06-10-2009 11:20 PM
Of course the replacement RAM would not be covered by the computer manufacturer's warranty (but should be by the RAM supplier/manufacturer.
The same generality applies to video cards which in the case of desktops is also a user serviceable part. Again people should check the warranty situation before doing this.
Wher DaveN has a point (if using a flawed argument), is if you ineptly install hardware and trash the PC then you are likely to get it fixed or replaced under warranty. However, if it fails for a reason other than an upgrade then I have never had any problem getting repairs or replacements.
Frazpro is absolutely correct in saying that the analogy is inherently flawed and bios is a much better one to use. In truth most manufacturers of motherboards/video cards and other devices with firmware would generally upgrading firmware and provide tools to do this. In the case of motherboards and in certain circumstances it is essential in order to make the machine work or work with newer software.
In the case of software updates most suppliers recommend or require updates to be added. I certain circumstances ISPs disconnect unpatched machines when their security is compromised. This is seen as a user failing and I would wholeheartedly support this (and I would personally go further).
As I have stated repeatedly attempting to withhold software upgrades wrong for two reasons.
1. It withholds device and functional improvements from customers and
2. It may present a clear and present danger to the security of the customer.
In the case of number 2, I wonder where the customer(s) and Vodafone/Nokia would stand if it were proved that a someone suffered harm due to non release of updates to fix the cause of the problem.
I am willing to bet that there are multiple security fixes in N96 software since Vodafone posted a release.
I'd be pleased is DaveN or one of the other Mods would care to counter my arguments. I am not setting to trap them, I genuinely want to know why the policy is still being followed and where they believe the arguments presented here are in error. I have never seen a counter argument to these 2 points, simply a restatement of the policy I believe is quite mistaken, outdated and dangerous.
I consider the last paragraph to be unfair to the Mods. I don't want to know if the Mods opinion. I want to know the Vodafone opinion. Sorry Mods, I am not getting at you. I understand you have to follow company policy.
07-10-2009 02:29 PM
Thank you for your very detailed post. There's not really a lot more that I can add that hasn't already been said on this subject. Our Firmware Statement is still our official policy on the matter but rest assured that we do listen to all of the feedback on the Forum and then pass that onto the relevant people, so you are helping make a difference with all of your posts about this.
I know that doesn't really answer your question but I hope it clarifies our position.
07-10-2009 04:31 PM
It doesn't answer the question but was the answer I expected. I point you back to the two reasons I stated why withholding firmware is wrong. These reasons ought to concern Vodafone.
Cheers anyway. I'll keep being irritating.
07-10-2009 07:20 PM
we do listen to all of the feedback on the Forum and then pass that onto the relevant people, so you are helping make a difference with all of your posts about this.
George - do you have any comments on why this is a one-way street?
Significant issues have been presented here over many months and the frustration has only multiplied when Vodafone have not had the courtesy in providing responses to those issues.
You have to realise that the majority of customers are inherently reasonable in their outlook and if fed the truth rather than stonewalled will be quite circumspect about things.
Me, I'm truely hacked off by the company's behaviour to be honest but that wasnt always the case - the current policy of keeping the customers in the dark has led to this viewpoint.