Again, fair point, I could totally see how some would feel that way. I personally wouldn't be comfortable equating moving the figurative goalposts as intentionally lying though.
If it's not lying (as in knowing you won't hit a deadline, but stating it unambiguously, and NOT as an estimate), then it's repeated incompetence. You can't repeatedly make the same mistake and have it not be one or the other. You're either aware that you won't hit the stated deadline, but state it anyway (a lie), or you're not aware, despite never hitting the deadline (incompetence, failure to learn from mistakes). Is there any other way to interpret it?
Some have alleged that though, but when asked their short on details. Is the purchaser not responsible for researching something before sending their money over the internet?
Do you never buy anything from a professional looking business, assuming that their stated delivery policies are accurate? The vast majority of online purchases I've ever made came through on time. And those that didn't were the exception to the rule. Survive literally never delivers on time, so far as anyone's been able to ascertain.
Sure, caveat emptor, but at some point it becomes a bad business practice, and people have every right and are in the right to decry it.
I thought the times given were pretty easy to understand, as estimates, not check the mail on X date. If they had no deadline would you have still bought one?
I quickly learned about the estimated delivery of the 4.1 being highly improbable, so cancelled that order. The factory second monday sales were a different story. At the point of sale, those bore a hard statement not anything that could be remotely construed as an estimate that they'd deliver within a specified timeframe. They did not. Subsequently, specific commitments were made by Survive, to me (and others), via private communication. Also missed. That, again, is either deception or incompetence. What is the alternate interpretation of this pattern, if not those?
No: on the second purchase I made, I would not have purchased without the hard stated timeline. Therefore, missing it was either deception or failure on their part.
I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion I'm just trying to clarify my view, as for some reason it seems folks are willing to forgive a lot of ambiguity and shiftiness from this company, that wouldn't remotely be tolerated from another business.
How is it rotten, infuriating to some sure, if this has no effect on the quality of the end product? Were you not sold on the knife, not the wait times?
I was sold both, in fact. When you sell anything as a business, and make commitments to how your product is delivered, the entire experience is what's being purchased along with the product (warranties are in the same category of 'value-adds' or 'stated parameters' to a product).
If you consistently state that you'll do something as a business, and consistently don't, how exactly is that
not rotten? How is that acceptable customer service?
Answer: according to just about every customer protection and trade entity in the world, it isn't. It's a failure to deal with your customers ethically and honestly.
