What to do with duff software?

[bugdozer]

Not sure if I'm posting this in the right section but not sure what section this query belongs in... if you have downloaded some software from the Pilot Shop and it cannot be made to work on your computer, even after tech support from the developers, is it possible to get a refund for it?

[CXA001]

It depends on their return policy.
A lot of online shops have a no return policy once you have installed it.
You may want to contact the vendor via e-mail or support forum and see if they can help you resolve your issue.

Regards,

[ScatterbrainKid]

At least Pilot Shop tried to help you with advice, is it a plane or scenery or what? Why exactly won't it work on your PC?
Did you read the small print before buying it to see if your PC would be able to handle it?

[bugdozer]

The software in question is FSX Booster, as advertised in the review on the main page of this site. I am currently sending a lot of e-mails back and forth with the tech support guy, who is doing his best to help, but I fear the problem won't be solvable. When I try to run it, it complains that it can't find FSX in the registry. I have run registry repair tool, FSX is installed in its default location, all my other addon software seems to be able to manage with it just fine, so I suspect there actually isn't a problem with the registry entry at all. Tech support guy is still suggesting ideas though so hopefully one will work, I just wondered what I could do if it ends up still not working.

[simonevans]

I don't know how many warnings about this software there needs to be before it gets home. If I were you I'd complain to Trading Standards. One of the TS offices up in the Midlands was taking quite a close look at some developers practices only a wee while ago, if you know who I mean... actually really investigating allegations of nefarious enterprise... ;)

[opaplano]

The software in question is FSX Booster, as advertised in the review on the main page of this site. I am currently sending a lot of e-mails back and forth with the tech support guy, who is doing his best to help, but I fear the problem won't be solvable. When I try to run it, it complains that it can't find FSX in the registry. I have run registry repair tool, FSX is installed in its default location, all my other addon software seems to be able to manage with it just fine, so I suspect there actually isn't a problem with the registry entry at all. Tech support guy is still suggesting ideas though so hopefully one will work, I just wondered what I could do if it ends up still not working.

There is a lengthy thread (some 72 replies the last time I looked) here - and it includes many posts by the authors also (addressing various issues).

It might be worth your time to read through it all.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/295459-fsx-boost/page__view__findpost__p__1825482

Good Luck!

[ScatterbrainKid]

..Tech support guy is still suggesting ideas..

That's good, it shows they're not a cowboy outfit.
But if their guy runs out of ideas and it's still not working, ask for a refund or exchange and tell us what they say..

PS- you could mention to him that you're also asking for advice in this forum and that the whole flight sim community is following your correspondence

[simonevans]

I'd guess they're probablt following the specific topic that already existed
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?219347-Has-anyone-tried-the-FSPS-FSX-Booster&highlight=fsx+booster

And not this one, as not until now have we actually discovered the software he's talking about... ;)

[bugdozer]

I'd guess they're probablt following the specific topic that already existed
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?219347-Has-anyone-tried-the-FSPS-FSX-Booster&highlight=fsx+booster

And not this one, as not until now have we actually discovered the software he's talking about... ;)

This thread was not meant to be about the merits or otherwise of the particular software, merely about what the Pilot Shop's policy on refunds for downloaded software that can't be made to work is. The tech guy says there will be a new update to FSX Booster released today which will address the problem.

[simonevans]

Well, I sure hope so.

[mgh]

...policy on refunds for downloaded software that can't be made to work...

The highlighted words seem key. They imply the software dopes work but can't be made to work on a particular setup.

It seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect any Add-on software to be guarenteed to run on anything other than a standard FS setup with no other add-ons - I'd extend that to non overclocked hardware too. No developer can test on every potential combination. Incidentally, my copy of FSX is for Windows XP SP2 or Vista - any others would be non-standard.

The point then is who then bears any loss - the developer who's produced something that runs on a standard FS setup or the buyer who's running a non-standard setup?

