I sent him an email with the title "you have lost a hundred thousand dollars", text as follows

I work at a company making software for digital set top boxes and had purhcased an MX1000 for home use. At home, we like the hardware, but we have been fustrated by the lack of macros, punch through, and programmability for the hard buttons. I bought on faith, because your company promised updates to the OS and software, and was even conducting polls for new features.

At work, we are evaluating universal remotes for our digital set top box studios and will probably be buying dozens, if not hundreds, universal devices. The person who is making the purchasing decision asked my opinion of the MX1000 and I advised him not to buy from your company but stick with the new Pronto which is his first choice.
If I'd recommended the MX1000 he would have gone with my recommendation. HTM has lost at least a hundred thousand dollars on this. Probably I'm going to be given a Pronto plus for my home use and will throw out your device.

I think it would behoove you to pay attention to this user community. They could greatly benefit your company.

I don't own a MX-1000 so I can't comment on the hardware or software, but I did a search on the forum for MX-1000 threads (those that contain 'MX-1000').

There were 622 seperate threads (last week) written by more than 350 unique writers. There are also 22 user reviews, of which 75% criticize the software. Bottom line, how many people think it's really terrible? If it's only 20 or 30 customers that are really complaining, out of how many, possibly thousands, I'm not sure URC would think additional changes are necessary. Maybe you're asking for capibilities not intended for the MX-1000.

The fact that BB is now selling the MX-1000 and that URC still shows it as their flagship product on their website indicates that they don't think there is a problem with the product or it's usability.

I have contacted Mike Gifford at URC (HTM) and he has always responded quickly and courteously (regarding the MX-500 and SL-9000). In fact, the changes made to the MX-500 'GS' hardware within a month or so of product introduction showed a level of customer support uncommon in any industry.

The request to open the MX-1000 software code to the public (a few people) for a still current product could be asking for trouble. The testing necessary to 'bug proof' any software product is monumental (and I know that this group thinks the software is 'buggy' as it is).

My experience with URC (via e-mail and phone calls - Mike Gifford called me related to a SL-9000 question) has been as good as possible. I agree that a response from URC should be sent and when received, accepted but don't ask for the immpossible.

Tom

This message was edited by Tom taylor on 04/29/02 15:13.34.

Sorry John, I guess you can send me the doctors bill to fix them disfigured fingers of yours! I shall phrase my posts more carefully in the future. (I was very impressed with your nose typing though!)

Tom: While there only seems to be a small proportion of (constantly?) complaining MX-1000 owners, there is in fact a large number that over time have given up on th MX-1000 altogether (See Johns Post above) because of the software. We are all in agreement tht the Hardware is up there with the best, but the Software needs some tweeking. We are also aware that the capabilities of the MX-1000 software can not be infinite, and are willing to accept any limitations that are known/found by URC.

But you outlined our dilema in your post above.

"I have contacted Mike Gifford at URC (HTM) and he has always responded quickly and courteously (regarding the MX-500 and SL-9000). In fact, the changes made to the MX-500 'GS' hardware within a month or so of product introduction showed a level of customer support uncommon in any industry."

The Fact that MX-500 owners get the red carpet treatment time and time again (sour grapes I know...) sort of gets annoying when your "Top of the Line" remote remains untouched. If URC were to state that the MX-1000 was not to receive any further Software upgrades, I think we would all cope somehow... but its the long drawn out "no-comment" thing that causes us to constantly whinge!

Tom:

Thank you for volunteering to use your outstanding URC contacts, vendor relationship management, and reliable email receptivity to contact John Davis on our behalf to get a resolution to this MX-1000 debacle. I am positive it's all our fault, that we haven't given URC a chance these several years, and that all our emailers have reception problems. Your generous help is appreciated.

= Joe =

Joe,

My post did not indicate any 'contacts' with URC other than Mike Gifford as a customer service rep. I also stated that URC should respond and let the MX-1000 community know URC's position regarding your complaints. And I never indicated that the problems are the user's fault.

If there are more than 350 threads written by different MX-1000 users and 15 negative reviews (re: software), that's not a disimilar negative percentage from other remote reviews.

The problem seems to be that a very vocal small group of people are doing all of the complaining. If you read the various threads, and there are software complaints, contact these people and enlarge your complaint base. Ask them all to post reviews and allow you to use their names in communication to Mr. Davis.

This would take a little time but you're not getting anywhere with the current approach. If you get enough people with similar complaints, you should get a response. The MX-1000 issues have not hurt URC with respect to members of this forum since there seems to be a large number of MX-500 buyers.

