Re: Insteon now or wait?

["BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not to get into a whole legal debate, but they do disclaim any implied
warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

But let's look at the real issue: Flickering - which I think we can all
agree is somewhat less egregious than bouts of cardiac arrhythmia!

 First, let me describe exactly what constitutes a flicker - at least in
my installation - which is the only one I have experience with.  When an
Insteon signal is transmitted, some lights, described more fully below,
may brighten to full intensity for maybe 100ms - less than the blink of
an eye - and return to normal.  Multiple signals may cause multiple
'flashes' which is probably a more accurate word than 'flicker.'

 As many here know I have about 50 Insteon devices installed now being
controlled primarily by a JDS TimeCommander through a (for now) 2414X
translator (beta version).  Most of the devices control incandescent
lighting and most are dimmed.  The flicker only occurs when Insteon
signals are transmitted and only at loads that contain multiple
incandescent bulbs that are already dimmed.  Each of the affected loads
add up to 200 or more watts.  Single bulb dimmed loads, like my desk
lamp, and larger non-dimmed loads never flicker or flash.

 At most, I have 4 wall switches that demonstrate the problem due to the
larger loads attached to them.  The LEDs in all the switches, modules
and Keypadlincs also flicker when signals are received but I actually
consider that to be a useful diagnostic "feature."  Other than the
flickering (and the modules subject to safety recall) I am satisfied
that these products are performing properly.  There is no MAJOR defect,
and certainly not one that affects every light in the house or seriously
impedes the utility of the system as a whole.

So, will I rip out all 50 and replace them? No. Instead I'll exchange
the ones that are controlling the larger loads (as well as the recalled
units) and be done with it.  I will however, ask Smarthome if they will
agree to a free warranty extension on the units that I do not replace.
That would seem like a fair compomise that would save them having to
replace them all today - or perhaps ever - and give me peace of mind
that I can if and when I need to. If they don't agree to that then I
MIGHT, over the term of the regular warranty, replace them all.

 I really can't fault Smarthome for continuing to sell units while they
were working on the problem. Most people will not be controlling and
dimming larger loads so I think it's fair to say that less than one in
ten will actually need upgrading.  Rather than fault them for not
stopping sales completely, I think they should be commended for
modifying existing stock rather than just selling it off and replacing
the possible 10% that might come back as returns.

 BTW, modifying a product after initial manufacture but prior to first
sale does not constitute refurbishment or remanufacture.  It is still,
in every way under the law, a brand new product.  I had personal
experience in this matter where an initial batch of telecom products we
produced in China needed modification here prior to sale. We had about
10,000 pieces and gathered up teams of employees, their families and
friends to spend three weeks of nights and weekends making the change
and repackaging them.  Our attorney advised us that the product was
still considered brand new and in no way needed to be called anything
else. As modified, they were still unused, first quality goods in every
respect.




