In reply to:

The only reason you consider it to be defective is because they're planning on shipping a better version.

No, actually, I've been saying it right along. I'm one of the people who got them LOOKING at replacing the AR in the first place.

In reply to:

Your other point is well taken- is it cheaper to send out a bunch of $30.00 parts or to take returns on a $1500.00 product? That's really the root of the problem. Companies have to take cold, hard looks at questions like that. How likely will they get returns from customers in sunny climates? Are they willing to risk alienating customers and potential customers over it?

Actually, the real math works out to:

Where n(R) is the number of returns, and n(S) is the number sold:

Is ( 1500*n(R) > 30*n(S) )

If the answer is yes, then the math is an easy no-brainer. You do it, because, for no other reason, sending the hardware is a mathematical success.

Where the above equation is NOT true, then you have to modify it to include n(pS), the number of POTENTIAL (but lost) sales and do:

( 1500*(n(R)+n(pS)) > 30*n(S) )

In THAT scenario, it almost always works out to be beneficial to send the replacement hardware as well.

On the issue of inventory... that's a whole different thing... saying "we've got these coming, and we're trying to ration everything so that we minimize the number of non-AR panels that go out on units, while still replacing the non-AR's that are out there at no charge, so it may take longer to get it to you". That's a FAR cry from what we're hearing now, which is "bite us, if you don't like the non-AR, cough up currency".

D