The question of refunds on downloaded software is bedevilled by the sad fact that people do download and use software and then seek a refund - it's a form of piracy. It's so prevelant that UK and EU law explicitly excludes unsealed software from the automatic right to a refund which is legally required for most other products

[simonevans]

True, true, but the implication (unsubstantiated by factual evidence based on the in-built `secrecy` of the product) is that it creates a non-standard setup - either through modification of the OS, the sim - or both. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect that if the developers are unable to guarantee the tool can be used on any combination of hardware and software (and they wouldn't be expected to) then `fit for purpose` would still be the de facto yardstick.

If the product is unable to be installed, then piracy is simply not an issue and it is not fit for purpose, and may thus be rejected.

Besides, there is plenty of reference to money back guarantees in the flight sim software world - The Flight 1 refund system being the case in point - for products which include similar `system modifiers`. With precedence established a developer looking to establish a foothold in the market with a software product of this type would also be under `reasonable expectation` as to the efficacy and ability of the product, and so would be unlikely to be able to defend a suit (the yardstick which TS use).

But really, it's simple. If they can't make it work, he gets his money back. It would be daft to make an issue of it under this level of scrutiny...

[mgh]

If an addon is offered as requiring, for example, FSX+Acceleration and Vista and it can be installed and run on such a standard setup then it is fit for purpose. If I have a non-standard car and then find an accessory intended for it won't fit, that doesn't mean the accessory's not fit for purpose.

If the buyer says the product can't be installed when it can, then that is piracy - and the supplier can't know what's the truth. People will lie to save money.

As you say, some developers do offer refunds as a matter of policy but they aren't obliged to. Also, in as much as providing refunds increases costs, then their prices will have to reflect this - resources are needed to process refunds and credit card companies won't refund their charges - some charge extra for processing refunds.

Anyone really concerned about being able to get a refund should buy from a developer who offers unconditional refunds. Otherwise they need to accept that they are taking a risk.

[simonevans]

...or perhaps more importantly, recognise the risks they take and do their research before purchasing. You minimise risk with education.

[mgh]

Either way, they need to accept that rhere will be risks.

[simonevans]

But then, so should the vendor.

[mgh]

In the real world the developer isn't at risk.

If the software does what it claims - ie runs on a standard FSX/Vista etc setup - then it's fit for purpose. The exception would be if the buyer had asked beforehand if it would run on a specific system, including a list of 3rd party addons, and got a positive answer. Of course, no developer would give a positive answer, which is why no one would bother asking and just accept the risk.

It's naive to expect software to be treated the same as hardware. Hardware can be returned to establish that the buyer no longer has it. With software that's almost impossible. How can it be demonstrated that the software won't install? As I said before, it's far too easy to claim it won't install and seek a refund while still using it.

Finally, of course, the developer has the buyer's money but the buyer doesn't have the developer's - so it's the buyer that's at risk.

Caveat emptor still applies

[bugdozer]

... and yet still we have not established what the Pilot Shop's policy is on this. We can debate until we're blue in the face about whether someone should offer a refund or not, but we don't yet know if the Pilot Shop do offer a refund, in their capacity as a retailer.

[loki]

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.fspilotshop.com/hesk/knowledgebase.php?article=11

[ScatterbrainKid]

I don't know about other countries,but in Britain the consumer laws are quite clear for any product- if it's faulty you're legally entitled to a refund.

[fxsttcb]

I don't know about other countries,but in Britain the consumer laws are quite clear for any product- if it's faulty you're legally entitled to a refund.
If the Vendor/Developer includes an information link, a EULA, or other disclaimer that describes their policy(which in the case of the Pilot shop is in an Information menu) and the purchaser chooses to ignore it, he has no recourse. When purchasing anything you can't see, touch, smell, it is incumbent on YOU to make every effort to ascertain suitability and return policy.
Fortunately with the Pilot Shop there is at least the availability of a credit. Not quite as good as a refund, but possible IF the developer will give an authorization. If within a reasonable time, efforts to make the software work don't succeed, I'd ask for a refund first, and accept the credit as a last resort...Don

[Anubis]

I don't know about other countries,but in Britain the consumer laws are quite clear for any product- if it's faulty you're legally entitled to a refund.