> "Wayne" <wayne@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>> FYI, it looks the flicker issue could be resolved within a week.
>> http://forums.accessha.com/showthread.php?t=1137&page=4
>
> Thanks for the citation, Wayne.  One of the latest messages at that
> site said:
>
> "Rather than make the component change at the assembly line and sell
> through the current inventory, we made the decision to replace the
> component that contributed to the flicker and re-work our existing
> inventory. That process started last week, with the hiring of
> technicians and running an overtime shift on Saturday."
>
> I interpret that to mean that they HAVE been selling the old switches
> with the flicker defect until very recently but will NOW convert
> their remaining on-the-shelf inventory.  :-(  While it makes sense to
> wait until the fault was clearly diagnosed it's not fair to the
> people who bought the switches and who then experience the flicker
> problem.
>
> The fact that they're going to rework current inventory tells me that
> the problem is perhaps more widespread than believed.  They're
> balancing the cost of modification against the cost of potential
> returns and the cost of bad publicity in continuing to sell duff
> switches.
>
> Apparently that analysis comes out in favor of opening each and every
> unit and reworking it.  They wouldn't do that unless it was
> cost-effective.  I suspect they're doing it because their previous
> decision to continue selling the duff switches has had bad
> consequences for them already.
>
> If I had hired a contractor to install 50 switches that I had to hire
> *again* to uninstall and reinstall new, fixed switches AND if I
> further discovered Smarthome had ample reason to believe I would
> incur those costs and sold me the units anyway, I'd be spitting
> blood.  And calling my lawyer. Limited liability be damned because
> their goods failed the test of implied warranty of merchantability
> and implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose:
>
> http://law.onecle.com/california/commercial/2314.html
>
> *IF* they are spending considerable resources to fix the defect,
> they've acknowledged that the product IS defective and not fit for
> the purpose it was sold.  I say *IF* because it's easy to SAY you're
> reworking the remaining switches.  The proof lies inside the switches
> themselves and I'll reserve judgement until reports of the actual
> modifications reach the net.
>
> Why am I so suspicious?  Once Smarthome sold switches they knew had
> the problem without notifying users, they lost my trust in them as an
> honorable merchant.  For all we know sales have dropped off so
> precipitously that they feel they have to assure potential purchasers
> they're doing something other than hoping that people who buy the
> duff switches don't encounter the problem.
>
> I'm afraid it's now a case of fool me once, shame on you, fool me
> twice, shame on me.  Well, we were fooled once.  That means they no
> longer get the benefit of the doubt. Clearly the switches they've
> continued to sell have also needed reworking but they sold them
> anyway.  They probably didn't want to crimp their product rollout and
> they *especially* didn't want to lose sales to competing protocols.
> That's a marketing decision that may very well haunt them for a long,
> long time.  Product faults take on a certain immortality on the net.
>
> There are, of course, exclusions to limited warranties, and we are all
> familiar with them:  they are covered by expressions like "as is,"
> "with all faults" or other language which calls the buyer's attention
> to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no
> implied warranty.  I don't recall seeing those switches listed "as
> is."
>
> The best example of "limited warranties be damned" is a medical
> technology firm selling a heart device they know is bad.  It kills
> someone.  Although their warranty says "all we're liable for is
> replacement of the defective device" you can bet your butt that's not
> going to save them from a raft of wrongful death suits and the
> medical costs of removing and re-implanting a properly functioning
> device in everyone who bought one.  The "removal and reinstallation
> of switches" sounds very, very similar.  Look up Guidant lawsuits for
> further details on that litigation.  Oh heck, I'll do it:
>
> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/8/855
>
> "The Times began to investigate the ICDs when 21-year-old Joshua
> Oukrop died of cardiac arrhythmia in March after the Guidant Ventak
> Prizm 2 DR 1861 he had implanted in 2001 failed to shock his heart
> back into rhythm. A subsequent analysis of the device revealed that
> it had short-circuited ? a problem Guidant told Oukrop's doctors that
> it knew about but was not planning to tell doctors and patients. The
> physicians then went to the Times."
>
> The rest is legal history.  Guidant's value, BTW, has dropped a
> significant amount.  IIRC, this recall will cost the company nearly a
> billion dollars by the time it's over.  Some of the principals will
> probably be indicted on criminal charges, as well, since there's
> already an insider trading lawsuit in play.
>
> One other thing to note is that the 'alleged' Smarthome rep (could be
> anyone, really) at ACCESSHA said they would be replacing a component
> that "contributed" to the problem.  That seems to imply there's
> another contributor.  Is that other contributor lurking in those
> switches or did he mean something like an external dimmer?
>
> If the contributor is IN the switch, are they going to have to rework
> the board's wiring as well?  Will the new reworked switches have new
> reliability problems induced by the reworking?  I can imagine
> desoldering and soldering chokes (and whatever else is involved) as
> fast as you can all day is going to be less than a 100% successful
> endeavor.  People get tired doing monotonous work and make mistakes.
>
> Hopefully they'll do a quality test afterward, but if I were going to
> buy any Insteon's, I'd wait until they made the change at the
> assembly line and not buy the current batch.  I also believe they
> should (but probably won't) re-label these modified units as
> "refurbished" or "remanufactured" switches. After all, they didn't
> notify customers they were buying switches that they knew were
> defective.  Why notify them now that they are buying reworked ones?
> :-(
>
> I wish Smarthome had taken the high road and stopped selling the
> switches when the problem became apparent.  I suspect they didn't for
> the same reason that a lot of wrong things are done all over the
> world:  They thought they could get away with it.   Bzzt!  Wrong
> choice!
>
> The coverup is *always* worse than the original crime.  Just ask Bill
> Clinton.  Or Dick Nixon.  Or Martha Stewart.
>
>
> "Wayne" <wayne@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ndvac2tgcjh4n5jioj5d3gmp2pm2e01jgb@xxxxxxxxxx
>> FYI, it looks the flicker issue could be resolved within a week.
>> http://forums.accessha.com/showthread.php?t=1137&page=4
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:21:05 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the current problems being reported by Insteon users sound
>>> hauntingly familiar. Many (e.g. losing an X-10 address stored in
>>> EEPROM during brownouts, sensitivity to out-of-band noise) are
>>> obviously design flaws that should have been fixed long, long ago.
>>> Given this history and given the costs (and hassle) associated with
>>> replacing Insteon switches, my current recommendation is to wait
>>> until the flicker issue is resolved.