Originally Posted by jdn
As for the mp3 player example, I think it is slightly different...
in my scenario, the mp3 player will play mp3s, but they just sound like they're under water, or maybe it only accepts 32kbit encoding (real low quality). You got the MP3 player. It plays MP3s. It just doesn't live up to your expectations.
In your scenario - yes, you get low quality of an implementation - you return it if you can due to not being acceptable, or you live with what you paid for.
It's easy to change the conculsion when you change the problem statement.
IMHO, that is not the case here, which is why I proposed the scenario I did. I does not do what it is documented to do. It doesn't do it poorly, it doesn't do it inefficiently, it flat out doesn't do it - thus the mp3/atrac example.
Unfortunately, I do not have an aswer for OP. Amazon's return policy, though well hidden, at odds with all of my experiences with Amazon where returns have never been an issue, and pretty useless with large TV, is documented and they are following it.
Originally Posted by robb
And, yes, I'm sure all of us have eaten the cost of cheap products that ended up not working as advertised. That's how we learned.
Not that I recall. If I don't get what I was promised, I get my money back. I'm selling my iPod Shuffle due to it's lousy sound, but I put that under low quality for a low price. If it didn't work as documented, I'd get my money back.