[TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )

Rich McCabe rich@1967z28.com
Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:01:55 -0500

Reminds me of the old saying....

Best price, High quality, Great service.. Pick two !

Count me in for charging for annual updates. Still cheaper than the postage
to send a radio back.



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Jerry Harley" <wa2tti@qsl.net>
Cc: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )

> Whether or not I own a Jupiter, or whether or not I own a Ten-Tec radio at
> all, is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
> I, as an owner of Ten-Tec equipment and a potential owner of new
> represent a point of view that should be important to Ten-Tec.  You, as an
> owner of a Jupiter, also represent a point of view that is important.
> However... from a purely economical vantage, the view of a potential
> Jupiter/Orion purchaser SHOULD BE more important than a current Jupiter
> owner.
> Why?  How much additional revenue will Ten-Tec get from you concerning
> current Jupiter purchase?  Zip, zero, nada, nothing (unless they go to a
> subscription model for updates, and I think they should).  My potential
> purchase (and the thousands of potential purchasers out there) is
> and if many potential purchasers are put off by what they see as QC
> problems... then sales will be down.  And that is not a good thing for
> anyone who likes Ten-Tec (as I do).
> Many years ago, I was at a meeting of ALL of the software developers for a
> certain Redmond-based software company where we listened to an industry
> pundit speak.  His main topic... "perception is reality."  This offended
> at first... HEY, we write great software!  But as I listened to him and as
> thought about what he was saying, I realized that he was doing me, and my
> company, a BIG favor.
> You don't have a problem with several rapid buggy releases, or the general
> level of Ten-Tec QC.  Fine.  Read the Jupiter reviews and comments on eHam
> and various other Internet venues.  Many people DO have a problem with it.
> Many times MORE people read these comments and reviews, and these add a
> level of uncertainty to the PERCEIVED wisdom of buying a Ten-Tec.  If
> are unsure, they don't buy.
> Perception is reality.  Whether or not Ten-Tec's QC is better/worse/the
> as Icom/Kenwood/Yaesu/etc., the PERCEPTION out there is that it is WORSE.
> Things like releasing three updates that have to be quickly reversed due
> bugs doesn't help reduce that perception... and since anyone can browse
> Ten-Tec elist this is very public to potential purchasers like most hams
> are willing to do a little bit of research.
> My suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) is that it would behoove
> to visibly show an increased commitment to QC by having at least a
> window where QC was emphasized AND Ten-Tec publicly touted the proof of
> (percent of returns for QC problems decreasing from x% to y%).  Remember
> Ford's big slogan "Quality is Job #1" after they got beat up for numerous
> design and manufacturing defects?
> Again, I like Ten-Tec, and I do plan to buy a new rig (maybe more than
> from them in the near future... but I want them to be around to support
> That means all those fence-sitting hams who aren't sure whether Ten-Tec is
> the way to go need to be convinced... and I am convinced that improving QC
> will make a big difference all out of proportion to the costs involved.
>  - jgc
> John Clifford KD7KGX
> Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
> Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100
> Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1
> email: kd7kgx@arrl.net
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec