Re: Insteon now or wait?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"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.

--
Bobby G.


"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.
>
>