waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Father Cool]

5 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

That was not said. 

The word "free" has been used in some posts above. FAE could download DCS for free, (and I guess break the EULA in the process). And RZ could provide the Tucano as a "mod" for free, in exchange for the necessary documents, scan an airframes etc. And then sell it as a DLC though ED. Don't really think that was the plan though.

Well, he claimed he had been sitting on that info for a year, but for those of us that have been following the dispute since it broke, it was nothing new under the sun, and was pretty much posted on places that shall not be named, same day more or less since RZ posted their statement. Except he claims that some people now, again, has come forward to him. Why would they do that? I guess he has been reading the same posts from other people that also claim they are privy to info, and have been posting screenshots, leaked documents and what not. I agree with you though, that he seems to be painting RZ in a bad light. Correct or not, there seems to be more to this story than he lets out. I guess he just doesn't know. Why would he?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he make a similar video last summer? Maybe he took it down.  

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would take anything he says at face value! 

Well ok it was implied that governments would not be allowed to use DCS and therefore must buy into TBS instead. In no way shape or form is it suggested that RB was going to provide the FAE with TBS itself so that would be a contract between FAE and ED and any payment made to them directly for using their software (EDGE)

Much like a company making a program to run on windows, that company has no contract that says that they have to pay Microsoft a percentage of their income to use code that interfaces with Windows to allow them to sell their product. Microsoft makes its money by selling the operating system and their own programs that run on it, much like ED do with EDGE.  

I realise it's all speculation but can you think of a reason that RB would throw away the business and income of both DCS and TBS over a contract unless it was financially unfair to them?

[MAXsenna]

14 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not going to happen from ED.

And I really don't wanna know, I just want a resolution that benefits us the users. 

14 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You can be sure that Ron will grace us with his own version of what happened unless part of the resolution includes an official gag order.

Let's hope it will be set in stone and he follows it. Or we'll just be back to square one.  

[MAXsenna]

3 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

Well ok it was implied that governments would not be allowed to use DCS and therefore must buy into TBS instead. In no way shape or form is it suggested that RB was going to provide the FAE with TBS itself so that would be a contract between FAE and ED and any payment made to them directly for using their software (EDGE)

Of course not, and absolutely! I just provided you with a different view of what could be perceived as "free".  

And your MS Windows analogy is spot on.

6 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

I realise it's all speculation but can you think of a reason that RB would throw away the business and income of both DCS and TBS over a contract unless it was financially unfair to them?

I would put money on misinterpretations of "free", misunderstandings, hot tempers and egos.

[Oban]

7 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

And I really don't wanna know, I just want a resolution that benefits us the users. 

Let's hope it will be set in stone and he follows it. Or we'll just be back to square one.  

Ron's ego won't let him keep his mouth shut

[AndyJWest]

I'd be rather surprised if ED licensed a generic 'TBS' at all. From the very limited information we have available, it seems much more likely to me that they actually provide integrated, locked down, bespoke packages which incorporate the EDGE core, along with such content necessary to simulate one specific aircraft type.

[Father Cool]

7 minutes ago, Oban said:

Ron's ego won't let him keep his mouth shut

I don't care how big your ego is. If you have a business to run and a 'fair' contract is put in front of you to sign then you sign it rather than bankrupt your company. Ergo, I suspect it's not fair in some way.

Edited yesterday at 12:12 AM by Father Cool

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

I don't care how big your ego is. If you have a business to run and a 'fair' contract is put in front of you to sign then you sign it rather than bankrupt your company. Ergo, I suspect it's not fair in some way.

Or possibly, non existent. You are building a whole scenario around a single video which you've already described as not making sense. Maybe Spud has misunderstood something. Maybe he's been fed misinformation. He certainly isn't in full possession of the facts.

[MAXsenna]

8 minutes ago, Oban said:

Ron's ego won't let him keep his mouth shut

Won't take you up on that bet. I guess his version will be "exposed" one way or another.  

Guys. Let's not take this video too seriously. Have a look at his pinned comment. "His source" now gave him permission to release that video? Who is that source? We've been over times and times again that ED is keeping their mouth shut and why. So, are Razbam giving him information that puts them in a bad light? Or another source? And why does that source have that info? Spud sounds very convincing, I'll give him that. 

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I guess his version will be "exposed" one way or another.  

Guys. Let's not take this video too seriously.

Well, you hint at one of the worst subreddits around for bad info and trash the Spud in the same breath... this is why its best just to take all of it for what its worth, its all opinion and chances are you will never find out what was right and what was wrong, especially from YT or Reddit. Thanks. 

