Re: Battery...

(no name) ((no email))
Tue, 28 Sep 93 11:24:24 -0400

> I too am impressed by NEC. My opinion of NEC's support for the old
> Ultralite wasn't all that favorable in the past -- their tech support
> bulletin board had nothing about the UL, and the tech support people
> I talked to seemed pretty clueless. Recalling batteries which could
> have been justifiably written off as "past their useful life" (at least
> in terms of number of charge/discharge cycles, if not in terms of number
> of years) is a good. Recognizing that it's inconvenient to send in
> batteries and wait up to 60 days for a replacement is unusually thoughtful.
> Throwing in $100 is great. Throwing in $100 per battery is outstanding!
> I just got off the phone with NEC and found that they're even sending
> pre-paid mailers.
> It seems to me that NEC is doing much much more than simply covering their
> corporate butt against lawsuits -- they're demonstrating customer service
> at its best, and I sincerely hope that no one actually takes advantage of
> --
> -Brian Smithson

We are not talking about a company replacing a component that's simply not
performing up to spec. We're talking about a company replacing a component
that's failing catastrophically, a ticking time-bomb. I suppose that it's nice
that they are doing this, rather than insisting that the product is safe, but
I also suppose that they are not confident that it is, and would rather eat a
couple million up front than have it extracted from them in a
widely-publicized trial by product-liability attorneys.

If I still used my UL as much as I did a year ago, I'd be pissed off about
losing it as a mobile computer for 60 days to the point where $300 wouldn't
seem very generous. As it is, I'm sure that paying $100 per battery is cheaper
than disrupting their production schedules to make the batteries in less than
2 months.