Dear Brian,
Thanks for putting this whole conversation truthfully online. I fail to understand exactly what goal it exactly has, but I do confirm that what you posted is entirely correct and most likely complete.
But what is to be learned from this exactly? I told you that I felt very frustrated by the fact that so many products that have been issued since the change of the century appeared to be faulty, and that for me as a professional journalist this has cost me loads of time. No, I'm not referring to you or your products when I say this. I could list quite a lot of products both American as well as South Korean but who knows what misery that would cause again. The biggest time-consuming issue for me is the fact that manufaturers keep insisting that I've got it wrong and as I don't consider myself as being infallable I then first spend a lot of time verifying if I might have done something wrong, anything wrong while testing. Much, much later I then get confronted by users's complaints who experience exactly the same issues that I did, In other cases I do eventually get an admission that things aren't what they should have been and then I get sent either new software or in some cases even a new receiver. As such no big deal except quite often the importation taxes on product, shipment and taxation handling charges makes such a product almost as expensive as a new one bought from the store. And if after that it appears that even that new product has all kinds of faults things get really frustrating. For some brands like AzBox and Dr. HD I have eventualle served as an advisor to report further faults in their products, but then I had to find out that all of this (unpaid) work still didn't lead to the intended results and that the whole product was then abandoned by the manufacturers.
From this I have learnt a lot. When I see that a manufacturer puts a product on the market that is not fully developed I am most hesitant to spend any time at all to it. Simply because in many, many situations the issues that developed seemed unresolvable. And not because they are by definition unresolvable, the Dr. HD Grand Triple receiver for instance does work OK with Usals 1.0 but never ever functioned properly on Usals 1.1 and never was able to work faulless on Usals (DiSEqC 1.2 = rotor) installations. I have spent more than 2 years corresponsing back and forth between the makers in Ireland and in Hong Kong about this without them really admitting the faults of the receiver but keeping issuing new software hoping that it would finally resolve the issue. But it never did.
This all to say that I am particularly touchy about products of which I hear from all kinds of people that they have problems in one way or another while the manufacturer himself tends to play the problems down trying to build confidence while in reality that confidence is not based upon facts. To take the example of the ASC1: When I see that more than 2 years after our discussion I read on satelliteguys.us a statement from our late friend Rainer saying
Titanium ASC1 Latest Update
July 30, 2016 • 36 posts • 2876 views
C-BAND Satellite Discussion
#29 -
Ponny
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Rainer Schulz (Ponny) Hello Gohl, the latest software version is the worst of all versions. When Ajay only counting error. SMR 1224 on reduction of the motor voltage to 12V by an auxiliary power supply is one ...
It's to me very obvious that I was right to be reluctant (to put it mildly) when it came to reviewing this ASC1 box. If even two years later the issues weren't resolved (and I have of coursde no idea if they meanwhile are) it should have stated bluntly on your site that
"this product is not (yet) suitable for owners of (some types) of AJAK H2H mounts" to be credible in my eyes.
Same for the thing about the C-Band PLL LNB's. Sure, I feel sorry for you when you're confronted with the problems you mentioned but of this means that it can't be delivered for a substantial amount of time I expect that to be reflected on your website. It should have said
"Sorry, this product is not available at the present time, we expect it to become available again at xx-xx-20xx".
I don't blaim you for thinking at a given moment that I may be "one of those guys who try to get free stuff from you". You can't know our market nor our reviewers. But that's not the issue in this case as you confirmed. My problem is that I take a certain responsibility when I recommand a certain product. I don't want to then be gutted by complaints by my readers. I've always been very, very careful not to get into that position because it destroys one's credibility. I am not involved in any commercial enterprise like some of my collegues who write favorable reports not based upon products but based upon what amount of advertising space is sold to the manufacturer or wholesale dealer of a product.
At the other hand, I also have
NEVER EVER bad mouthed any product in public. Products that are sent to me which I find to be faulty are never discussed by me in any publication. Instead I write a letter to the sender telling them of my negative findings asking if this is typical for the product. Sometimes it leads to silence, other times to discussions or the reception of a second sample when they are convinced that they sent a "monday sample" the first time. And for this I think I also have a pretty fair reputation among manufacturers and supplyers, I feel that if someone takes the trouble to send something for an evaluation he shouldn't be at a disadvantage compared to companies who don't bother to get their stuff evaluated. So bad news is no news and doesn't get published, at least not by me. I never ever wrote a negative review.
Like I said, quickly reading the conversation between is I see nothing that I wouldn't still say today. Except perhaps I expressed myself too strongly using words like "cussed". In the above email exchange I saw nothing of this back so based on that I offer my apologies. I did feel rather insulted by your claim of unprofessionalism - I am very proud of my profession - and I think my memory was also influenced by some ways I saw a few complaining people on this forum treated. But of course I have absolutely no way of either remembering exactly whom it involved nor how I could find that back on this site so much time later on so please leave this as being a subjective memory.
I have no idea how you percieve my words and explanations but this is the honest truth about how I felt and still feel. Honesty about possible negative aspects is of importance to you in terms of your reputation, but also for me as a reviewer. I cannot possibly know everyone who either seeks my advice or lodges a complaint so I must be absolutely sure that the source from whom they purchased their products is 100% truthful when it comes to possible drawbacks of their products.
Later on I saw that Rainer did sell your ASC 1 box as a way to control the EGIS Robothead, a product of which I have been a part of developing, in the early NITEC days when it got in the hands of mr. Hamacher-Schwieren under the name HAMCO SAT and later with Ing. Dieter Meixner (who over the many years became a very good personal friend of mine) under the name EGIS. Of course I have a couple of these dual motor rotators on our testing ground as well but I never contacted you again because of this whole AJAK controversy. As a journalist I get paid very little and therefore I must limit my reviews to products of which I expect to be able to write a nice and therefore favorable article, preferably in several different publications. If not I have only spent a lot of time and importation costs without earning a penny back for the review I then can't write when it is not recommendable. And please believe me when I tell you that I really am not searching for any more equipment than I already have. I do update of course when it's necessary to stay up to date but in general terms there's no need whatsoever to do so just for the fun of it.
Best wishes, and thanks for this discussion,
Paul.
]" I can assure you that he or she could have had to clear out his desk