That is a general principle applied more or less everywhere, the nature of the product does not matter at all.

From that point of view, I do not like the 'pilatesque' statement of fspilotshop.com ("If it does not work it is not our problem -we only cashed your money thank you very much- and you have to discuss any issue with 'the developers'") and that alone is a very good reason to avoid those kind of retailers.

Paolo

[mgh]

I don't know about other countries,but in Britain the consumer laws are quite clear for any product- if it's faulty you're legally entitled to a refund.

That is too wide a generalisation.

You have to demonstate the product is faulty - simply saying so is not sufficient. That easy with, say, a kettle that doesn't work but not so easy with software - especially if the software does run on the seller's PC.

You also have to return the faulty goods - you can't keep them and also get a refund. How do you return downloaded software and demonstrate you haven't kept a copy?

Perhaps, most importantly, the fundamental UK Sale of Goods Act which deals with fitness for purpose does not apply to downloaded software so all claims based on the Act based on this are irrelevant.

"Computer software

1.15 It is unclear what remedies are available to a consumer who claims that computer software they have purchased is faulty. It seems that software on disks may constitute “goods” for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, but that downloaded software does not."

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/consumer_remedies_introductory_paper_0208.pdf

Note that althoigh software on disks may be covered downloaded software definitely isn't. The reason is that the present definition of goods in the Act doesn't cover software. That will remain the position until the law is changed.

My position remains that, whatever the legalities, in practice refunds for software are not available unless the seller choses to offer them.

Caveat emptor again!

[mgh]

If the Vendor/Developer includes an information link, a EULA, or other disclaimer that describes their policy(which in the case of the Pilot shop is in an Information menu) and the purchaser chooses to ignore it, he has no recourse. When purchasing anything you can't see, touch, smell, it is incumbent on YOU to make every effort to ascertain suitability and return policy.


That's not so. A consumer isn't necessarily bound by whatever a seller chooses to put on a website or elsewhere.

In the UK, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations protect consumers against unfair standard terms and conditions. The Regulations provide protection from terms that reduce statutory or common law rights and from terms that seek to impose unfair burdens over and above the ordinary rules of law. An unfair term isn't binding.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Wish I knew - I have tons of it - Fatal Errors occur all the time around KBFI no matter what I fly and hardly any settings when using Orbx. What garbage. Their other stuff is otherwise great, their support tried to help, but otherwise basically I got chewed out when I tried to write my honest opinion and views on the subject at the Flightsim Store and banned from their site for life after writing my opinion. They want nothing but their 5 star reviews to show on Their refrigerator as I call it over there. That's really professional. :rolleyes: I set my sliders really low too in the area for Orbx to try and get it to work, still got the fatal errors. Doesn't do it anywhere else. Now I have spent alot of money, and no refunds. Great policies. :mad:

Also, should be known too, they called it: "Edited due to aggressive posting." I have the time to report back my findings. If that's aggressive, I find it sad that they think so that customers do not have the luxury to be able to do so as they can test issues with software products, but that might be a good topic for another discussion on another thread.

Good service to the paying customer has gone way of the Dodo it seems these days, sadly.

John Thuot II
A+/Network+
Don't forget to visit our modeler's site:
http://www.dreamscape-studios.com

[bugdozer]

I don't know about other countries,but in Britain the consumer laws are quite clear for any product- if it's faulty you're legally entitled to a refund.

If software can be made to work on the average properly equipped system then it can be said not to be faulty because it is capable of doing what it's supposed to. However it's impossible to guarantee that it will run on every single possible hardware/operating system combination so even a "non faulty" piece of software might be unusable. This is why it's not that clear cut. As a consumer I consider the Pilot Shop's policy (thankyou for finding that Loki) to be reasonable considering the nature of a downloaded product.

