Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

k4zie OP t1_j1zxwg9 wrote

Reply to comment by Deadbolt11 in Novelkeys - Poor Customer Service by k4zie

I use no other recourse because of the following:

My gf got this during the black Friday sale. They have a short 15 day return window. I got it for Xmas. So I can't return it per their policy.

They put the blame on me from the start. I got what was meant to be a new, fully working keyboard. But since the assumption was that it can only be my fault, to get it functional, I either had to attempt to repair it myself or give them money to do so.

Let me ask you, if you buy a car, take it home and it doesn't turn on the next day - do you fix it yourself or pay the dealer to fix it? Nope, you use the warranty. And the dealer won't tell you that X, Y, or C is automatically your fault because you drove it.

I understand my analogy is not completely parallel but it illustrates my point.

The nature of selling a hot swap board is to insert switches. But the policy should not be to not cover any instance of insertion or anything about insertion when that's what the board is designed for.

Are most issues due to user error, yep, they probably are. But are All User error without any reasonable explanation? No they are not, so don't treat your customers like that.

1

Deadbolt11 t1_j2003k5 wrote

> My gf got this during the black Friday sale. They have a short 15 day return window. I got it for Xmas. So I can't return it per their policy.

This isn't their fault.

>Let me ask you, if you buy a car, take it home and it doesn't turn on the next day - do you fix it yourself or pay the dealer to fix it? Nope, you use the warranty. And the dealer won't tell you that X, Y, or C is automatically your fault because you drove it.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. I know you say your analogy isn't parallel but it doesn't illustrate your point. If you take the car home and put new rims on it and over tighten a lug nut onto the stud, are you going to take it back to the dealer and say it's their fault?

>The nature of selling a hot swap board is to insert switches. But the policy should not be to not cover any instance of insertion or anything about insertion when that's what the board is designed for.

Agree to disagree, the nature of hot swaps boards is that they are fragile. If I was a vendor selling hot swap pcbs, I'd set the policy the exact same.

>Are most issues due to user error, yep, they probably are. But are All User error without any reasonable explanation? No they are not, so don't treat your customers like that.

This I can agree with, however asking a company to cover user error is a lot. I wouldn't expect any company to bend over backwards for me in the case of user error.

4

k4zie OP t1_j201006 wrote

I wasn't asking them to cover the user error, certainly not in a forceful way. I made that suggestion because other vendors have done that in the past. They want their product back. So I offered to exchange it.

I can see that you are very determined in just defending their position, and that's fine. But if you're really being objective, why does the fact that they acted as if it could ONLY be my fault not resonate with you?

As I said to someone else a minute ago, that's the sole reason I posted this. A vendor should not treat their customers like they can only be at fault. Do you honestly think that's unreasonable?

−1

Deadbolt11 t1_j201wh5 wrote

>I made that suggestion because other vendors have done that in the past.

So because company x does y, every company should do y?

>I can see that you are very determined in just defending their position, and that's fine. But if you're really being objective, why does the fact that they acted as if it could ONLY be my fault not resonate with you?

I am being objective based on the evidence available, you're seeing this through very rose colored glasses. You're saying they did x, you're saying they did y, they showed the picture you sent, which very clearly shows a pin stabbed that plastic. You haven't even shown us the exchanges with customer support. We can't be objective as you haven't given us anything to be objective with, we only have your side of the story fed through your bias.

>As I said to someone else a minute ago, that's the sole reason I posted this. A vendor should not treat their customers like they can only be at fault. Do you honestly think that's unreasonable?

You haven't posted anything that supports this statement. Not a screenshot, not a sentence.

3

okayzimbabwe t1_j206zca wrote

Guaranteed the communication with support is less than desireable to share publicly lmao

5

k4zie OP t1_j202aup wrote

Ok, you're not being objective. You're just pushing back on me based on assumptions.

Have a good one 👍

−1

Deadbolt11 t1_j202fkr wrote

>Ok, you're not being objective. You're just pushing back on me based on assumptions.

Neither are you

3