Do not ever EVER forget to unpair your Tazer, you WILL pay

[kogar]

For those of you that steadfastly say that ZAuto took the right approach, allow me to give a counter-example of where a company "treated their customer right," even when they didn't need to: Tuffy Security Products.

I purchased a JL deck enclosure from them. Pricey, but I really liked it. Unfortunately, they hadn't yet offered the version that accommodated the Alpine stereo system. So I thought I'd modify the side so that it would accept the extra space the speaker took up. I was wrong. Very wrong. Now, this is an example where I didn't make a simple mistake. Nope. This is a prime example of where the customer deliberately did the "wrong thing". When they came out with the updated version, I explained how I messed things up and I did NOT ask for a "freebie." I knew I messed up and was willing to pay for a replacement part from the new version. Instead, they offered to send me a completely new unit, and asked me to ship the old one back (they did ask me to pay for the new unit and refunded me that price when the old one came back - net cost to me was zero).

That's a great example of "above and beyond" customer service.

Sponsored

 

[JEEPIDON]

I think $50 is cheap and the Tazer people should ask that this thread be deleted. Entitlement at its best right here. I’ve always unmarried my tuners when going to the dealer for ANY work. And if I forget, I wouldn’t cry on a forum about it! ‍

Amen, brother!! I shake my head every time I see a member screwing something up and then crying on the forum about it. Who forgot to unpair it? Gee, take some responsibility for your actions or lack thereof. If you're going to negotiate with a vendor don't alert 10,000 forum members first, just keep your business to yourselves. Why does everyone always have to post every move they make on social media? Who cares when someone farts? (unless you're in close proximity!!)

 

[Chocolate Thunder]

For those of you that steadfastly say that ZAuto took the right approach, allow me to give a counter-example of where a company "treated their customer right," even when they didn't need to: Tuffy Security Products.

I purchased a JL deck enclosure from them. Pricey, but I really liked it. Unfortunately, they hadn't yet offered the version that accommodated the Alpine stereo system. So I thought I'd modify the side so that it would accept the extra space the speaker took up. I was wrong. Very wrong. Now, this is an example where I didn't make a simple mistake. Nope. This is a prime example of where the customer deliberately did the "wrong thing". When they came out with the updated version, I explained how I messed things up and I did NOT ask for a "freebie." I knew I messed up and was willing to pay for a replacement part from the new version. Instead, they offered to send me a completely new unit, and asked me to ship the old one back (they did ask me to pay for the new unit and refunded me that price when the old one came back - net cost to me was zero).

That's a great example of "above and beyond" customer service.

So since you know it was your own fault and you’re willing to pay for your own mistake with your Tuffy purchase, why are you so salty with Z Automotive when you admitted that was your own mistake too? I don’t understand what the difference is why you’d be OK paying for your screw up with Tuffy but not Z Auto. If Tuffy hadn’t comped you a new version of the product, you’re saying you’d have paid for the new one and wouldn’t be complaining to the forum that their customer service sucks?

 

[aeonixx1001]

I wonder what kind of issues this causes for the next owner of the traded in Jeep?

Any upgrade or change to any component the ECU controls will be screwed up..

 

[emoody007]

Are you officially speaking for Zauto, or just generally being a jerk? I had a legitimate complaint.

You should change this Thread to a poll so we can vote if your complaint was legitimate or not. lmao. ZAutomotive has a policy, you F'ed up and your "legitimate" complaint is that you didn't get special consideration. I have to ask if you come from a generation of participation trophies where someone always made things okay for your mistakes?

 

[roaniecowpony]

I think the Taser policy sucks. You pay a fairly high price for a product, it should be yours. They should give the owner a "key" forever. If every aftermarket company, thru technology, was somehow able to limit your use of something like a muffler to one installation, I'd throw the damn thing thru their front window. Think about it, the opportunity for this predatory policy already exists on any electronic device with a circuit board or IC or one that could have one added. Any electrical component could have this applied. How about LED bulbs? TPMS sensors? As our vehicles are now so reliant on computers and software, what's to stop FCA, GM, or Ford from doing something similar? How'd you like to buy a used vehicle, then pay a ransom, the magnitude of their choosing, to the manufacturer to use it?

