We recently returned a WT4000 series device to Motorola as faulty. Our application runs in a "kiosk mode", not allowing the user any access to the underlying system or Windows. When the user swaps the battery (an operation they can do up to 3 times in any given shift), the WT should preserve the application in memory and, when the battery is re-inserted, continue as if the device was simply put to sleep. (Within a reasonable amount of time, of course. We recommend our staff do not leave the battery out for more than a minute but it will last longer than this.)
The device we received did not behave this way. Removing the battery at any point would cause the device to warm boot when re-inserting the battery. This was obviously a big problem for us.
The device was duly returned and Motorola support responded that they could not find an issue with the device. After a few email exchanges, the issue was found. The only problem was that Motorola did not view it as an issue. They stated that the device behaved as per the manual but they had found a way to make the device behave the same way as other devices. The solution was to replace the supercap in the faulty device. Replacing this component meant the device had enough power stored internally to survive the time without the battery.
So despite the fact that this unit has a component which CLEARLY works differently to other components in over 40 other devices we have, Motorola believe this is not a fault. They hid behind the manual which states the device must be put into suspend mode before removing the battery;
Bizarrely, the service engineer apologized about the devices which worked differently (or "better" to use his own words!) but politely told us that any devices returned with this fault in future would not be repaired.
We are in a lucky position, in the UK there are many laws protecting us from practices such as this but I worry about consumers in other countries. Has anyone experienced this woeful denial of faults with their Motorola contract?
We trialled a device before committing to purchase, so if any device arrives on site that performs differently to the trial device we are covered by UK law to demand a refund, replacement or repair. Which of those three options we receive is up to our reseller, but at least we have the protection. And to date, this has been the only device that has arrived with this issue. I can't say I'm looking forward to the arguments when another arrives with this problem, though.
The device we received did not behave this way. Removing the battery at any point would cause the device to warm boot when re-inserting the battery. This was obviously a big problem for us.
The device was duly returned and Motorola support responded that they could not find an issue with the device. After a few email exchanges, the issue was found. The only problem was that Motorola did not view it as an issue. They stated that the device behaved as per the manual but they had found a way to make the device behave the same way as other devices. The solution was to replace the supercap in the faulty device. Replacing this component meant the device had enough power stored internally to survive the time without the battery.
So despite the fact that this unit has a component which CLEARLY works differently to other components in over 40 other devices we have, Motorola believe this is not a fault. They hid behind the manual which states the device must be put into suspend mode before removing the battery;
Bizarrely, the service engineer apologized about the devices which worked differently (or "better" to use his own words!) but politely told us that any devices returned with this fault in future would not be repaired.
We are in a lucky position, in the UK there are many laws protecting us from practices such as this but I worry about consumers in other countries. Has anyone experienced this woeful denial of faults with their Motorola contract?
We trialled a device before committing to purchase, so if any device arrives on site that performs differently to the trial device we are covered by UK law to demand a refund, replacement or repair. Which of those three options we receive is up to our reseller, but at least we have the protection. And to date, this has been the only device that has arrived with this issue. I can't say I'm looking forward to the arguments when another arrives with this problem, though.
Comments
Post a Comment