] [Thread Prev
Re: Some info about the Repeater mk2 (not much, though :)
you know, i wonder if what the guru says about their newest technical
problems are real or if they are just buying time with making up these
as chester666 responded to the guru's tech problem news...
Electrix JUST found out about this??
Its true that compliance deadline is July of 2006. But...i got this
from a website:
The RoHS Directive (Restriction of Certain Hazardous Substances)
became law in the European Union countries in February 2003. Member
states must implement the law by August 2004 and product deadline for
compliance is July 2006."
in other words, this was news in 2003 (3 years ago) and they just
found this out now? that sounds a little fishy to me...
is the world going to end because of the repeater's delay? nah, but
what Electrix has to worry about now is people are getting fed up with
the repeater's late due date, and people are starting to get their
money back and check out other looping devices, and granted the
repeater MkII is spec'ed out to be pretty cool, there also are some
really cool loopers out there already, and people are going to be
looking elsewhere...by the time the repeater MkII comes out, i bet
that at least 50% of the people who were dead-set on buying a repeater
when it was first announced will be perfectly happy with something
else...just my thoughts :)
On 6/12/06, Jeff Shirkey <email@example.com> wrote:
> > If the Repeater never surfaces again, will the world be any more
> > diminished?
> The issue is that they announced new products, took money from
> customers (or, more to the point, many retailers did), and have kept
> people completely in the dark. I'd say that's reason enough to be a
> little irked.
> > spelling it out in tabloid detail, allow them at least, a bit of
> > corporate
> > face saving, rather than hold them up to the same standards as a
> > company
> > like Roland with much deeper pockets,
> I don't think anyone is asking for tabloid detail. But periodic
> (quarterly??) updates would be nice. At the very least it would show
> some genuine concern for potential customers--not to mention good
> faith on their part. I don't think that's asking too much.