 

[wibornz]

I think the Taser policy sucks. You pay a fairly high price for a product, it should be yours. They should give the owner a "key" forever. If every aftermarket company, thru technology, was somehow able to limit your use of something like a muffler to one installation, I'd throw the damn thing thru their front window. Think about it, the opportunity for this predatory policy already exists on any electronic device with a circuit board or IC or one that could have one added. Any electrical component could have this applied. How about LED bulbs? TPMS sensors? As our vehicles are now so reliant on computers and software, what's to stop FCA, GM, or Ford from doing something similar? How'd you like to buy a used vehicle, then pay a ransom, the magnitude of their choosing, to the manufacturer to use it?

I believe Tesla does just that.

In the farming world, John Deere was trying to make it so that you could not work on your own tractor. All service had to be preformed by an Authorized John Deere mechanic.

 

[werewolf4805]

I believe Tesla does just that.

In the farming world, John Deere was trying to make it so that you could not work on your own tractor. All service had to be preformed by an Authorized John Deere mechanic.

FCA is doing something similar to a lesser extent. The OBDII ports on all modern FCA vehicles are locked so you can only read codes from them. The dealer has to unlock the PCM to change software if you want to tune. Luckily most tuning companies are finding bypasses, but when I had my 2018 Charger in order to tune it I had to buy a new PCM, have it unlocked, and switch the PCM with the stock one in order to use a handheld tuner then.

 

[Goin2drt]

If I lose the keys to my car: “$500, please”
If I lose the keys to my house: “new lock, $50 please”
If I loose my drivers license: “$xx, please”
If I lose my wheel lock key: $30, please”
I want to change my pre-COVID airline flight: “$75, please”

shame on Tazer for asking for $50. I mean, nobody else does, right?

OP: you made a mistake. $50 is not a big deal. Actually, I am surprised Tazer just didn’t require you to get a new one. $50 seems fine and reasonable to me.

Sorry stupid logic, especially the airline example. Doesn't make all the above right either. Sheep will be sheep I guess. It's called customer service. Some things companies get and others don't. It's one thing if they got hundreds of calls a day to do this. THEY DON'T. This was a one off example. Again its called customer service. You take care of it "this one time" and then you have a customer for life. Happens all the time in good business.

 

[emoody007]

I think the Taser policy sucks. You pay a fairly high price for a product, it should be yours. They should give the owner a "key" forever. If every aftermarket company, thru technology, was somehow able to limit your use of something like a muffler to one installation, I'd throw the damn thing thru their front window. Think about it, the opportunity for this predatory policy already exists on any electronic device with a circuit board or IC or one that could have one added. Any electrical component could have this applied. How about LED bulbs? TPMS sensors? As our vehicles are now so reliant on computers and software, what's to stop FCA, GM, or Ford from doing something similar? How'd you like to buy a used vehicle, then pay a ransom, the magnitude of their choosing, to the manufacturer to use it?

You are completely misunderstanding the policy. You can move a muffler from one vehicle to another but you can't use the same muffler on two vehicles at once. You can also move the Tazer from one vehicle to another for (no fee) but it can only work on one vehicle at a time. This is why you marry and unmarry the unit. If I could walk up to your vehicle and program it then walk away and program another vehicle then ZAuto would be out of business. Why would you buy the product if your buddy could program your vehicle for free. Do your LED bulbs work in two vehicles at the same time? No!!! Could you code an LED bulb to a vehicle that only works with your VIN number? I suppose it could be done but the cost for LED bulb software and wiring to do so would be ridiculous and counterproductive. You're confusing static products (even electronics) like circuit boards or electronics for software. This is not a predatory policy. This protects the product from piracy. The OP forgot to unmarry the product from his old Jeep. Thus, despite his documentation of a new purchase there was a Jeep out there with Tazer programming and he wanted to program his new Jeep. Basically, if ZAuto would have made an exception their software would have been on 2 vehicles for the price of 1. To compensate the potential piracy of their product they charge a small fee. They could have very easily told him he would have to buy a new product.

