Not a pretty picture<\/p>\n
I bought a Kodak DC 240 digital camera about nine months ago
\n(it is still under warranty) from one of PT Macindo dealers in
\nIndonesia. I brought the camera in for servicing to PT Macindo on
\nMarch 6, 2000. (PT Macindo is the authorized distributor for
\nKodak digital cameras in Indonesia, as known from their
\naggressive promotion).<\/p>\n
PT Macindo could not service the camera and had to send it to
\nKodak Singapore for service. PT Macindo can only sell the cameras
\nand has no capability for after-sales service (they said the
\ncamera had \"serious damage\").<\/p>\n
Kodak Singapore asked for S$200 merely for labor, with the
\nargument that it was the customer's fault, the teeth of the
\ncamera were broken (how can Kodak prove that it was the
\ncustomer's fault?). I refused to pay the charges, as the camera
\nis still under warranty.<\/p>\n
At last, I offered them the chance to return to me US$482.40
\n($600 for the camera less S$200 in repair charges) and they could
\nkeep the camera, but their \"generous\" offer was $177 after
\nnumerous deductions. I refused.<\/p>\n
I would not have bought a Kodak digital camera in the first
\nplace if I had been aware of the lousy service they provide.<\/p>\n
I complained to Kodak USA and Kodak Australia with no results
\n(they just forwarded my letter to Kodak Singapore -- they
\napparently agree with Kodak Singapore's way of handling this
\nmatter). It seems the customer has nothing to say, but must
\nsimply accept whatever Kodak has to offer.<\/p>\n
It is a real shame that Kodak, as a world-class multinational
\ncompany, offers this kind of service.<\/p>\n
As of now (more than three months), I still cannot use my
\ncamera. Imagine if somebody depended on the camera to earn a
\nliving!<\/p>\n
DARIPIN WONGSO<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/not-a-pretty-picture-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }