So you should probably not weigh in on giving legal advice.
You’re deriving this assumption from nothing. They’re allowed to charge a fee for loss of value, and in this case the loss in value is likely to be the percentage it will be reduced to sell as B-stock.
The issue here is you’re confusing the short-term right to reject, where a consumer can reject an item that doesn’t meet the contract and has a stronger consumer protections, and the cooling off period, where you can return any item without a reason and is going to have less protections.
This is why the TC has been advised multiple times to assert the refund is due to fault and not under the cooling off period. However, it may difficult to argue that a new instrument with some bugs, which a reasonable consumer would expect, meets the definition of faulty.
However, if it was returned under the right to reject, it would not be sold as B-stock, it would be returned to Elektron for a refund, and so there would be no loss of value (and a lot stronger defense if it was tried to be argued).
But, just for future reference, whilst it is important to be questioning, it’s probably safe to assume that Rubadub has had their policy at least once overed by a lawyer and that it will stand up to a little more than 30 seconds of Googling.
So how do we determine if its a hardware problem or if its a firmware problem
So lets say i encounter problems like i did but i keep it all in the hope its a firmware issue that they hopefully will fix in a update or 2 they arrive and the problem is still there when do we say its a hardware issue
By that time my return window is closed i need to send it off to be repaired but if its a firmware issue well i have to wait till a new firmware comes out to see if it gets resolved or not
By that time i have to keep it because my window to return has shut and just have to live with it
So my question is how do u determine if its a hardware problem or if its software firmware problem if they release a product with numerous issues from the start
Surely it should be returned as not fit for purpose and i should be refunded fully
I shouldn’t have to lose out because a product was released early with numerous problems
It should be the retailers taking it up with Elektron not us Buyers taking the hit
I have already given a bunch of first impressions and here are some recent ones. I’ve been playing around with the FX and buses and I have to say that it’s probably very well suited for psytrance and of course techno. The ability to use multiple buses is a major unlock compared to most devices so that you can both do some sound design and still have FX chains to control kick and bass. The sampler sounds pretty good under FM (LFO on pitch) and chrono pitch also does a good job for staple FM lead sounds. Same with the comb filter, also very useful. The arpeggiator is interesting and definitely useful for making semi random but connected sounding and polymetric voices too. The sequencer is detailed enough to make things fit in high tempos and now it can also sequence FX. Pretty tasty.
Thomann dropped the price twice in the space of a 7 days, first to 1350, now to 1330. And this is not a discount or a sale, it’s marked up as permanent price.
I guess a lot of people will return their unit and get another one elsewhere, to cash in on that price reduction.
Thomann reduces B-Stock by 7.5%, so there should be TVs for 1230.- soon.
is this the same Tonverk rubadub sold you erroneously £100 under the recommended retail price? maybe they’re just recouping their costs?
i’ve seen this a few times over the years, early adopters irate that their complex music machine isn’t perfect from the get go. it’s been the case since the md (and every single machine since). elektron listen, refine, react and resolve. patience is required.
While software might be more complex (aka, has more features packed), I think I do not agree it is more difficult or harder to test, it should be easier actually. If you take Tonverk as an example:
The codebase of Tonverk is written in Rust, which has a much better toolchain as let’s say C/C++ or other older platforms. Testing framework is even built-in.
The operating system of Tonverk is linux. Which means it’s possible to run and test (parts of the) software on your pc/computer in an emulation / docker container.
Which also means automated testing is 100% in scope for all operations: You could write tests for them. Relatively “simple stuff” like copying and pasting trigs in the sequencer would have been caught by the testrunner which can run at any time in any CI environment, not just by testing on the machine itself.
But now I’m into "It should be simple to code" territory Either way, it’s easier to write tests for software nowadays so it should be easier to test too.
Ha, yes and no I guess - definitely drifting off topic but the real world always throws up shit that wasn’t accounted for, or was accounted for but was impacted by something else in an unexpected way.
I work at software company with 3 dev squads, each has their own QA - the software has been in constant production for 10 years and there is still a list of bugs as long as my arm, and each release adds to that list. Bug-free deployments are an unreasonable expectation IMO - even if it would be better everyone
This is a fair question, and makes purchases like this a bigger grey area than maybe they should be, and as a consumer you shouldn’t have to be calculating this stuff.
I agree with you that ultimately if there is an issue it should always be between the retailer and the manufacturer.
You should not worry about these kind of things actually, you can just say it’s not working properly.
They answered to you:
Ok, just to let you know, opened is usually subject to a -10% restocking fee to be deducted from the refund
So I see room for “negotiation” here actually. You are not sending it back just because you don’t like it, but because it crashed several times (and you don’t like ). But if you say the crashes are the main reason then I would say you are entitled for a 100% refund.
But does it matter? Can you run the tonverk firmware in another machine? Can you use the tonverk without firmware, or instal your own? They are components of a unified product. If the firmware that comes with the boxed product is defective, the product is defective.
I don’t really care about the tonverk in particular, but I am reading this thread, and I can only feel ashamed of my profession. How could we software engineers get to a state where over promising, under delivering, and routinely shipping broken firmware is the norm?
Because the advice to wait a couple of months before getting a new piece of gear is very sound advice. Same goes for software, OS releases, you name it. It’s not an elektron problem. It’s an industry problem.
Sorry for another maybe obvious question, but are you guys enjoying the insert effects?
I think the reverb, chorus and delay sends sound beautiful but I haven’t found as much use for the inserts. It seems like most of them are focused on glitching/degrading sound quality, and I’m not sure but I can’t seem to get the insert chorus to sound all that…chorusy.
edit: I also haven’t tried anything bus specific yet
It doesn’t no which is my point. My mother couldn’t even tell you what firmware is - it’s not a consumer perspective that should need to exist.
One clarification here, because it’s important: this is not new.
What is new is frequent updates and longterm product support. Software has always been shipped with bugs, the difference 30 years ago is that you had to live with them. I’d argue that this puts the industry in a better position than it ever was. Complex systems often require maintenance and fixes. Hell you can’t even by a new house without it needing a bug-fix.
I’d rather focus on how people support products than their ability to release them without errors. This is the biggest difference between a corporation buying software and a consumer. We don’t get any kind of SLA. You could buy something and it never get fixed - that’s a consumer law that needs resolving in the modern age.
You are 101% right this is not a new phenomenon. But I do think the possibility to easily patch stuff from day one on, gives a very perverse incentive to not ship a working product on day zero.
The industry may be in a better position as you say. But are the people? Is the world? This is the main source of my shame. That we manage to make a better world for “us” but not for “everyone including us”.
I could start ranting about software development practices. But let’s not turn this into hacker news.
I’m following this thread with interest cause I think it’s about time we on the receiving end of this mess start fighting back!
Either way, it’s easier to write tests for software nowadays so it should be easier to test too.
so i guess i will know the outcome soon enough