[ScatterbrainKid]

If I sold software and somebody still couldn't get it to work after loads of tech advice, I'd automatically refund him rather than feel guilty about keeping his cash, maybe I'm too soft..;)

[mgh]

If I sold software and somebody still couldn't get it to work after loads of tech advice, I'd automatically refund him rather than feel guilty about keeping his cash, maybe I'm too soft..;)

Very laudable, but you'd be unlikely to stay in business - not only whould you have lost the revenue from a sale but you'd also spent thave spent time and money trying to solve the problem. Of course, you could increase your selling prices to cover that level of support, but that might efectively price you out of the market!

[ScatterbrainKid]

Very laudable, but you'd be unlikely to stay in business!..

Look at it another way- the word would soon get around that I give no-quibble refunds, and that would attract loads of new customers secure in the knowledge that if the product didn't work for them, they'd get their cash back..:)
Sure, there'd be a few abusers of the system, but I'd have to put up with them like a hound dawg has to put up with fleas on its back..:)

[mgh]

Look at it another way- the word would soon get around that I give no-quibble refunds, and that would attract loads of new customers secure in the knowledge that if the product didn't work for them, they'd get their cash back..:)
Sure, there'd be a few abusers of the system, but I'd have to put up with them like a hound dawg has to put up with fleas on its back..:)

It doesn't automatically follow that the increase in revenue would cover the increase in cost. Remember that making a refund has an additional cost. I said earlier, credit card companies won't refund their fees. These can be about 5% of the selling price for a small seller.

[ScatterbrainKid]

Suppose somebody posted in this and a number of other F Sim forums saying- "Hey I gotta tell you what a great company XXX are, they just refunded me without any fuss for a piece of software I was having trouble with!".
There'd then be ten thousand guys who make a mental note that Company XXX are "alright guys" and would go to them first when shopping around for software..;)

[Anubis]

Suppose somebody posted in this and a number of other F Sim forums saying- "Hey I gotta tell you what a great company XXX are, they just refunded me without any fuss for a piece of software I was having trouble with!".
There'd then be ten thousand guys who make a mental note that Company XXX are "alright guys" and would go to them first when shopping around for software..;)

Yep, but that's the difference between an entrepreneur and a mere bean-counter.

To sell a software and not supporting your customers in the best way you can is the fastest way to bankruptcy in a world where good support is the only barrier between an unsupported but paid software and an unsupported and unpaid software which is just one mouse click away on the p2p network.

Paolo

[Ragtopjohnny]

You guys'd think that - but read my post in the outer marker about review systems too and my experience in customer service. That'll put a whole new light on things. Makes you wonder really.

John Thuot II
A+/Network+
Don't forget to visit our modeler's site:
http://www.dreamscape-studios.com

[garryrussell]

Sometimes software is totally compatible with the system but perhaps not with another 3rd party add on, which in itself it compatible with the system. I've seen this a few times....BGL clashes or whatever.

The software seller can not be held responsible for such errors.

I've had many software problems in the past but none that were real problems with that software as such

Even though you pay a fair bit at times for these product, for what you get and given the time invested in their production, they are very cheap..I know few will agree with me, but look at the difference in price between an all functioning FS aircraft and a large detailed plastic kit you have to make and buy paints and glue for.......and it still won't fly.

Much cheaper than a soon forgottten night out too.

So if you do get the odd turkey, generally the hobby is still good value for money over all considering the hours and hours of pleasure derived from it..personally......the odd lost and I tend to just accept it.

If companies were forced to refund every time, the price will go up and some would probably go out of business.

I'd rather have them around to make more stuff.

[Anubis]

Makes you wonder really.


Alas, it is true... And we are talking about a highly suspect snake-oil software which has been promoted here by a ridicolous 'review' :D

Talking about solid products and going slighly off-topic, isn't 'Starship time' now?

Paolo

[Ragtopjohnny]

No, I'm not talking about mine - I'm talking about other peoples. All different. I'm not even bringing up MY company.

