That Complete F'kin Idiot's Recent "bought locally at retail" Comments

Concept: 0 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: I don't support link-bait; use google if you must.

The Long Version: Last week the worst individual in photography blogging, someone who has enthusiastically and unapologetically misled and misinformed for years, may have finally jumped the shark. Circa August 14th, 2012, he wrote:

'As usual, most of the people who have shifted focus-points [sic], dead-pixels [sic] or other 'widespread' problems are people who bought locally at retail. Your local dealer or chain lacks the volume of [REDACTED] and other huge online sellers, so they don't get the "A" stock that [REDACTED] does. That's another reason I buy from [REDACTED]: they don't get stuck with the samples with defects sent out to local retail stores with a lot less buying-power than the major online powerhouses.'

Obviously, I've modified the quotation somewhat, but the source is easy enough to find and specifically identifies only one retailer, whose name rhymes with 'Hadorama'. It continues:

'As a general rule, if Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever [sic] have a few thousand cameras not quite [sic] perfect, but nowhere bad enough [sic] to scrap, they don't get sent to the top couple of dealers who sell millions and millions and millions of cameras. They customarily go to the dealers that sell only tens of thousands of cameras.'

I love conspiracy theories because they're usually unfathomably stupid, and this one is a shining example. Even setting aside all of the absurdly nefarious allegations, what he's alleging is that from the management of the quality-control division to the order pickers in warehouses and distribution centres across the globe, there is a way to identify and track units with substandard performance and choose their specific end destinations. From companies that can't meet their shipping dates in the first place.

Think about the simple logistics of this for a few minutes. This secret stock-tracking system has to be easy enough that everyone in the supply chain can use it, but precise enough to direct individual cameras in an industry that sells over a hundred and forty million units a year. That level of accuracy, let alone specificity, would be astonishing: I've never seen an inventory control system that could even keep an accurate count of the total units after a few months of shipments.

Meanwhile, this global and industry-wide deceptive business practice is enforced under a strict code of silence despite the breadth and scope of the operation. All for a mere 'few thousand units'. Does anyone really believe that 'Nikon or Canon or Sony' – or whomever – are that competent, let alone that motivated?

So with all of that out of the way, I have to admit that what I'm really fascinated by is that this link-hungry troll-whoring novice-exploiting equipmibater might have actually realized that he went too far. After all, while his opinions are frequently unfounded, they usually range only from plausible to merely wrong, and don't extend to such outrageously self-serving allegations of fraud.

While the original text remains easy to find elsewhere, the relevant passage on his personal site has been quietly changed. The entry now reads:

'As usual, most of the people who have shifted focus-points, dead-pixels or other "widespread" problems seem to have been people who tended to have bought locally at retail. I've never had any of these problems buying from [REDACTED], [REDACTED] or [REDACTED], but when people call me wondering why my phone number is in their camera, these have been people silly enough to have bought at a huge electronics chain. (Someone loaded my settings file into a camera, and then the store resold it as new, at full price.)'

All this grafted-on second idea really means is that 'huge electronics chains' aren't bright enough to properly reset a camera, and that his readers are the people dumb enough to shop at said big-box unit-shifters. (Please note that this is something he and I actually agree on.) On the other hand, my local electronics store regularly has "open box specials". I wonder what happens to the cameras that The Affiliated Three get back under their long no-risk return periods. Perhaps they're taken out back and shredded to ensure that they're never resold?

'Local dealers and retail chains lack the volume of the huge online sellers, so they probably don't get the pick of the best stock that the huge online dealers get. That's another reason I buy from [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]: I doubt they get stuck with samples with defects possibly sent out to local retail stores with a lot less buying-power than the major online powerhouses. I doubt any known bad cameras ever get shipped, but if they do, who knows.'

Notice how he's shifted from alleging outright deception and conspiracy to a more bucolic 'the pick of the best stock', as if we're looking through produce at the local market instead of consumer electronics that ship by the skid. But while he no longer names names, he's not willing to back off the idea entirely – at least, not until the last sentence, where he completely folds. 'I doubt any known bad cameras ever get shipped…'

So he's engaged in blatant FUD-mongering for the sake of driving sales to the links that fund his site, all while swearing that he's unbiased because he doesn't evaluate demo units from manufacturers. (That is at least partially true: sometimes he evaluates nothing at all in the course of writing his reviews.) And when the going gets tough, when there's a stand to take, he silently edits out the worse of his lies and just leaves behind a nasty, slimy trail of insinuation.

I used to have a live-and-let-live attitude. But I work part-time in a locally owned camera store, and spent many years working in high-value warehouses before that. Not only do I know that he's wrong, I take his snide and self-serving allegations as a personal attack against my own professionalism, knowledge, and skill: it's much more than 'just' an attack that's directed at my employer, trying to drive away customers from a legitimate business that continues to exist alongside those who fund his imaginary off-shore tax-exempt empire. As far as I can see, that makes his supporters, admirers – and yes, affiliate retailers – worthy of all of the scorn and derision that used to be reserved for him alone.

