Quote:
Originally Posted by CO_BBTechie
Well I hate to agree with RIM, but I do. Would you go to GM directly for a problem with your car stereo? Of course not, you would go to the dealer. Your carrier is your dealer. RIM has no responsibility to service your device or your account.
I do agree that if they're going to allow BT connectivity, it should be more open however. But it isn't. And you won't get anywhere with RIM.
If enough of the carriers complain, they may be forced to do something. But you're not involving your carrier.
|
If my car stereo wasn't compatible with certain types of CD, yes I would go back to the manufacturer and complain directly as well as tell my dealer/carrier. Apart from apply pressure there's nothing that Orange (my "dealer") can do, they don't make the software, and as I indicated in my email, I
had involved my dealer/carrier.
Rather like RIM, I feel you've missed the point of my emails and posting them here. What I would have liked was a more helpful response, and certainly not one that is surely going to cause antagonism. I can sort of understand that their first response *might* be a generic, try A, B or C. But if the person replies saying they've done all of these, what I definitely wouldn't expect is for the next reply to be "your options are A, B & C, here's how to do those again"! It would have been less antagonistic to not reply at all and gives the impression of just some form of automated response, even though it clearly wasn't. And to suggest paying RIM for support - what are they going to do for my money, write some Widcomm patch for me!? Ditto, what would Orange do, they can't change the Desktop software.
At the very least I'd have thought RIM could have said "We understand your problem but we have no plans to make any changes for supporting other drivers and here's the reasons why...". Instead they gave the impression of being a bit like my avatar name, which is what I am trying to highlight to others here.