Classic Shipping Tomorrow?

[JJoyce]

Ok guys, it's now official.

Spring Design's request for a preliminary injunction was denied by order of Judge Ware (presiding judge) a little bit ago.

That should remove any legal hurdles for B&N shipping the device.

[kennyc]

That sounds like good news!

[Kolenka]

Good to hear. I'm a ways down the pre-order list (Dec 11th), but hopefully this still gives me a chance to see one in person before mine ships.

[tautologico]

Before people think I'm trolling: I'm just as curious to see how the nook turns out as anyone else here. I even stated in another thread that I want it to succeed; it's not even in the market yet and it already pushed Amazon to release features that were being requested for long (PDF support, organization features next year).

But what I find intriguing in this whole business are the shipping dates. Of the people who had orders supposedly going out 11/30, some were pushed to 12/09, while others to 12/14. If the delay was really caused just by legal trouble, why this? If they had the devices ready for shipping some days ago, they still would have them ready by 12/09 or whatever date the lawyers decided it was safe to ship. So I think that although the Spring process may have played a role in the delays, there is more to this case.

[Abulia]

I think we'll never know and baseless speculation, while amusing, just isn't material to discussing the merits of the device. I don't see missing an estimated ship date by one week as cause for alarm. Everything else seems to be tied to supply constraints.

Some people, myself included, ordered without seeing the device. The features, functionality, and price point were enough for me to "risk" trying the nook, sight unseen. Perhaps that was a bad idea. For everyone else...just wait. Play with one in the store or wait for reviews. A few weeks isn't the end of the world.

Seems to be much ado about nothing, IMO.

[abookreader]

I'm not getting a nook but I hope people start receiving them soon because I'm curious to see what actual people who have used a real nook have to say.

I've done the fake-nook in the store with the nice and tries hard employee who has never seen a real nook either ..... and I just didn't get my questions answered.

So all you nookers start nooking soon and report back!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I'm sure there have been deliberate detractors, and it's a shame. I don't know if you're referring to to Kindle section on MR or Amazon's own. The great thing about MR has always been that there was very little of that--but it takes a conscious effort from everyone to keep it from spreading.

I don't understand why any of it has to be us-vs.-them. Frankly, I hope every device on the market succeeds spectacularly. With luck, e-book reading devices will become widely-supported commodities to the point where the choice of hardware makes little difference. Heck, it's almost there already.

while you are having a good time hunting about for my supposed spite, you seem to have missed me likening the eager recepients to kids on christmas morning, and ME being excited to share that with them

B&N jumped in this water with a HUGE preverication and that has indeed tainted my view ever since. if you are having a hard time with straight talk, well, sorry as the dickens 'bout that

Originally Posted by Kolenka

What about the first time Kindle buyers who got bit by Amazon's inexperience in developing and manufacturing electronic devices? If we slam B&N for this, Amazon should be in the same boat (this is where I get into the pot/kettle remarks). It took Amazon the 2nd revision to not run into shipping problems.

I was literally living on a mountain with little outside contact and no internet. I had no idea that was going on
If the issues related to the preliminary hearings are true, this is very likely not even a case of B&N tweaking the device until it ships, but rather lawyers giving B&N advice on how to behave in order not to get hammered by the judge, which is what good lawyers do. What happens in a court can cause even the best laid plans to make an about face and walk off a cliff at a moment's notice.
and this is most of what I am talking about now. my Dad was a lawyer. I've witnessed most of this type of thing firsthand and know the hell he would be going through if he had advised his client... "no worries! go ahead and launch!" when I was growing up, that's called career suicideI am

Originally Posted by abookreader

I'm not getting a nook but I hope people start receiving them soon because I'm curious to see what actual people who have used a real nook have to say.


So all you nookers start nooking soon and report back!

I'm looking forward to it as well. I just don't do well with corporate lying

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'm looking forward to it as well. I just don't do well with corporate lying

Prove the lie. As this is a case of proving a positive, go ahead and prove it.

From our vantage point, we lack the evidence to show what B&N's motives here were. The court, by denying the preliminary injunction goes far enough to say that it can't make such a snap judgement on B&N's motives. How are we, the bystanders supposed to be able to make such a snap judgement on less information than what the court had?

My problem with your posting hasn't been the 'straight talk', it's been the claims against B&N's behavior that don't have the logical reasoning behind them to back up your claims. It isn't any better than venting or insulting the company because they missed a date, and certainly isn't 'straight talk'. It is an opinion based upon a belief of what you see in their motives.