Updated 21 August: Never let it be said that I'm not willing to publicly correct myself when I go too far. I've been having a conversation via Twitter with Helen Oster, a Customer Service Ambassador with Adorama. She has used phrases like 'absolutely, completely 100% not true', calls it 'pure conjecture' and puts 'his "facts"' in quotation marks. So forget that bit about subjecting his affiliates to scorn and derision – based on my small inquiries, they're not playing along with this absurd foolishness.

last updated 31 august 2012
updated lead photo

Motorola RAZR V3 Cellular Telephone

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: Has the whole world gone mad?

The Long Version: I'm one of those people who was caught by the ultra-thin form factor of the Motorola Razor, or as the hip call it, MOTORAZR. It looked like no phone before it, and even though it wasn't actually much smaller, its thinness was revolutionary and so much more modern than those blocky ones that it sat next to on the display shelves. It was an expensive phone, but the price-with-contract was good enough to get me off of my grandfathered billed-by-the-second plan into a contract that had less features and was more expensive. It was also the first contract I had signed for phone service, so I also wasn't anticipating the massive drop in customer service that came with being locked into one company. But I had my new phone, and it was good.

It was the beginning of the end.

I've had my Motorola phone for two years, eleven months, one week and six days. I know this because there's a hundred dollar penalty if I up and leave before the full three years is served. So three years and one day from when I signed that contract, I'm moving to a new company and getting a new phone.

When people ask me why I'm so enthusiastic about replacing my current phone with a new one, I tell them that it's an original 'Razr'. Whether they work for my provider, or my future provider, they just nod their heads in complete understanding.

The sound quality's not very good. The programming is bad. Menu options are in odd places. The screen can't be read in anything approaching daylight. The battery life was never very good, and after a year or so the rechargeables won't store enough power to get me though an easy day. The alarms can't be silenced without completely disabling them, meaning that it constantly needs to be reset for events that happen every day - like waking up in the morning. The chime on the low battery alarm can't be silenced without silencing the phone's ringers as well. Hitting a button to silence the ringer when I'm screening calls doesn't stop the phone from chirping at me to tell me that I missed a call. And the sound quality's not very good.

Great design idea - lousy phone.

The launch of the Razr V3 marked a sales peak for Motorola, which they still haven't surpassed. For a very good reason, since so many people bought the stupid thing. It could have been great, and maybe the new Motorola phones - including the RAZR derivatives - have come close to that. I'll never know; the vast number of Motorola phones that my current carrier offers is one of the three reasons why I'm leaving them in fifteen days.

Has the whole world gone mad?

There's a new phone that I'm looking at, and the company advertises it as having a GPS. I'm a sucker for satellite navigation, so I asked about that feature and tried to get some idea of its capabilities. If it could replace my hand-held Garmin, I'd be thrilled. But apparently I was over-ambitious, because eventually the sales person said to me "It's not a GPS, it's a phone."

Let's play fill-in the blanks: It's not a _________, it's a phone.

Camera? Video camera? Music player? Portable TV? Web browser? Two-way pager? Walkie-talkie? Radio? E-mail client? Photo viewer? Personal Digital Assistant? Video game?

The amount of things that so-called phones can do is amazing. Kids and adults alike have their Crackberries and iPhones, when just a few moments ago they were exclusively for executives and/or tech geeks. I was looking at other reviews of the MOTORAZR, the cutting edge that's oh-so-three-years-ago, and found this gem: "Even though it doesnt have a full QWERTY keyboard like most phones..."

WTF? Most phones have typewriter keyboards on them? When did I get so old?

Seagulls

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Anything's better than pigeons.

The Long Version: Unlike pigeons, I have a certain respect for seagulls. Not only do they fly, they're pretty good at it, and sometimes do it for fun. I've even heard stories that they exist outside of cities, where they actually work for a living.

And if that wasn't enough to earn them a little credibility, around here they take food from pigeons.

While I still call them seagulls, the bird that illustrates this review is properly called a ring-billed gull. They're the most common variety in Toronto, but we do get the occasional herring gull as well.

Pigeons

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: No buts.

The Long Version: There are two really bad ideas that cause untold misery despite being made years ago: the grip design on the Canon Rebel XTi and the decision to bring rock doves out of the Mediterranean.

I suppose at some level, pigeons do provide a moderately useful service as scavengers and garbage collectors. Unfortunately they themselves are nasty, messy, and destructive animals. I might prefer rats, probably prefer raccoons, and would certainly rather share my city sidewalks with seagulls.

What bothers me most about these so-called birds is their laziness and arrogance. Frequently too fat to fly, they know exactly how much space they need to stay safe, and think that they're smarter than everyone else. The worst part is that I can't prove them wrong.