You're missing what I was saying. I wasn't talking about you forcing John to say something, I was talking about the notion of what you would constitute as a reasonable expectation, in fact, isn't reasonable due to precedent you've not been able to establish with any corollary case of merit worthy similarity.
That sentence blew my mind, especially because I work with corollaries day in and day out, yet I don't understand what it means.
There is no expectation on my part, I simply brought this issue to the attention of the forum, and John chimed in, and I really think that the balance of the thread is very positive, as John agrees that it would be in Topping's best interest to step in and contact eBay about this problem. In fact I think this thread is very helpful, and that by me bringing this serious issue up, it will allow Topping to do what they consider necessary. Similarly, it seems that it might help some unsuspecting buyers who read this thread to be aware of the problem and not buy L30 units from eBay before first verifying that they are units that had the fixes Topping implemented.
To be honest, the only people who should be upset about this thread are the scoundrels offloading defective L30 units in eBay. It doesn't seem right, for example, for a guy to sell his new and defective unit in eBay for $175 for a profit, while in the process putting somebody's equipment or personal safety in danger.
Also, I was asking, seeing as how you understand John isn't the representative you take him to be, as has been established. Do you now find it prudent to do what you should have done, and inquire about this information from the relevant channels? (e.g. contacting Topping yourself for comment on what you perceive to be an issue on the handling of the situation you're displeased with). And not the avenue of coming on a third part forum for said information and stance on the issue you would want to raise.
No, not really. This should be public knowledge, and I am sure Topping agrees that transparency in the long run is the best policy for any company, so I am sure they are happy I brought it up. If you were Topping, would it please you to see users selling defective units to other people? Units Topping clearly instructed them to destroy? That is not good for Topping.
About the matter of John being a representative of Topping, this is just pointless. He is representing Topping in this forum, and I am sure Topping are aware of that, regardless of what his actual placement in Topping's corporate structure is.
The reason I ask is because it seems you're waffling about left and right on the matter. I still haven't seen the compelling argument to be made that Topping ought do anything resembling what you're asking for. And the statement I'm specifically referencing is the following:
"Also, I think you could in some way hold the people who are doing this (selling faulty units after receiving a replacement unit) responsible in some way. Though I imagine this might be a complicated subject. "
No waffling on my part. This problem is complicated, I know. But taking care of the eBay auctions is an important part of it, and John has agreed with me on that.
The other solution (requiring users to return their defective units before getting a replacement) seems to be prohibitive for Topping from a cost standpoint, so they are making the choice not to pursue that avenue. Logically, that solution would be expensive in the short term, but as I said it would be the best approach in the long run. Plus there are alternate implementations of this solution, such as shipping to some party in the US which can verify disposal. But I am not going to argue for that anymore, I said what I thought, and I am pleased that Topping is at least going to handle the issue regarding eBay.
I just looked again, and there are more like 15 to 20 units being sold right now. If you want a new L30 for less than $90 now is the time, a seller posted 4 of them, and he still has 2 of them left.
Which is fine, but what you suggest as a solution is what? The best I could reasonably see, is sending a warning on social media (or their website better yet) for anyone buying 2012 serialized units, should know those units are in question and shouldn't be bought with an expectation of receiving replacement units if they go belly-up, seeing as how the chain of responsibility is too far removed. Otherwise people can start a scam of 'buying and selling defective units, all asking Topping to send them a new working unit' because they've been sold a faulty SKU they had no idea. Buying used from others doesn't impart a responsibility from the parent company to start offering warranty to ever person such sale was made to.
Unless again, as I mentioned, you have precedent for such company decisions in other instances I am not aware of..
This problem is complicated to solve, and I am just giving my opinion. I am sure Topping have more information about the matter guiding their decisions. I'm just a potential customer, and a consumer, and I find it concerning to see all these units which should have been destroyed popping up in eBay. I thought people would be weary of selling them to unsuspecting buyers, but I guess that the prospect of a quick dollar is too powerful for some people.