As B&N announced the nook, and set the launch date before the lawsuit happened, it's hard to say that B&N decided to 'lie' about being able to launch on Nov 30th. Perhaps they were expecting Spring Design to come to the negotiating table in good faith, or that the preliminary hearings would be earlier (or later).

[kindlekitten]

it's lying by omission

they started with the lending

then it's the release date

next who knows what?

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it's lying by omission

they started with the lending

then it's the release date

next who knows what?

Okay, so you've made your claims more specific, but this sort of reasoning can be called "Begging the question". You use claims that they lied, to say that they lied. And topping it off with that question doesn't help make the argument any more valid either.

What did they say that was a lie about the lending? They said the following the day of the announcement:

- Only some books will be enabled, and they will be marked in the eBook store so you know before you buy.
- These books can only be lent once.

Now. It may not be an ideal arrangement, but answering the specifics during Q&As with the press after the on-stage announcement doesn't strike me as a lie. A 20-30 minute demo on stage isn't exactly the ideal place to get into the nitty/gritty of every feature of a new product when you have one on one demos and Q&A sessions with the press literally minutes afterwards.

How can we prove that the release date was a lie (i.e. deception said with intent)? And this is a serious question. We've got more mundane explanations that don't require malice on the part of B&N employees (multiple employees mind you), just a lack of foresight as to how Spring Design would react, and the advice a legal firm would give them in response to the lawsuit. If we assume that the inability to accurately predict the future 100% is more common than malice in society, Occam's Razor tells us that the lawsuit's timing for hearings (and the attempt at the preliminary injunction) is a more likely reason for the shipping delays than something else that B&N was lying about.

[kindlekitten]

it took them NUMEROUS emails and direct questions at the B&N forum to admit that the lending was only once EVER!!!! I came extremely close to ordering the nook prior to that, and I know I am not the only one. that is indeed a preverication.

see those skis on my feet? I ordered them prior to an event my ski school takes in Canada periodically. I was signed up for several training clinics and was spending a good deal of money on making sure they got to me in time. I waited and waited, my car pool got here and I just had to go without those skis. I was terribly terribly upset. literally as we were leaving the driveway the UPS truck met us. I had to have my bindings mounted at the ski area but I had them. the manufacturer met their promise and got those skis to me when they said they would. to break that promise is a lie. "shipping date November 30th".... that's a promise. go back and look at all those fine folks whose credit cards have been charged based upon a ship date.

if you are part of a roll out team, you have your i's dotted and your t's crossed. it's akin to writing a check. you don't issue a check without their being the corresponding funds in the bank. you don't promise the delivery of goods without having them in hand. that is beyond manufacturing delays, pending court cases, that means LOOK AT THAT WAREHOUSE!!! IT IS FULL OF NOOKS READY TO SHIP! this isn't the little engine that could "can you deliver those nooks little engine?" "I think I can, I think I can." this is business. if you are playing fast and loose with the details, or lying or prevaricating, if you are in business, you deserve to be called on it.

[kennyc]

The little nook that could. I feel a book, maybe an ebook, coming on...

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it took them NUMEROUS emails and direct questions at the B&N forum to admit that the lending was only once EVER!!!! I came extremely close to ordering the nook prior to that, and I know I am not the only one. that is indeed a preverication.

The information was available from articles on the nook within 24 hours of the announcement (including the WSJ article discussing it posted the day after the press announcement). This is very likely a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing (very common in larger organizations). Again, without evidence of intent, there isn't evidence of a lie here.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

see those skis on my feet? I ordered them prior to an event my ski school takes in Canada periodically. I was signed up for several training clinics and was spending a good deal of money on making sure they got to me in time. I waited and waited, my car pool got here and I just had to go without those skis. I was terribly terribly upset. literally as we were leaving the driveway the UPS truck met us. I had to have my bindings mounted at the ski area but I had them. the manufacturer met their promise and got those skis to me when they said they would. to break that promise is a lie. "shipping date November 30th".... that's a promise. go back and look at all those fine folks whose credit cards have been charged based upon a ship date.

Point me to someone who actually got their CC charged rather than the temporary authorization. Under the law, they can do the authorization, but they can't actually charge until they are shipping the product (I think the window is 5 days or so that you have to ship a product after charging it, depending on local law that governs the region your company operates in). I've not seen reports of people getting charged on the 30th for product that didn't ship.

