79 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:35 PM
Member
 
winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrecks
Go back to the original announcement and read what it says at the end.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DEAL YOU GOT, RETURN IT!
I choose option 3 - I keep the unit under the terms I purchased it and they deliver the service they promised at the price they promised.
winter is offline  
post #80 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:37 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by tarfin
Technically they did give me x. The unit works and downloads guide data, records, etc. Now I'm being told that unless I pony up $ it won't work.
This is referred to as the grace period.
rayw69 is offline  
post #81 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
brian7972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
I'm still curious to know why people believe they deserve to be "enriched" (ie get service activation that should cost $300 for nothing) when they can be "made whole" by returning the unit to the retailer?
Depends on what your interpretation of "made whole" is. One could argue that he should be "made whole" by getting what a retailer advertised and what he then purchased in reliance thereon.

I don't have much sympathy for people (like I almost was) who wanted to take shot at RS on a $149 unit and now must pay activation.

However, I really feel for subsequent ebay purchasers, unwitting (i.e. non-AVS) purchasers, and gift givers and their recipients of these units.

00004-58431-87460 (5160)
name: slapshotesq
brian7972 is offline  
post #82 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:41 PM
Member
 
Zwingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All indications point to RTV as the blame...not all but a large part. It looks as though all the retailers changed the pricing to the new pricing on the 17th. Unless they all conspired to do so, RTV told them to change the pricing on the 17th, the retailers were to blame for not pulling the stickers and the old bundling promo materials, BUT, RTV website remained the same after the 17th, stating that all the 5000 series get 3 years free service, and all the units on their website still showed the old pricing, why did they not make the Press release about the new pricing on the 17th if they told the retailers to change the promo and pricing? So who screwed up? I think blame goes to both equally.
Zwingle is offline  
post #83 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:42 PM
Member
 
rainbow_wahine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't read that they are going to deactivate all units that came online on or after 12/17. All I read is that RTV has gone to a new pricing structure and this is what it is.

I read in the original post that RTV is working with the retailers to determine the purchase price that the consumers paid. It doesn't say it will get them. It does, however, lead to a lot of speculation and questions. People that aren't sure will call....<gotcha>....prove it and we'll turn you on. People that don't want to call, that are just plain disgusted, or don't want to make waves will return the unit back to the retailer. Some people get the new activation good 'til 1/1 will call....<gotcha>....or again will just return the unit. Yes, some people will lie and some will fax fake receipts. Some will threaten and huffy and puffy. Again, some will return. Those people that are dishonest will lie if they feel they will get away with it whether it was a mistake or not. There's honest people just like there are dishonest people.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not the retailers kept good records. We'll see. If they do, it's just a matter of transmitting the info to RTV and we'll all be getting messages or cut off on the box fairly soon. Although I think that RTV wants their revenue from the subscriptions, I don't think they want to be ugly about it. If the retailers don't keep good records, then I don't think there's too much else to it. It's Christmas and the managers want to meet their quotas, not match up receipts.

I guess RTV could force a charge to the retailers if they don't provide any data, but that alienates the retailers and it looks like the majority of the retailers are involved in this.

So I still think that RTV is going to do all they can to throw up as many smoke and mirrors to shake out as many people to pay or return the items and after that....let it go....they have sales for the next quarter.

Oh and thinking that returning an open box will cause "open unit" sales. If there are that many....I'd guess RTV will take them back and in the summer resell them as refurbs with lifetime for $250.

Thanks for the post Jleavens. I know you are in a tight spot, being a retailer and yet a consumer and advocate on this board. I didn't read a lot of "the sky is falling" in your post.....but that's okay, there's plenty of that going on as it is.

**edit**my bad, Jleavens....I thought you sold RTV's at your site.......
rainbow_wahine is offline  
post #84 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
j.m.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
Yeah, it's crazy to ask people to pay the actual price of the product instead of giving it away at a loss. Nuts.

Guys, the retailers dropped the ball here too. Try taking it up with them...
Though perhaps both DNNA/ReplayTV and the retailers dropped the ball, it will be ReplayTV that ultimately suffers tremendously from this fiasco. It is a shame that you don't see that, as you are perhaps one of the few in a position to give input on things to people that matter there. For example, you might point out that many products are sold at a loss yet profits are still made from accessories (think game console & games, razor & blade, etc.) and suggest DNNA find some way to follow that pattern in the case of the units in question (perhaps by offering a reduced activation price for them...). (And yes I realize that it is a little different because one need only buy activation once, unlike razor blades. Thus, that is a factor to consider in determining the amount of the reduction.)

Anyone who knows much about business knows that a company's "goodwill" is often one of its most valuable assets. Well, ReplayTV just did so much damage to it that I doubt it will ever recover. You see, some people have bought the units in question as gifts, so ReplayTV's decision affects its image in the eyes of two people and all those with whom they share their story. Also, many of the units are the purchaser's/receiver's first DVR, which is a substantial foot in the door given the number of us who have become repeat buyers of ReplayTVs. In all likelihood, now MOST of these units will simply be returned, with all involved wishing they had gotten a Tivo (which already had a better image before this incident and after... <shudder>).

