QuickCam/Connectix - COPY SENT TO CUSM LIST

Aaron M. Gold (amgold@ix.netcom.com)
Wed, 23 Aug 1995 14:42:53 +0000


> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:27:16 +0100
> Reply-to: ccrews@catalogue.com
> From: ccrews@catalogue.com (Chuck Crews)
> To: <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject: Re:CU-SEEME-L digest 527

> > Were there
> > another low-cost alternative to the QuickCam, I might well avoid
> > Connectix. If they don't have the coordination between their
> > marketing staff and the people running their mailbot, do I really
> > want to buy one of their products?
>
[ PLEASE READ ON FOR A RETRACTION!!!]

> When I called to report the problem, the tech support specialist took my
> name, issued me an RMA number, and asked that I send him my QuickCam for a
> replacement. I sent by Priority mail and had a brand new one sent back by
> next-day courier.

Hmm. Wow.

Well, let me just say (publically) that after discussion with
several people, I was, basically, wrong.

First off, Connectix are /very/ cool people for offering this
low-cost video alternative.

Second, the above reference (re: coordinating advertisements with
the mailbot people) was just plain wrong. I have since learned that
Connectix's mailer was simply swamped, but it was working; I have
also recieved all of the info I requested from Connectix, and
thensome.

I spoke about the general attitude a company could have; an
attitude I have seen before in other companies. It is now clear to
me that (based on experiences of most people) Connectix does not work
like this. I just caught 'em on a rough weekend. Owners of
QuickCams seem to be pretty happy with them.

Sorry, Connectix folks, if I cast your company in an unfair light.
Your customers say you're really good folks. If I decide to purchase
a camera, I will most definitely consider (and probably ultimately
buy) your product.

I just hope you guys don't blacklist me...but maybe I'll send my
reg card in under and assumed name, just in case. <GRIN>

--
Aaron Gold - amgold@ix.netcom.com
Watch this space!