9 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

When the ordeal is officially resolved, ED is likely to give us an official response. 

We would most likely announce that things have resumed, or otherwise, we will not give details, etc. Again, it's a legal and private matter between the two companies, even if it has been less than private, from some, at times. 

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Well, you hint at one of the worst subreddits around for bad info

Which is exactly my point, "exposed" and all, and what I made pretty clear in the PM. Apologies if you misunderstood me. 

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

trash the Spud in the same breath

He's track record isn't exactly stellar. 

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

this is why its best just to take all of it for what its worth, its all opinion and chances are you will never find out what was right and what was wrong, especially from YT or Reddit. Thanks. 

Hence why I wrote this. 

 

9 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

And I really don't wanna know, I just want a resolution that benefits us the users. 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:27 AM by MAXsenna

[Tulkas]

 

41 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

 

He's track record isn't exactly stellar. 

 

[Tank50us]

2 minutes ago, Aapje said:

It's not really a private matter, since the actions that the companies took had an effect on consumers. At that point it became a public matter.

It only became a public matter because Ron hoped to have the cake and eat it.

Seriously, I take anything ED says with a grain of salt because a lot has been promised, and not all of it has been delivered.... HOWEVER... most ED modules at least get in our hands within 2-3yrs, and typically work just fine out of the box.... how long was the MudHen in development? How long did it take RB to fix the Mirages issues, even when provided documentation from the OEM?

Where I'll give ED a salt shakers worth of salt... when it comes to Ron and Razbam I give the whole blasted mine.

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, Aapje said:

At that point it became a public matter.

Say "I know nothing about legal matters" without saying "I know nothing about legal matters".

ED's dealings with their customers is completely, entirely divorced from their dealings with their subcontractors.

If my garage can't perform a scheduled car maintenance because they have issues with their subcontractor responsible for some power tools, that won't ever become part of the deal I have with the garage. Separate things stay separate. 

[Aapje]

12 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Guys. Let's not take this video too seriously. Have a look at his pinned comment. "His source" now gave him permission to release that video? Who is that source? We've been over times and times again that ED is keeping their mouth shut and why. So, are Razbam giving him information that puts them in a bad light? Or another source? And why does that source have that info? Spud sounds very convincing, I'll give him that. 

With leaks, the general principle is 'Cui Bono': who benefits?

Most of the leaks so far have been painting ED in a bad light, so presumably those came from the Razbam side. This video puts all the blame on Razbam, not mentioning the questionable choices that ED has made, or holes in this narratives that paints ED in the best light. For example, the narrative from the video that Razbam merely had to sign a contract to fix everything and that there is no reason not to sign it, is obviously a one-sided narrative. Surely Ron had a reason not to sign, and the video shows its bias by not even addressing it. If the video had a statement that: 'Ron objected due to clause X,' then the viewer could decide for themselves whether that objection could have any merit.

And 'sources' of course have bias and they can be wrong too, so from a journalistic point of view, this seems like a poor video, based on a single source without verification of the claims, while a good journalist would only publish if they either had multiple sources, or would have done a lot of fact-checking on whether their source is reliable. Neither seems to be the case for the video.

So for me it is no different from the other leaked stuff: a perspective, with an agenda, that has to be taken with a lot of salt.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks I get there is a lot of conjecture out there, lots of misinformation from various source's after RAZBAM went public. But please understand we can not discuss it in public, to do so would be unprofessional and breach our NDA's. 

We continue to wait for a resolution, however long that takes. 

Thank you  

[MAXsenna]

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

With leaks, the general principle is 'Cui Bono': who benefits?

Of course. It was rhetorical. 

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

So for me it is no different from the other leaked stuff: a perspective, with an agenda, that has to be taken with a lot of salt.

Yeah, and I totally agree with you. And what I think might be not to far from what you're thinking. 

My dig on Spud comes from that I don't understand why anyone would pay attention to what he says at all. I won't go further into that as I've already got points and have posts deleted. Those who know knows, and those who want to know can Google. 

Cheers! 

Edit: I deserved the points. I broke the rules, so that's fair. 

Edited yesterday at 01:43 PM by MAXsenna

[Aapje]

10 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

It only became a public matter because Ron hoped to have the cake and eat it.

Allegedly. We still don't know the extent to which Ron actually breached the contract and such.

Even if he did, there could have been options on the part of ED to prevent this from spilling over into the public. For example, did they communicate with Razbam in an escalating or de-escalating way? Did they give room for negotiation or did they present a take-it-or-leave-it choice (the latter greatly increases the chance that the other party will 'leave it'). Did they back Razbam into a wall, or give them a decent way out? Etc.

There is really a lot more possible nuance to this than a black/white view where all the blame gets put on one side.

Quote

 How long did it take RB to fix the Mirages issues, even when provided documentation from the OEM?

But even in that case, you can also blame that in part on ED, because ED has the power to decide who can develop for DCS and what standards they demand from the subcontractors.

And you can even take a further step back, and blame ED for the decision to work with subcontractors in this manner in the first place, where they don't have the kind of control compared to doing it in house, and as a result, you can have these big quality differences, as well as the subcontractors making decisions that ED doesn't like.

My opinion is that the buck ultimately stops with ED, given their position of power and given that they are the ones actually selling the products to customers. So up to a point, I think that ED should be willing to eat a loss even if it is not really fair, when that is in the best interest of their consumers and their reputation.

[Aapje]

34 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Say "I know nothing about legal matters" without saying "I know nothing about legal matters".

ED's dealings with their customers is completely, entirely divorced from their dealings with their subcontractors.

It is a fact that the dealings between ED and Razbam resulted in an end to the maintenance and further development of these modules by Razbam, and later on their removal from the store, which impacts consumers.

This has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing anything about legal matters. The above sentence consists of facts that all sides agree on.

Edited yesterday at 01:56 PM by Aapje

[cfrag]

15 minutes ago, Aapje said:

It is a fact that the dealings between ED and Razbam resulted in an end to the maintenance and further development of these modules by Razbam

You see, in legal matters it is irrelevant what lead to a cessation of services or a claim in a customer's dealings with ED. ED will have to deal with that in a separate matter. They (ED) can then turn around and try to get reimbursed from whomever have caused them whatever damages ED might have to pay to you. Legally, those are completely different matters, and usually different laws. Customers have a contract with ED. You and ED - those are the only parties relevant in a claim between you and ED. Who or whatever caused ED not being able to fulfil their contract to you is irrelevant to your claim. That's legal 101, and helps simplify matters. Keep separate things separate. 

[deadghostjt]

17 minutes ago, Aapje said:

My opinion is that the buck ultimately stops with ED, given their position of power and given that they are the ones actually selling the products to customers. So up to a point, I think that ED should be willing to eat a loss even if it is not really fair, when that is in the best interest of their consumers and their reputation.

If ED can win this one in court then win there by all means. If they can't just deal with the loss and move on. Serve the customer and get wins there. These high horse ego stalemates only hurt customers. Probably ED mostly too as customers get mad. RB can clearly take it as they are not bending. This fight has nothing to do with current DCS modules as the Spud leak suggested so we could already be having all the modules back and settling the other stuff in court behind the scenes nobody talking about it. If this is hard to settle because of big egos and need of saving everyones faces then just bring this up as a new idea where everyone are heros willing to find a working solution even while some not that important legal stuff is still going on behind the scenes. Just get the results done and show public you all are committed to serve customer first, even if you're actually hardcore business men with big egos. Customers only need modules back working and happy looking public co-operation. Everything else we don't really care. Happy co-operation is probably a sign things are run well. Customers invest 30-80$ with every module they buy in the DCS-versum and last thing they want to see is all or part of that seem to collapse in a petty in-fighting even if someone is actually a moral winner in story.

[Tulkas]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

It is a fact that the dealings between ED and Razbam resulted in an end to the maintenance and further development of these modules by Razbam, and later on their removal from the store, which impacts consumers.

This has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing anything about legal matters. The above sentence consists of facts that all sides agree on.

Yeah, That's the thing. For me this never-ending discussion on the forums of who is legally guilty is futile and boring. Nobody here can really know.

What I really want to know is:

Did ED (the mother company to whom I bought Razbam modules) do everything on its hands to ensure the resolution of the conflict on a manner that ensures the continuity of the Razbam modules already sold?

I just cannot understand how the disagreement on a non yet existing or developed module -the Tucano- can be solved by cutting the revenue from the existing and delivered modules, Particularly a brand new module years in the making which benefits I suspect were essential for the sustainability of the 3rdparty. That's not look to me like conflict resolution, that looks to me more like a war declaration. 

Was that really necessary? How far in development was the Tucano? What could anyway do Razbam with the Tucano without ED? Could they insert it by force in DCS? Could they do anything at all with a DCS Tucano without ED? I wouldn't think so...

Edited 22 hours ago by Tulkas

[Merlin_VFA34]

Hi,

I'm somehow not quite making sense of the current discussion. Sput's video has only raised more questions for me.

I don't understand how RB's public plan regarding the A29 could have worked? I mean information about the A29 versus the A29 module. A government wouldn't have been able to buy the module, and I assume they read the end-user license agreement. I also assume they wouldn't have made much money with another trainer-like aircraft.

ED is withholding the revenue from F15 sales, from which one can only conclude that ED believes they suffered financial damage at the hands of RB. But that would only be possible if RB had already held onto money without going through ED, which would actually mean that the A29 project had already been finished?

However, I find it unacceptable that we're probably the ones who will have to pay for this whole mess.

Regards,
Merlin

[cfrag]

54 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing anything about legal matters. The above sentence consists of facts that all sides agree on.

Let me try this:

Imagine an associate of yours, "Mickey" stole $100 from you, and that's a known fact.

Unfortunately, you owe another associate of yours, "Sandy" $50 that you now can't pay back.

Those are all known facts. Still, it would be a bad idea if Sandy now broke in to Mickey's home, and stole $50 worth of goods, even though Mickeys actions have made it 'neccessary' for Sandy to get her money's worth back, even if you tried to tell Sandy that you transfer her claim towards you to Mickey (unless Mickey agrees, which he does not). Now Sandy breaks into Mickey's home, and takes stuff that she believes to be worth $50.

Before the law, they are all different, individual cases, governed by different laws: Mickey's theft is adjudicated under one law, your obligation towards Sandy under another law, and Sandy's breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft are separate cases, adjudicated under different laws as well. One may well have caused the other, yet the way how the judicative deals with each of them (individually!!!) is entirely different. Moreover, Sandy's actions, though understandable, and maybe even "caused" (triggered) by Mickey's actions, still land her in judicative peril.

Before the law, facts are interesting. Relevant is only applicable law. And Sandy only has a claim towards you, nothing that Mickey did would extend her claim towards you to Mickey. So, most facts even though they are known, are irrelevant because they do not apply here. Relevant are only the claims that you can prove.

Between you and ED, there's nothing that binds RZ, so RZ are completely out of the picture even if RZ's head honcho was caught personally burning down ED's HQ and making off with ED's entire cache of money. Separate things remain separate.  

Edited yesterday at 02:44 PM by cfrag

[freehand]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

Allegedly. We still don't know the extent to which Ron actually breached the contract and such.

Even if he did, there could have been options on the part of ED to prevent this from spilling over into the public. For example, did they communicate with Razbam in an escalating or de-escalating way? Did they give room for negotiation or did they present a take-it-or-leave-it choice (the latter greatly increases the chance that the other party will 'leave it'). Did they back Razbam into a wall, or give them a decent way out? Etc.

There is really a lot more possible nuance to this than a black/white view where all the blame gets put on one side.

But even in that case, you can also blame that in part on ED, because ED has the power to decide who can develop for DCS and what standards they demand from the subcontractors.

And you can even take a further step back, and blame ED for the decision to work with subcontractors in this manner in the first place, where they don't have the kind of control compared to doing it in house, and as a result, you can have these big quality differences, as well as the subcontractors making decisions that ED doesn't like.

My opinion is that the buck ultimately stops with ED, given their position of power and given that they are the ones actually selling the products to customers. So up to a point, I think that ED should be willing to eat a loss even if it is not really fair, when that is in the best interest of their consumers and their reputation.

What loss do you want from ED ? not clear what you are saying.

[Dragon1-1]

50 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Separate things remain separate.  

Legally, yes, however the way the legal hyenas treats the situation doesn't stop us from pointing our torches and pitchforks RAZBAM. They may not have a legal obligation towards us, but they have a moral one, given that it's their name on the (virtual) box, their promises and their hype. ED might be running the e-shop and being the gatekeeper, but it's reasonable to expect RAZBAM to make an effort to avoid harming the community they depend on. In fact, I'd argue that, NDAs aside, ED was doing RAZBAM a favor by keeping a lid on this thing. While I suspect the full picture makes both sides look bad, Ron's desperate attempts at deflection suggest RAZBAM would look worse of the two.

In other words, Sandy might be legally prevented from recovering her part on her own (though it still could be morally justified if the money was needed urgently enough), but she'd be fully justified in hating Mickey's guts and treating him like dirt for the rest of his life. Law is not everything, in the end, the reputational damage can be much worse than anything the judge can do. Which is one reason for the NDAs that are being alluded to.