 

[Chocolate Thunder]

You are completely misunderstanding the policy. You can move a muffler from one vehicle to another but you can't use the same muffler on two vehicles at once. You can also move the Tazer from one vehicle to another for (no fee) but it can only work on one vehicle at a time. This is why you marry and unmarry the unit. If I could walk up to your vehicle and program it then walk away and program another vehicle then ZAuto would be out of business. Why would you buy the product if your buddy could program your vehicle for free. Do your LED bulbs work in two vehicles at the same time? No!!! Could you code an LED bulb to a vehicle that only works with your VIN number? I suppose it could be done but the cost for LED bulb software and wiring to do so would be ridiculous and counterproductive. You're confusing static products (even electronics) like circuit boards or electronics for software. This is not a predatory policy. This protects the product from piracy. The OP forgot to unmarry the product from his old Jeep. Thus, despite his documentation of a new purchase there was a Jeep out there with Tazer programming and he wanted to program his new Jeep. Basically, if ZAuto would have made an exception their software would have been on 2 vehicles for the price of 1. To compensate the potential piracy of their product they charge a small fee. They could have very easily told him he would have to buy a new product.

The concept of a software creator charging software licensing fees is over the head of some folks. They think that they should be able to do as they like after they’ve paid once, no matter what the owner of that intellectual property says. And ironically those same folks probably rant about the Chinese not respecting intellectual property rights, lol.

 

[roaniecowpony]

You are completely misunderstanding the policy. You can move a muffler from one vehicle to another but you can't use the same muffler on two vehicles at once. You can also move the Tazer from one vehicle to another for (no fee) but it can only work on one vehicle at a time. This is why you marry and unmarry the unit. If I could walk up to your vehicle and program it then walk away and program another vehicle then ZAuto would be out of business. Why would you buy the product if your buddy could program your vehicle for free. Do your LED bulbs work in two vehicles at the same time? No!!! Could you code an LED bulb to a vehicle that only works with your VIN number? I suppose it could be done but the cost for LED bulb software and wiring to do so would be ridiculous and counterproductive. You're confusing static products (even electronics) like circuit boards or electronics for software. This is not a predatory policy. This protects the product from piracy. The OP forgot to unmarry the product from his old Jeep. Thus, despite his documentation of a new purchase there was a Jeep out there with Tazer programming and he wanted to program his new Jeep. Basically, if ZAuto would have made an exception their software would have been on 2 vehicles for the price of 1. To compensate the potential piracy of their product they charge a small fee. They could have very easily told him he would have to buy a new product.

I was under the impression the device had to be connected to work. My error.

 

[emoody007]

I was under the impression the device had to be connected to work. My error.

No worries mate. Only for live action features. You can still set tire size, gear ratio etc... and then remove the device.

 

[OminousSkitter]

I'm not pro-ZAuto or anti-ZAuto. I respect quality products; I respect their product. Their policy is pretty clearly stated; OP should not have been surprised by it.

To anyone saying this is about intellectual property, it's not. There are other protections in place, and more importantly no one is making illegal copies of the software or ripping off the hardware design. There is no intellectual property law that anyone is suggesting breaking when they disagree with ZAuto's policy. This is all about restricting the use of a tool. I understand why they have their restrictions, but it's not about IP protection.

The best argument I've read here is along the lines of, "If you have jack stands, you can't use them on two cars at the same time." And this sounds true enough. But let me give a counter example.

If I have a torque wrench, I can only use this on one bolt/car at a time. This is very true. But I can torque bolts up to my preferred levels, move on to a new car, and do the same. I'm only using the tool on one car at a time, and I'm making changes that are persistent. If I have a tazer, I can change static settings and remove it. Why can't I use this tool to make persistent changes, remove it from the vehicle, and use it on another vehicle to make persistent changes?

Back to the wrench, what if the company said, "If you want to use this wrench on more than one vehicle, you must first revert every bolt to OEM values. If you forget to do this, you must pay us $50 before you can use it on another vehicle." There would be mass outrage.

I understand their policy. They want every user of a tazer to have a license. I own a company; I write software; I want to get paid for my work, and I support people that want to get paid for their work. The fact that they ship hardware and not just software decreases their legal standing, for there is a lot of legal precedent about how you can and can't restrict physical products -- especially when coupled with software (i.e. computers, cell phones, etc). I don't think what they're doing is breaking the law, but their policy is neither customer-friendly nor about intellectual property.

 

[Chocolate Thunder]

Maybe I’m not understanding correctly. How is it NOT about them protecting and restricting use of their IP? That’s the actual product they’re providing isn’t it? The hardware is simply a means of delivery of what the actual product is - software to allow you to access and modify parameters in the Jeep’s control system that you can’t otherwise access. Is this wrong? Please explain.

If that’s the case, how is it different than Microsoft telling my company that I have to purchase a license to run Office 365 on all 100 of my workstations at my company rather than buy 1 piece of software and copy it 100 times?

Sponsored