What bothers me the most as the owner of 3 ReplayTVs prior to all of this is that ReplayTV *continually* drops the ball, yet it consistently does very little in return to placate the customer it drops it on. In the current situation, for example, I don't necessarily expect ReplayTV to take the *entire* financial loss from this deal, but they should take *some* of it. A mere reduction in the price of activation by $75-$150 for the customers affected by this fiasco would be a gesture of goodwill that many would appreciate. Instead, what they've brought on themselves is a sudden spike in sales followed by massive returns, which at this point I truly hope hits ReplayTV hard enough that they finally learn a lesson.

j.m.'s ReplayTV Tools
Home of WinDVA, the Win32 DVArchive launcher
j.m. is offline  
post #85 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jleavens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
I think people just feel like they were duped. It's just not right to be told one thing by a company, then have them go back and change everything after folks have paid money, hooked everything up, etc.
Totally agree. Regardless of any arguments I make, I do think the situation sucks and never should have happened. But I also think that a lot of the attitude sucks, mostly at Fatwallet, and in the back of my head wonder if Replay might not have come across the Fatwallet thread and changed their mind on how to handle this.

Let's be realistic here. For the most part, this is not grandmas being prodded for their sales receipt. This is, for the most part, people trying to take advantage of the situation that they were fully aware of... And I can't say I blame them, I might have tried to myself if I thought I could just buy a unit and have it work. But I shudder to think that I would I become indignant when my attempt to take advantage didn't pan out.

But my opinions are my opinions, as always.

PS- If anyone calls Customer Service and gets information contrary to what has been officially announced, please get whatever info they can about who the rep is and forward it to me in a private message. I will follow up on them immediately with Replay. I think it is incredibly important that they give proper information at this time.

Remember, it's just television...
Planet Replay: http://www.planetreplay.com
Do you VUDU? http://www.planetvudu.com
jleavens is offline  
post #86 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jleavens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by j.m.
What bothers me the most as the owner of 3 ReplayTVs prior to all of this is that ReplayTV *continually* drops the ball, yet it consistently does very little in return to placate the customer it drops it on. In the current situation, for example, I don't necessarily expect ReplayTV to take the *entire* financial loss from this deal, but they should take *some* of it. A mere reduction in the price of activation by $75-$150 for the customers affected by this fiasco would be a gesture of goodwill that many would appreciate.
Uhm, what about the fact that they're giving lifetime service on the units that paid the actual price instead of three-year?

Remember, it's just television...
Planet Replay: http://www.planetreplay.com
Do you VUDU? http://www.planetvudu.com
jleavens is offline  
post #87 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
brian7972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
This is, for the most part, people trying to take advantage of the situation that they were fully aware of... And I can't say I blame them, I might have tried to myself if I thought I could just buy a unit and have it work.
I agree wholeheartedly (see my post above yours).

However, I think it's a little overbroad to say that for the most part, people were trying to take unfair advantage of the situation. As great as fatwallet and AVS are for information, I'd still think that a majority of the RTV sales on these units were by bona fide purchasers with no knowledge of the "opportinity."

The problem IMO with DNNA's response is that it will alienate the unwittingly honest and well-intentioned "good guys and gals" in all of this.

00004-58431-87460 (5160)
name: slapshotesq
brian7972 is offline  
post #88 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
brian7972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
Uhm, what about the fact that they're giving lifetime service on the units that paid the actual price instead of three-year?
Come on now...What's a realistic "lifetime" in these units anyway ? 5 years, tops? We're talking $12 a year after the third year. Whoopty-f-n-do. :)

00004-58431-87460 (5160)
name: slapshotesq
brian7972 is offline  
post #89 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:56 PM
Member
 
rainbow_wahine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't think they'll suffer in the long run............

They may lose revenue from the subscriptions, however, the data they gain from the viewing habits is verrrry valuable. Just think of the advertisers that are willing the pay for that bit of information.

I think once the dust settles, it's all gonna be good!
rainbow_wahine is offline  
post #90 of 424 Old 12-22-2003, 01:57 PM
Member
 
rayw69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by brian7972
However, I think it's a little overbroad to say that for the most part, people were trying to take unfair advantage of the situation. As great as fatwallet and AVS are for information, I'd still think that a majority of the RTV sales on these units were by bona fide purchasers with no knowledge of the "opportinity."
On this account, I think you are wrong. You are vastly underestimating the power of the Hot Deals forum of places like FW and Anand, among others. I'd say Hot Dealers outnumber "bonafide" purchasers 10-1. That would be a very conservative estimate.
rayw69 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread ReplayTV & Showstopper PVRs

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off