Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
I went over that earlier.
One of the main reasons for the SuperHub was to reduce customer issues immediately after install - the main one was issues setting up the supplied router with the modem
So that's the reason for a combined unit, because it reduces the setup complexity.
As to why the particular version of the SuperHub was chosen, I have no idea as I had no involvement in that.
|
When I said "besides the technical support savings arguement" (or words to that effect) I was referring to exactly what you have exampled here. Reducing customer issues immediately after install is, as far as I am concerned, a part of providing technical support savings.
I'd like to know what customer consultation, if any, occured regarding what customers might have wanted from the Superhub. Perhaps there wasn't any because VM made an assumption that most people wanted a combined modem/router which didn't support bridge mode?
Ben it is a great pity that you didn't have involvement with the initial design of the Superhub, given the amount of time you spend on forums liasing with customers. One would have thought it obvious that you would have a tremendous amount of insight into what customers might want. Indeed you've already stated that you think bridge mode should have been made available in the Superhub from the start. It seems like VM just went ahead and produced a specification before comitting to manufacturing the device, without taking any of the feedback you could have provided from users on forums into account. One wonders why they bother continuing with your role, which I assume they pay you for, if they don't take into account anything you report back.