Scubapro buyers--Beware and be informed

[jchance]

Guy--I didn't say they zapped it. I said the IR port didn't work and when they tried it they found the same thing. THAT is probably why it failed their calibration: THEY COULDN'T GET IT TO WORK EITHER!

I sent it in fully prepared to pay for a repair if necessary or return it in the same condition upon which it was sent. To return it in the fashion upon which they did AND not offer any replacement option is what has me pretty steamed. Return it and recommend not using it: OK. Return it in original condition: OK. Return it unable to be used for any purpose besides a doorstop: ABSOLUTELY NOT! What I expected was to either have my unit returned (repaired or as sent in) or some type of dealer cost replacement if not. That is how the other scuba vendors which whom I have dealt have handled this type of issue over the years. As I said, I currently own approx. 20 Scubapro computers between my family but will be reconsidering that in the future.

Basically from my point of view, they destroyed it with utter disregard for the owner. I love their equipment but at times absolutely abhor their Draconian customer (NON)service policies! Scubapro (Johnson Wax) can be the hardest people with which to deal that I have ever met.

 

[buddhasummer]

FWIW I'm with you 100%. I'm very black and white and often end cutting off my nose to spite my face. Hollis annoyed me a few years back and I sold 99% of the Hollis gear I owned. In this instance I'd probably sell my SP gear. Silly I know but that's who I am. I'm still hoping someone from SP attempts to make it right. Good luck.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Guy--I didn't say they zapped it. I said the IR port didn't work and when they tried it they found the same thing. THAT is probably why it failed their calibration: THEY COULDN'T GET IT TO WORK EITHER!

I sent it in fully prepared to pay for a repair if necessary or return it in the same condition upon which it was sent. To return it in the fashion upon which they did AND not offer any replacement option is what has me pretty steamed. Return it and recommend not using it: OK. Return it in original condition: OK. Return it unable to be used for any purpose besides a doorstop: ABSOLUTELY NOT! What I expected was to either have my unit returned (repaired or as sent in) or some type of dealer cost replacement if not. That is how the other scuba vendors which whom I have dealt have handled this type of issue over the years. As I said, I currently own approx. 20 Scubapro computers between my family but will be reconsidering that in the future.

Basically from my point of view, they destroyed it with utter disregard for the owner. I love their equipment but at times absolutely abhor their Draconian customer (NON)service policies! Scubapro (Johnson Wax) can be the hardest people with which to deal that I have ever met.

Well, they did treat me better than they treated you, that's for sure. As others have said, it would have been a good idea for them to offer you something since you have 20 (!!) computers in the family. With that much loyalty, if I were Scubapro, I would want to keep you happy.

As for not returning it in a state ready to use, I see two sides to that. You may have had a very dangerous instrument. Far worse than a broken computer, it had failed in some hidden way while giving the appearance of proper functioning. I assume they do not have to use the ir port to access the computer's innards, as they can disassemble the computer and check the circuit board directly, and so had some knowledge of another failure. They should have explained this to you if that were the case.

If they returned it in "working" order, knowing it was defective, even with a warning not to dive it, and someone chose not to believe or follow the warning (it seemed to be working fine . . .) dove it and took a DCS hit, do you not think they would have their pants sued off, and maybe even be exposed to criminal liability for negligent homicide or manslaughter if a death resulted? A company just cannot let a known defective product out "in the world." And, there is no other purpose or use for this computer than to avoid DCS during a dive. If they let it out in the world knowing it could not do that to their specification, they would be responsible for any injury.

But, if they were going to pull it out of circulation, I do think a more comprehensive explanation of why would be in order, and that it would be good policy to help with a replacement. I must say, though, that I really cannot imagine any reason you would have to want it back knowing it was defective and not useable for any purpose. In actual fact, under all three of your options above, the computer would be only useable as a "doorstop" or decorative piece of junk even if it had the battery and appeared to "work."

So, I don't see any wrongful conduct here, in fact, quite the opposite as far as pulling the computer. But, I do see their heavy-handed and opaque handling of the situation as a missed chance to keep a satisfied customer.

 

[beaverdivers]

Were you the original owner of the Smart Tec? If so, did you purchase it from an authorized Scubapro dealer?

 

[eelnoraa]

I can't believe the above response. Whose computer is it?? OP sent in for repair, if SP can't do it, return it in the condition it came in. You can't destroy other's property because you think the own will use it in dangerous way. On what basis???!!! What if I just want to it as a timer for my jogging? Totally misconduct, we are not in a communist world, are we?

 

[redacted]

Were you the original owner of the Smart Tec? If so, did you purchase it from an authorized Scubapro dealer?

Really!!!

What difference does that made. Are you suggesting that it is OK for Scubapro to steal from people who obtained one of their products used or from other than a USA authorized dealer?

 

[Jack Hammer]

Manslaughter... Homicide... Really... :shrug: For a non-functioning IR port?? Sorry, the internet cracks me up sometimes...

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Nothing about my post is grounded in anything except reality. however, it seems you did not fully read it. I suggested that they found a fault other than the ir port. Keeping the computer is pretty drastic, and I would only expect that if they discovered a core defect in its functionality as a diving computer, not just a defect in the port where it exports dive info.

As for humor, the comments about "stealing" and "well I could use it as a jogging timer" really crack me up. If they let this computer, functioning but with a critical defect, out in the world, they could only expect one outcome--someone would use it for what it actually is made for, and try to dive it. So, go ahead, trash them for keeping a defective computer worth less than $0 because you can't jog with it. Do you think they would really care about that, as opposed to them sending it back (working, but in a defective manner), and someone down the road picking it up and saying, "looks good, let's go dive" and having a problem?

More to the point, thinking it over I do agree they could have treated Jchance better than they did even if they were not obligated to. Maybe that it is what beaverdiver is getting at. I bought my computer used but went through my LDS for the repair. They like me and they are a big dealer, and I believe they persuaded scubapro to give me a break on the replacement. Nothing sinister about the question, it can make a difference when your rights are expired but you have a dealer in your corner. If you actually bought it from the dealer it might make even more of a difference.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Dude, the OP stated the computer was fully functional as a dive computer, just the IR port wouldn't connect to their computer. The only thing the IR port really does is let you download the dive profiles and maybe upload firmware (not sure about that specific model). Assuming we have the whole story, I fail to see a liability for the manufacturer to let a computer be used that is unable to have the profiles downloaded. Perhaps you could clarify where negligent homicide (chuckle) and manslaughter (cackle) come in.

 

[eelnoraa]

But whatever it is, it is NOT SP's property. OP owns it. SP, or anyone can't just take it away, right!!! If I "think" a car is unsafe (like those 50's classic car), can I crush it without the owner's consensus. I don't think so. The main problem in SP's practice is destroying other's property without owner's consensus. They could at least inform the OP and let OP makes decision.