- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 863
- Points
- 18
Before the whole subject gets out of hand (and before too many others waste good money) I want to see what opinions everyone has regarding the BDR-S03 sleds.
As we are seeing, they are generally NOT working for our intended application, which is building lasers. And unfortunately, there are quite a few of us with considerable money tied up in this whole situation, from dissapointed sled buyers to (gulp) people who have invested in large numbers of these for resale and/or profit. Unfortunately, the remedy to this problem may not be so easy to ascertain, and this is why I'm posting MY opinion and would like to hear what you all think regarding a solution.
In the business world, liability for components extends only to the components intended application - if you buy a smog pump from an auto parts store to make a low-cost compressor to run a breeding room for tropical fish (which we've all done, right?) the liability to anyone except the end consumer ends the second you take it out of the box and start modifying it for YOUR application (which again, isn't the intended use for that part). In this case, however, the line blurs, as none of us are using these sleds to repair faulty 8X Blu-Ray burners, but the sleds are being sold and marketed to us as suitable for use in building burning lasers (see where I'm going with this?)...
My feeling, from a business standpoint, is that the liability for these sleds should lie with the reseller who has stated (in some cases) or implied (in other cases) that these sleds are suitable for use in the building of BR lasers. As to their remedy with their supplier, that's another story on a whole new level, and really shouldn't affect us, the end consumers.
Face it - these sleds are QC rejects, as all the sleds of any style available to us have been. Let's assume the PHR and 6X sleds failed QC as a rule of thumb due to alignment or optical abberations, well then the end result would be (as it has so far proven) that the majority of these sleds are truly suitable for OUR application, building lasers. Now, just for fun, let's assume this first run of available 8X QC rejects have failed QC due to diode troubles, inconsistancies, and/or failures... Well, that would substantiate the prevailing opinion, which is that most of these sleds are NOT suitable for our intended application, therefore whomever has taken our money for them knowing the intended use ison the hook for the liability, and should promptly work it out with us as customers.
(Not to knock anyone who has worked so hard to be able to offer us these sleds, however some of the sellers have advertised specific claims as to their suitability, and should, as businessmen, stand behind what they sell...)
IMHO, (and not to discriminate), the GB sleds should be handled between the end buyers, the reseller, and the supplier - if the middleman is unable to get any satisfaction from the original supplier, then the liability (and losses) should be shared equally by all involved (remember, this was a GB for sleds, and no direct claim was made regarding outputs, etc other than what was posted here by other members who had tested these similar diodes).
In the case of sleds bought through resellers, websites, etc however - the site selling the sleds made very specific claims as to their suitability for use in our application (including the collimation and republishing of varied test data from this site to substantiate their claims regarding the product) and in this case, full refunds are likely due and then it's up to the seller to track down satisfaction with THEIR supplier. Part of the beauty of retail is the protection the end consumer has regarding the product (and the liability costs are part of what justifies the retailers profit margin) - And in this case, I believe that protection applies to the end purchasers who bought items that turned out (as a majority) completely UNSUITABLE for use in our application.
To sum, I feel the GB needs to be worked out based on what the organizer can work out with their supplier, the sleds that were purchased from a "storefront website" should be refunded.
Let the opinions fly, guys and gals!
As we are seeing, they are generally NOT working for our intended application, which is building lasers. And unfortunately, there are quite a few of us with considerable money tied up in this whole situation, from dissapointed sled buyers to (gulp) people who have invested in large numbers of these for resale and/or profit. Unfortunately, the remedy to this problem may not be so easy to ascertain, and this is why I'm posting MY opinion and would like to hear what you all think regarding a solution.
In the business world, liability for components extends only to the components intended application - if you buy a smog pump from an auto parts store to make a low-cost compressor to run a breeding room for tropical fish (which we've all done, right?) the liability to anyone except the end consumer ends the second you take it out of the box and start modifying it for YOUR application (which again, isn't the intended use for that part). In this case, however, the line blurs, as none of us are using these sleds to repair faulty 8X Blu-Ray burners, but the sleds are being sold and marketed to us as suitable for use in building burning lasers (see where I'm going with this?)...
My feeling, from a business standpoint, is that the liability for these sleds should lie with the reseller who has stated (in some cases) or implied (in other cases) that these sleds are suitable for use in the building of BR lasers. As to their remedy with their supplier, that's another story on a whole new level, and really shouldn't affect us, the end consumers.
Face it - these sleds are QC rejects, as all the sleds of any style available to us have been. Let's assume the PHR and 6X sleds failed QC as a rule of thumb due to alignment or optical abberations, well then the end result would be (as it has so far proven) that the majority of these sleds are truly suitable for OUR application, building lasers. Now, just for fun, let's assume this first run of available 8X QC rejects have failed QC due to diode troubles, inconsistancies, and/or failures... Well, that would substantiate the prevailing opinion, which is that most of these sleds are NOT suitable for our intended application, therefore whomever has taken our money for them knowing the intended use ison the hook for the liability, and should promptly work it out with us as customers.
(Not to knock anyone who has worked so hard to be able to offer us these sleds, however some of the sellers have advertised specific claims as to their suitability, and should, as businessmen, stand behind what they sell...)
IMHO, (and not to discriminate), the GB sleds should be handled between the end buyers, the reseller, and the supplier - if the middleman is unable to get any satisfaction from the original supplier, then the liability (and losses) should be shared equally by all involved (remember, this was a GB for sleds, and no direct claim was made regarding outputs, etc other than what was posted here by other members who had tested these similar diodes).
In the case of sleds bought through resellers, websites, etc however - the site selling the sleds made very specific claims as to their suitability for use in our application (including the collimation and republishing of varied test data from this site to substantiate their claims regarding the product) and in this case, full refunds are likely due and then it's up to the seller to track down satisfaction with THEIR supplier. Part of the beauty of retail is the protection the end consumer has regarding the product (and the liability costs are part of what justifies the retailers profit margin) - And in this case, I believe that protection applies to the end purchasers who bought items that turned out (as a majority) completely UNSUITABLE for use in our application.
To sum, I feel the GB needs to be worked out based on what the organizer can work out with their supplier, the sleds that were purchased from a "storefront website" should be refunded.
Let the opinions fly, guys and gals!