This lovely logical fallacy is one I enjoy: Affirming the consequent. You claim that because they broke a promise, it was a lie. Now, you have some overlap that yes, a lie can mean you intend to break a promise, but it doesn't mean that breaking a promise = a lie. If I promise to meet you at 5pm somewhere, and get hit by a truck walking over there, it doesn't mean I lied. I may have broken the promise due to circumstances only partially under my control, but the missing thing is the intent.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

if you are part of a roll out team, you have your i's dotted and your t's crossed. it's akin to writing a check. you don't issue a check without their being the corresponding funds in the bank. you don't promise the delivery of goods without having them in hand. that is beyond manufacturing delays, pending court cases, that means LOOK AT THAT WAREHOUSE!!! IT IS FULL OF NOOKS READY TO SHIP! this isn't the little engine that could "can you deliver those nooks little engine?" "I think I can, I think I can." this is business. if you are playing fast and loose with the details, or lying or prevaricating, if you are in business, you deserve to be called on it.

Using your own example here: if I have a warehouse full of product ready to ship, does it mean I can actually ship if I have a lawyer and judge telling me I can't or I face stiff fines? Does it matter if I have the stock in hand or not if I am prevented (for whatever reason) from sending out that stock?

Again, you continually state your claim that they are lying without providing the required proof that the lie happened. If they are indeed lying, sure, they deserve to be called on it. But give us the proof of the lie, which is to say, the intent.

This is similar to the distinction between manslaughter and murder. Say for the sake of argument in an act where I throw knives at a spinning board where my lovely assistant is strapped to that same board... and I manage to hit them in the chest and they bleed out, well, that is just tragic. But what makes murder (a lie in this case) different from an accidental death that I am responsible for none the less is the intent. If I threw that dagger into their chest with the intent of making them bleed out, I'm a murderer. If I threw it and missed my real target (the balloon next to their chest), then I'm an idiot who made a really big mistake and made my poor assistant's family (the nook buyers in this example) really, really pissed at me.

[kindlekitten]

you know what? all I have is the anecdotal evidence from this board. maybe they're all liars? as far as I know that is all of the evidence you have as well. to me everything points to a company that got the big head and initiated a roll out before they were ready. that's corporate irresponsibility. right now this entire PLANET is suffering from a hell of a lot of corporate irresponsibility and just letting things slide. maybe I put the bar a little higher than you do. maybe I expect people to live up to their word.

it is quite obvious that we have different professional ethics. just move on

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you know what? all I have is the anecdotal evidence from this board. maybe they're all liars?

I don't have to call those people liars. I read that they got the temp authorization. I had the same happen when I placed my pre-order... when I pre-order with other retailers (Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, etc, etc).

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

as far as I know that is all of the evidence you have as well.

Exactly my point. With a lack of evidence, you claim malice. My claim is that there are plenty of less malicious reasons for the same thing, and that lack of evidence is not enough to condemn a company for violating ethics.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

to me everything points to a company that got the big head and initiated a roll out before they were ready. that's corporate irresponsibility. right now this entire PLANET is suffering from a hell of a lot of corporate irresponsibility and just letting things slide. maybe I put the bar a little higher than you do. maybe I expect people to live up to their word.

If a company is willfully polluting the atmosphere, our drinking water, and sending all its jobs overseas... that's one thing. But slipping a shipping date in the midst of an aggressive schedule to make it in time for Christmas shopping and a lawsuit smacking them upside the head? That's a different ballpark. Maybe enough to rethink doing business with, sure... but not what I'd consider boycott worthy, IMO (although I'd certainly boycott a company being irresponsible in ways that create a tragedy of the commons).

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it is quite obvious that we have different professional ethics. just move on

There is a difference between ethics and performance. You are assuming that I tolerate B&N lying. I wouldn't. I just don't treat them like they did until I have evidence of that. Yes, B&N underperformed here, made mistakes. Perhaps that is enough for some people to say "that's not for me", and that'd be just fine. But that isn't what you have been saying. You've been accusing B&N of intentionally misleading and lying to potential customers.

My own foray into the world of big business has afforded me an interesting view: one where an entire company can be condemned by the actions of one stupid employee making a miscalculation, or just outright bad judgement. And no, I've not seen these folks keep their jobs afterwards. Trust is an important thing, even in the business world, otherwise business partnerships could never work. And even Microsoft lives and dies by their business partnerships in the end.