The experience fell in the whole picture here related to the support I experienced from them, and it did it with EVERY aircraft as stated I didn't even bring it up in the discussion of it to be honest, Anubis. I'm not hear to argue about it either any more, just take part in discussions.

John Thuot II
A+/Network+
Don't forget to visit our modeler's site:
http://www.dreamscape-studios.com

[n4gix]

It doesn't automatically follow that the increase in revenue would cover the increase in cost. Remember that making a refund has an additional cost. I said earlier, credit card companies won't refund their fees. These can be about 5% of the selling price for a small seller.

That is what makes Flight1's services so attractive to us small development houses. Flight1 charges as little as 12% for their lowest tier of service: Flight1 handles all transactions, the development house uses the Flight1 Tools to wrap their project, hosts the files at their own expense, and maintains their own website with forums and download areas.

In the event of a refund however, Flight1 "eats the fees" and the developer will only "lose" their 88% of the original sale. In the past dozen years, returns have been <2%, which is truly quite remarkable! :)

[simonevans]

Which in, and of itself, lends credence to the consumers protection. If the ultimate vendor is returning 88% of the original sale, they will be HIGHLY interested in the efficacy of the product from the end users point of view...

FSX Booster is NOT guaranteed by a money back solution AND is NOT sold through the Flight 1 wrapper system...

Are these unrelated, d'ya think?

Caveat Emptor has never been truer than when new posters `drop in` to state the wonderfulness of the product (see Avsim forum for details, we have our own problems with new arrivals here)...

[mgh]

Suppose somebody posted in this and a number of other F Sim forums saying- "Hey I gotta tell you what a great company XXX are, they just refunded me without any fuss for a piece of software I was having trouble with!".
There'd then be ten thousand guys who make a mental note that Company XXX are "alright guys" and would go to them first when shopping around for software..;)

My understanding is that individual add-ons sell nowhere near 10,000. I've seen suggestions here that they are in the low 1000's at best.


Yep, but that's the difference between an entrepreneur and a mere bean-counter.

To sell a software and not supporting your customers in the best way you can is the fastest way to bankruptcy in a world where good support is the only barrier between an unsupported but paid software and an unsupported and unpaid software which is just one mouse click away on the p2p network.


Bean counters keep a company in business by trying to ensure the money coming is is more than money going out - an ssential equirement for survival.

Spending more on support that can be afforded is also an easy way to bankrupcy. The average hourly eanings in the UK are £15/hour. That can typically be doubled to give the cost to an employer allowing for the costs of running a business - rent, taxes, equipment, heat, lighting etc. £30/hour is £0.5/min.

Spending 15 minutes to deal with a support question would cost £7.5. That's 25% of the cost of a £30 (about $50) add-on and is probably more that the profit on the sale. That's why, in the real world, companies won't provide the unlimited support some seem to expect.

[fxsttcb]

My understanding is that individual add-ons sell nowhere near 10,000. I've seen suggestions here that they are in the low 1000's at best.In response to

There'd then be ten thousand guys who make a mental note that Company XXX are "alright guys" and would go to them first when shopping around for software..

From the FlightSim Forums Footer: Members; 397,503, Active Members; 380,453.
I'd say that 10,000(roughly 2.6% of active members) "guys who make a mental note" is probably pretty accurate! There is a whale of a difference between taking note and getting out your wallet.



Spending 15 minutes to deal with a support question would cost £7.5. That's 25% of the cost of a £30 (about $50) add-on and is probably more that the profit on the sale. That's why, in the real world, companies won't provide the unlimited support some seem to expect.


Using your low 1,000s example, and £30 for the add-on, spending a lowly 1%(£300) of the gross revenue for support/fixes seems reasonable to me. At £30/hr 100hrs = 400 of your 15min support events.
I seriously think that if 40% of the customers needed support, the developer has a product that shouldn't have been released in the first place.

A lack of decent support and pro activity, on the part of a developer, IMO, would diminish their reputation, eventually lead to poor sales, and ultimately fiscal collapse.

