I don't agree with your analogy about cars. You refer to the case of a Ford Fiesta fitted with a different engine. In computer terms that is equivalent to an individual adding his own patches to FS or XP. How many do that?A better analogy would be fitting the car with add-on accessories. No reputable dealer would reject a claim that the the exhaust didn't fit on the grounds that the owner had put go-faster stripes down the side of the car.If a developers states, as many do, what the software and hardware requirements are then the product should run if those requirements are met. If it doesn't then the purchaser is entitled to a refund.My proposal would eliminate the need to prove anything. The purchaser could get a refund and the developer could be sure the the purchaser hadn't stolen the product.The purchaser should have rights even when buying software over the internet. The UK/EU introduced "Distance Selling Regulations" because of the number of customers being ripped off.

That was what I was basically suggesting. You mentioned reduced features.

As Ron Hamilton said, this a good reason to buy products from Flight1. (No connection here, just a satisfied customer.) Working demos (such as Active Camera) are good too.

>As Ron Hamilton said, this a good reason to buy products from>Flight1. (No connection here, just a satisfied customer.)>Working demos (such as Active Camera) are good too.We weren't pushing the F1 wrapper as much as addressing this somewhat "old" discussion. These issues have been debated ad infinitum in older threads all over the net.The fact remains that the current delivery systems and addressing of customer satisfaction issues work well when there is GOOD WILL between the Vendor and Customer.If such GOOD WILL is not present, then no amount of tweaking of current systems will suffice to satisfy users.:-)

Absolutely, F1 has the best system hands down (and I also am a satisfied customer), I reckon returns would be rare given the quality of their product range. Those that don't have that 30-day policy should really think about demoing their product, it's in their long-term interest as well as the consumers.

>Most mainstream software companies from MS, to Adobe to the>smaller niche-product companies have a time-limted,>feature-limited or number-of-uses-limted demo version. I>always wonder why the FS world should be any different?We are getting there.The system I've just developed for Cloud9 has just been updated to handle also fully functioning demo software.Right now, it works only with their recently released Amsterdam scenery, but it will soon extended to include all of Cloud9's product, both airplanes and sceneries. We are just finishing testing it, but it's basically ready.The demo is 100% the real thing: no features are missing, it just runs for a specific amount of time, then the product will be disabled until the next FS launch.In Amsterdam, for example, the scenery runs for 7 minutes at time, then it disappears. There's no limit to the number of times you use the trial, and there's no expiration date. You can have an infinite number of time limited trials, because the counter resets to 0 when restarting FS. And of course the duration can be tailored depending on the product. A trial for an airplane should probably last more.Also, the initial download is absolutely free to anyone, it doesn't require any kind of registration or data transfer. It can be included also in magazines with CD, for example. I think next issue of PC Pilot should include EHAM scenery demo in their cover CD.When the user is finally satisfied with the trial, he can decide to buy the product, directly from inside FS, and it will self-activate in a matter of seconds, without even requiring to restart FS.There are no problems of download links that last 3 days, sites that charge money to download again the installer if you lost it, no missed emails because your ISP has blocked that particular european provider. Not even the risk of mis-typing your email and not getting the product's keys because of this. In that case, the worse that can happen it's that you don't get the emailed receipt, but the product WILL be activated, because it doesn't require the user to receive anything back to activate it.So, I invite everybody to give it a try, and download EHAM from Cloud9's website...we would be happy to hear what you think of it.regards,Umberto Colapicchioni

Let me just chime in hear for a sec.I can probably be almost 99.9999999999% certain that if you're reading this right now, you know darn well what you're doing when you've downloaded anyone's software, some even knowing full well that it might not work well or have poor qualities. ####, i've even done it, and did it recently to boot.I can also tell you that since, what -- 2003 when we first started with LCY 03, that to this very second we maybe have had 2-3 actual hard core requests for refunds on any of our products. That's how I know that downloaders (this market and the ones who don't read the web), know what's going on before hand. Now, I'm sure there's also always a few out there who buy stuff, hate it, or can't get it to work, and just chalk it up to money lost and move on, and you never hear from them. That's unfortunate.My point is, I think the best approach here, if you're a download only company (as we are), with the exception of EGKA being included in the flying club CD package, is to have an "use at your own risk" or "no warranty" and/or "no refund" policy with the exception of: non delivery or non installation or some kind of defect (missing files, etc). Now I know that most reputable developers will also take things on a case by case basis, but you can't just have a blanket: money back guarantee for any reason policy as far as downloadable software is concerened. You guys are smart enough to figure out why. I don't think that demos are a good option either for the above reason I first mentioned. The bottom line still comes down to consumer responsilbity and the reputation of the company no matter how much you may want to mitigate your risk. And yes, we do proudly use the F1 wrapper.

>>Its not just the developers who choose the method its the>>customers too.>>>>That's only really true for those developers who offer their>customers alternative means.The alternative for the customer is not to make the purchase.Enough customers do it, the developers will get the message and reconsider their delivery method and their refund policy.But if most customers have faith that most of the time when they make a purchase the product will load and work they will not have a problem with the lack of a refund policy.To me the refund policy has zero effect on my buying decision. The company's history WRT to the quality of past products has effect on my decision to buy current and future products.Regards.Ernie.

Ernie,Now that's what I call consumer responsibility.However, I highly doubt that downloadables will go away. Look at the Steam engine and most other very very large file size games that aren't even FS related.CD's are way to costly and unless the product is just a huge blockbuster or the developer want's to advertise in large medians such as TV and newspapers, there's no reason for the developer to think he would gain financially. He might KNOW that he would probably even loose money in the short and long run. this applies mostly to add-ons and not all products, but you get the picture.

>but you can't just have a blanket: money back guarantee for any >reason policy as far as downloadable software is concerened.The UK/EU Distance Selling Regulations give the consumer an absolute right to cancel for any reason for goods bought over the internet. There are exceptions which include the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer.As you say there are good reasons for this but I suggest that until a customer has downloaded a key for the software it is still sealed and with an entitlement to a refund. My suggestion would extend the period during which a refund could be claimed to bring it in line wth acceptable practice.I understand what you say about reputable companies but sadly the Distance Selling Regulations were introduced because there was (and I suspect still is) a small but significant number of disreputable companies around. I regret that the "trust us we're reputable companies so we don't need regulating" argument was lost long ago as far as legal obligations are concerned.