Tom

Tom, I think this was meant sarcastically.

Randy
www.BlueDo.com

Randy,

I took it that way but I didn't want to upset anyone. BTW, I did send an e-mail to Mr. Davis asking him to respond to the issues expressed on the forum.

At the least, he should do that.

Tom

Tom:

I commend you on your writing skills, and perhaps drumming up more complainers could help.

However, I believe we've gone direct and expect that to be as fruitful an approach as anything. Drumming up more complainers seems like a deadend, since it's really up to URC to fix the issues. Remember, few complainers would stick around or care to throw good time after bad. Why waste money *and* time?

If we wanted to go indirect, I believe we could just start a class action lawsuit. However, ROI on that is just plain poor. Sure, $300 is too much money to burn on false advertising and promises, but there aren't that many of us for a niche product, so a lawsuit is heavyweight in expense and unlikely to result in fair support. URC has created a catch-22 in their favor (modulo the awful reputation).

Really, I'd say what we've already done has probably had the best odds of success. The ball has been in URC's court for some time. URC seems pretty much a dead horse on the MX-1000. I don't think a change of strategy on a dying product is going to revive it. URC has not indicated they care about complaints.

Once upon a time, one of the principals message was forwarded (posted directly?) indicating that every customer was appreciated, but that was immediately disproven as I responded directly with the MX-1000 issues to no avail (or response). I believe others had identical experiences.

It would be cool (downgrade from great for lack of timeliness) if URC were to perk up and respond at this stage, but I believe the MX-1000 is just the walking dead right now. That's why it seems so unsavory that Best Buy has *just* picked up the product (according to posts here). The trajectory for this product is down at this stage. I suspect even the 'dreaded' open source solution couldn't save it now.

-=-

The real shame is how good the hardware form factor is. There have been reports that the underlying electronics have some crippling shortcomings, but URC doesn't seem to appreciate the design of the unit as a whole to upgrade it in h/w or s/w. Of course, a good base of s/w would readily support a next generation unit. Opportunity lost to build the best RC, and to create a powerful influential and satisfied base of users.

Shame on URC. Too bad for RC'dom.

= Joe "beating a dead horse" Grace =

P.s., what would happen if URC released an upgraded MX-1000 (MX-2002?) and open sourced some crappy (but functionally robust) software for it? That would be interesting... in my dreams. What if another company released such a beast. Hehe. I'd say we probably would have best luck trying to influence future designs rather than get URC to support the MX-1000. (My guess, opinion.)

This message was edited by occam on 05/01/02 15:16.47.

Am I misunderstanding what you're suggesting? Because I thought that's what Harvey and I have already done.

A lot of people don't like to "complain," so they won't. And as I mentioned before, a number of MX-1000 owners are financially able to just toss their remote into a drawer and buy something else. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked every MX-1000 owner how they feel about MX Designer, a huge majority of them would not give a very favorable opinion, even if they really like the remote overall. It's a well known fact that MX Designer is beta quality software which hasn't been updated in more than a year, and I'm pretty sure that's why the MX-1000 hasn't sold very well.

Why don't you download the software and try it out for yourself? Then think to yourself, "If I paid $250 for a touchscreen remote and had to design the interface and program it with this software--which the company promised to provide updates for but didn't--would I be pleased?"

By the way, I've e-mailed URC a few times in the past year concerning the MX-1000, but never received a reply. I know that others have gotten the same result. People have mentioned a severely contrasting double-standard between URC's treatment of their MX-500 customers vs. their MX-1000 customers. They're not just making this up. Just be glad that you're an MX-500 customer!

This message was edited by John Corkery on 05/01/02 17:40.19.

Ok guys, the rhetoric is getting pretty fierce here now. Let's not turn on each other for the lack of a clear enemy to spar with. Complaining about others method of complaining is not very productive. We're getting pretty close to me telling you 'I want a pony' again.

You mean you haven't gotten one yet?

Greg, maybe we can start up a pony fund for Dobber!

This message was edited by John Corkery on 05/02/02 13:22.43.

Has anyone gotten a reply from URC??

It sure looks like URC is making a conscious effort to ignore its MX-1000 customers, so I guess it's time to hang it up.

Unbelievable!!

Not yet. I'm thinking of writing a fake email claiming to be an MX-500 user with a 'serious problem' and see if I get a response.

I'm just curious - what happens when you call them? Their phone number is listed plainly on their homepage: 1-(800)-901-0800

If I call that number, who should I ask for? The president of the company? I don't think this problem is something that URC's customer support department will be able to help anyone with.