Why does the auto industry push long term warranties and free basic service so hard?
Very simply, Consumer Perception...Don

[Anubis]

Spending 15 minutes to deal with a support question would cost £7.5. That's 25% of the cost of a £30 (about $50) add-on and is probably more that the profit on the sale.

Exactly and spot-on. This is a splendid example of bean-counter thinking.

Good customer support can either be viewed as a long-term INVESTMENT by an entrepreneur to increase sales volumes and secure customer fidelity on the long-term or only as a short-term COST by a bean-counter who chooses to not provide support to save money just to end up in ... having not enough customers to survive.

Your choice.

Any start-up is supposed to end up in red numbers during the first years. It is what will happen on the long term that will make the company survive (or die).

I have quite a few add-ons and aircrafts for FSX and I have seen the quality of what has been produced and the quality of their support. It is not always the same (both quality and support) but it does not depend on the COST of the add-on/aircraft, but on the MINDSET of the people.

I have seen people developing wonderful freeware aircrafts and I made free paypal donations to them, because it was what they deserved, and people (this sort of snake-oil software seems a good example judging by the negative feedback one can read in the thread and the quality of its ... 'review') who make stuff I wouldn't even download for free on the p2p network fearing it would mess up my system.

Can you guess from whom I will buy the next aircrafts/add-ons?

At the end, developers who do a good work and put their heart and soul in helping customers as much as they can will always survive over bean-counters who cannot see half inch beyond their nose.

Paolo

[simonevans]

You are so right.

And it's a fact that the simplistic bean counting method denies the obvious things such as helping ONE customer with a problem in open session can help another SIX that then don't need to contact Customer Support.

And that not every £30 quid customer requires £7.50 support, and the marginal extra cost of supplying that support is disseminated among ALL customers, not just those requiring it. Even if you make a shortfall on your £30 customer by supplying £31 worth of support, over the extrapolated market the cost of support can be averaged in such a way that it represents only a few percentage points off of overall profit.

If it doesn't, then the product is crap (fire the developers) or the bean counters have got their sums wrong (fire the bean counters).

But if customer service is such a failure for developers, then why not get the product right in the first place..?

That also appears to have failed here.

[n4gix]

And it's a fact that the simplistic bean counting method denies the obvious things such as helping ONE customer with a problem in open session can help another SIX that then don't need to contact Customer Support.

This is of course why "we" prefer for customers to use our dedicated forums to report and discuss problems. This way everyone has the opportunity to learn about the problem and the resolution.

In those few cases where privacy requires that sensitive information be supplied, private messaging, telephone, or email might be used, but in most cases both the original problem and the resolution should be reported in the dedicated forum so everyone can benefit.

[Ragtopjohnny]

So Bill, that explains why my thread about Orbx got deleted twice in Outer Marker, even though it was the truth about my experience with them?

John Thuot II
A+/Network+
Don't forget to visit our modeler's site:
http://www.dreamscape-studios.com

[n4gix]

So Bill, that explains why my thread about Orbx got deleted twice in Outer Marker, even though it was the truth about my experience with them?[/url]

John, I wouldn't have single clue about this, as that's not within my mandate as a humble moderator of a single forum here... ;)

[Ragtopjohnny]

Gotcha Bill....:) No problem....:)

John Thuot II
A+/Network+
Don't forget to visit our modeler's site:
http://www.dreamscape-studios.com

[mgh]

Providing support has a cost and, like all other costs, it has to be budgetted for, monitored and controlled. In the same way that a developer will decide what features can be included in the add-on based on its budgetted development cost. The developer can't provide eveything the buyers might wish for, either in terms of features or support.

Costs are an outflow of cash. They may, or may not, prove to be a long-term investment but they won't help pay the bills at the end of this month. If the bills can't be the company goes bust and there is no long-term. A company can be profitable but still go bust because it has run out of cash.

Finally it's a fallacy that a company [i] "who chooses to not well-known company that has had frequent complaints about its support for more years that I care to remember but has still survived.