Warning - Nikon REFUSES to replace equipment they cannot fix, even if under warranty part 2

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Sammy Yousef
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,369Gear list
Like?
Re: no need
In reply to Mako2011, 9 months ago

Mako2011 wrote:

Sammy Yousef wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Sammy Yousef wrote:

Mako, you're not being fair here. Nikon makes a mistake or has a bone headed policy and "that's the reality of dealing with humans". OP asks for confirmation in writing not realising the implications of doing so and it's all his fault.

Never once did I say it was all his fault (other thread). Only explained what happened from a diffrent perpective.

Why should anyone care about that different perspective?

Because the OP in the other case could have got his final resolution 6 weeks earlier had he understood the nuances ans reasoning behind there decisions. (never commented on the right or wrong of that specific decision/policy)

I'll repeat again. The consumer should not need inside contacts within a company and an intimate knowledge of their internal policies and structures to get his warranty issue resolved. Such knowledge should have no impact on his rights. Asking for confirmation in writing of something he'd been told verbally is not unreasonable and Nikon could easily have refused without changing the action they had promised to undertake. Such a change in their action could depending on the local law and the way they had phrased the agreement constitute a breach in their warranty obligations. The customer has been treated poorly.

The customer does not need to learn or know anything about the camera manufacture or retail business in order to expect working gear.

No need to at all. Knowing though has certain advantages.

Yes it does. But you can't expect everyone to know and you can't blame someone for not knowing an unpublished policy you have been told by word of mouth by contacts you trust but the OP doesn't know.

If it were me I'd be insisting on a full refund at this point (probably from the retailer but I'm not familiar with the intricacies of US consumer law).

Would most likely not happen. The retailer is under no responsibility (US) to meet your request. Pointless to demand for something that you might be used to getting in another country. For cerberusjf, that might have been an option

I'm no expert on US retail law

Understood. That's why your perspective may not be as relevant to the case in the other thread. Might apply more to the Op's here though.

Gee...and you accuse me of quoting out of context....want to finish my sentence in green there?

The legal obligation - retailer or manufacturer and which subsidiary may be debatable and may vary by country. However the moral obligation to the customer and the implications to the reputation of the brand are not ambiguous. This is not acceptable behaviour.

Furthermore by refusing to sell 3rd party repairers with parts and service software, Nikon has made itself the ONLY company that can repair a faulty camera in most circumstances.

In the US, that is correct and done by design. Turns out to be a pretty good business decision and has side benefits for the consumer as units are no longer getting bricked due to repair folks using the wrong software. Wasn't an issue pre-D7000. Is now.

Repair folks using the wrong software? That'd be because Nikon refuse to sell or make available the correct software. This is a condition they have artificially created. It is anti-competitive and as anti-consumer as you can get. It's not a good business decision at all. In the long term it's a terrible decision.

And please explain why this wasn't an issue pre-D7000 and is now?

-- hide signature --

Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow