Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 19:00:17 11/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2004 at 21:21:24, Robert Pawlak wrote: > >>Where does this leave ChessPartner and Lex Loep? The latest ChessPartner >>connects to ICC fine. >> >>Have you heard any such comments from ICC, Lex? >> > >Lex has not started his own chess server. And I am sure that each company has >its own agreement, they may or may not be the same. > >Bob Exactly what I was hoping to flush out. The choice to start a new chess server has now punished those who currently use the software for a client for other commercial chess servers. Casting the blame on ICC for not wanting to license their competitor is a bit unreasonable -- would Convekta Ltd. not do the same if the roles were totally reversed? I guess the plan is to capture database users of Chess Assistant to sign up for this new server or convert/earn new business from other server users. However, not making the information available (or difficult to read/understand) to potential customers of their non-ICC support in version 8 was sneaky at best. I'd probably re-assess that decision as a customer is in their full right of their credit cardmember agreement to chargeback an item that was not delivered as initially presented. As a software re-seller in the past, I know chargebacks are a very big problem for software re-sellers and developers that sell directly to the public. I think Ed can attest to this as well. I don't lay blame for the Convekta Ltd. folks to want to start a new server for increased profit potential -- hell, everyone seems to want to start a chess server these days. However, doing so obviously hurts some of their customers and misrepresentation of features (removed) to retain sales to those affected group of customers is quite displeasing -- whether purposely or negligently. -elc.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.