[Xoom General] Stone 13:
I understand your point quite clearly, I simply disagree. While true that normally the seller or in this case reseller is held directly responsible, this is not one of those situations. If Verizon had sole responsiblity for the functionality offered by the Xoom or lack thereof, then I would have no need to ship my equipment back to the original seller (Moto). If VZW is solely responsible, then should I not be able to walk into a corp store and get my LTE upgrade? By creating a process where I have to send my equipment back to Motorola, they have willingly placed themselves back in the circle of liability. Should something happen to my tablet at Moto headquarters, I can guarantee you VZW will not assume responsibility. In normal circumstances, you would be absolutely correct, so don't think I'm arguing just for the sake of doing so, although I enjoy a respectful disagreement as much as the next man.

You're right, schedules do slip. However in a healthy client/vendor relationship, those slips are clearly communicated as soon as possible to the stakeholders and a contingency plan executed. The possible inability to deliver LTE or SD card support due to dependencies on outside entities or vendors most certainly would have been a well documented risk worthy of continency or in this case damage control. I've seen no evidence that either VZW or Moto had any kind of plan if the timeline began to slip. I've never said that VZW was completely free of liability in this, which is why I ultimately pursued them for my resolution.

I take full responsibility for being an early adopter, no one made be write the check, no argument there. The confidence to buy early was based on the relationship I've had with VZW & Moto. However, because of how this situation has been handled, my confidence in one of those parties has been greatly diminished. Are you saying I should blame myself because Motorola couldn't deliver LTE? So now the customer is always wrong, I get it.....

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case, Moto has kept themselves in the liability loop by requiring my equipment to be returned to them for an upgrade that apparently only they can perform. If VZW was making the promises and pointing the fingers, I wouldn't be criticizing Moto.

Sure just about every company screws up at some point, it's how you handle the screw up that separates good companies from bad. When I submit a proposal or statement of work if I get that far, the expectation is that I identify and document every identifiable risk that might jeopardize a successful delivery. If one of these risks becomes a reality, I have a contingency plan in place to get things back on track. That's what companies that deserve your business do and that's why they still get work even though they screw it up from time to time. It's all about communication and holding oneself accountable, Motorola has yet to deliver therefore in this situation they are accountable, had they said here's the Xoom as it, nothing else promised, I would not consider them liable, but then again we wouldn't be having this admittedly enjoyable debate.

So I respectfully disagree that my grievance is or was emotional, I've waited for Motorola to deliver and they have failed to do so, on top of that they're blaming everyone but themselves for their failure to deliver.

I'm of the opinion, that they could have resolved the LTE situation months ago, as there are other LTE tables with essentially the same hardware that have been out there for a few months now. All evidence points to the fact that Motorola began looking past the Xoom and forward to Xoom 2, that's why mid-September has come and gone and only a handful of people have LTE. Motorola has every right to do this, but I have every right not to buy from them again because of how this process has unfolded.

Well considering that other manufacturers can and have implemented LTE on essentially the same hardware platform, best case scenario they don't have as good a relationship with their vendors as the competition, worst case they're incompetent and aren't as adept at implementing LTE as the competition. Neither of which gives me much confidence in Moto as my preferred hardware manufacturer and only solidifies my decision to no longer do business with them.

Again with the labels, you're capable of very intelligent debate, you don't need to rely labels get your point across, it tends to diminish your argument. It also allows the conversation to degrade as a more "emotional" person might go on the defensive and then a spirited debate on liability would turn into nothing more than "I know you are but what am I?", and I'm sure that's not what you seek.

As to my credentials, since you mentioned them twice now, I should have left them out. I'm not one to brag about my successes and I know anyone can be anything they want to be on the internet, so just consider me a janitor who likes to argue, I don't think it makes my viewpoint any less relevant.

Cheers