Neptune APEX Reliability (Shocking in my experience!)

[robbyg]

I actually like RC a lot. It gets a bad rap but to be honest it is just a bare bones forum that doesn't blind you with adds. People will be people. Some good, some down right nasty, some bad, etc. They don't need to be defended but I do dislike when I read people bashing it here. Not saying you did.

I also like RC. After a long hiatus from aquarium forums I came back to RC and found that it had literally become a ghost town. That's when I came here and found out where everyone had gone.
I feel sorry for them because they really put in a lot of work and because of it they have a wealth of foundational information. Sadly running a forum is not easy and in fact can consume your whole day, so at some point the owners of most forums just lose interest and the place slowly goes down hill.

 

[porter_painter]

Really? Then you are just being argumentative and calling people swindlers because they have a positive experience with a product. My reply had everything to do with your post.



As is calling people hawks or a swindler with positive experiences other than yours. If you don't like the product then pony up and admit it. However, your source of frustration does not negate those with positive. Thus asking one to put up the numbers to back their claim.

I don't think I've done that at all - Please read my post more carefully. I'm not frustrated at all. Just claiming that not everyone is being transparent.

Some of those people who seemingly have nothing but praise for the product need to be clear that they also have varying degrees of relationship with the company they are praising. That's not being honest - even if that person has the best of intentions and genuinely believes what they are posting.

The seeming demand ad nausium to provide failure rates is quite clearly an impossible ask. The only company that could come even close to this data is Neptune itself, and it's unlikely to be in their interest to release it.

Quite frankly if the number was 0.00001% failure rate or 3% it doesn't matter if you are the person in that percentile that's had their pets killed by that failure.

Anecdotal evidence is all we can go by here - and (without recounting) it seems about 50/50 between positive experiences and negative experiences with these products. Yes, many happy customers will not post, nor will some unhappy customers. Also, what the benchmark is for positive vs negative experience varies - for example there was someone who posted earlier that they were happy with Neptune, but the failure rate they quoted was abysmal in my opinion. For clarity - clearly the failure rate won't be anywhere near the 50/50 level.

But I would imagine that most controllers are bought to protect the person's tank and give them peace of mind. The fact that it is so easy to find people that complain about Neptune's product reliability would anecdotally put a doubt in my mind as to whether said products would provide me with peace of mind or just something else I'd worry about failing.

And for disclosure I've owned an Aquatronica, Classic Apex and GHL - but I have no link to any company.

 

[DJF]

Back to the basic intent of the thread: It is my opinion that it is unreliable. This is based off multiple failures of my own practical experience (that I obviously feel strong about). I believe the reason behind the unreliability is skimping on manufacturing with Neptune relying on vertical integration to keep their user base tied to their products. I’ve chosen not to endorse that business direction by changing courses to a new controller- The company I chose is confident enough with all their products that each one stands alone, not requiring any other piece of their equipment to run. I am not paid by either company and won’t be giving Neptune another dime.

 

[MnFish1]

seemingly have nothing but praise for the product need to be clear that they also have varying degrees of relationship with the company they are praising.

Isn't this a 'free forum' - except for the TOS - I dont think anyone else 'needs' to do anything right?

Quite frankly if the number was 0.00001% failure rate or 3% it doesn't matter if you are the person in that percentile that's had their pets killed by that failure.

I agree - but that would mean that only .00001% or (3%) would consider the company 'unreliable' right? That's why I asked the general question - what percentage (for any company) would make them 'unreliable'? And thats the issue with the question - there is no way to rate it (as you said) without data from the company its all a 'personal' decision - not a 'poll'. (i.e. reliability is in the eye of the beholder - meaning both the people who think its reliable are correct - and the people who think its unreliable are correct) - neither side (IMO) should be arguing with the other...

Hope this makes sense

 

[robbyg]

---SNIP---
I agree - but that would mean that only .00001% or (3%) would consider the company 'unreliable' right? That's why I asked the general question - what percentage (for any company) would make them 'unreliable'? And thats the issue with the question - there is no way to rate it (as you said) without data from the company its all a 'personal' decision - not a 'poll'. (i.e. reliability is in the eye of the beholder - meaning both the people who think its reliable are correct - and the people who think its unreliable are correct) - neither side (IMO) should be arguing with the other...

Hope this makes sense

I get what your saying but companies like ours run on very specific numbers. If we did not we would probably go bankrupt. Every company and every product within that company has specific failure rate that is acceptable. For consumer product we typically start smelling a bit of a stench when 3% of the products start to come back for repairs or need replacement. At 5% it would be pretty much panic time. So yes if we shipped out 100 controllers and five came back for replacement we would be moving very quickly to get the problem resolved. If a company makes a life support system for animals I would suspect that the acceptable failure rate would be much lower than ours. Maybe .5%, not sure never been in that industry.

 

[porter_painter]

Isn't this a 'free forum' - except for the TOS - I dont think anyone else 'needs' to do anything right?



I agree - but that would mean that only .00001% or (3%) would consider the company 'unreliable' right? That's why I asked the general question - what percentage (for any company) would make them 'unreliable'? And thats the issue with the question - there is no way to rate it (as you said) without data from the company its all a 'personal' decision - not a 'poll'. (i.e. reliability is in the eye of the beholder - meaning both the people who think its reliable are correct - and the people who think its unreliable are correct) - neither side (IMO) should be arguing with the other...

Hope this makes sense

‘Need, should, could, must, etc’ just semantics really. I would hope you would be smart enough not to get hung up on the meaning of a specific word in a statement.

In my opinion, those whom have some kind of relationship with a sponsor need to declare it if they don’t want to be accused of being shills

Sponsors have their own sections and those who are on the forum representing a sponsor in an official capacity are clearly shown as being such. Is it really a step to far to consider that these influencers that have some relationship with sponsor(s) should declare it?

This forum seems to love its little badges below people’s forum details - why not have ‘proud to be a Neptune insider’ for example.

I would imagine that such people would wear such a badge with honour (and rightly so as they are clearly done something right in order to have achieved special status with a sponsor).

But Joe public also gets full disclosure to consider how much weight to put against one of these people’s opinions when considering the pros and cons of a product, vs the options of customers that have dealt at arms-length with the sponsor or brand in question.

 

[MnFish1]

‘Need, should, could, must, etc’ just semantics really. I would hope you would be smart enough not to get hung up on the meaning of a specific word in a statement.

In my opinion, those whom have some kind of relationship with a sponsor need to declare it if they don’t want to be accused of being shills

Sponsors have their own sections and those who are on the forum representing a sponsor in an official capacity are clearly shown as being such. Is it really a step to far to consider that these influencers that have some relationship with sponsor(s) should declare it?

This forum seems to love its little badges below people’s forum details - why not have ‘proud to be a Neptune insider’ for example.

I would imagine that such people would wear such a badge with honour (and rightly so as they are clearly done something right in order to have achieved special status with a sponsor).

But Joe public also gets full disclosure to consider how much weight to put against one of these people’s opinions when considering the pros and cons of a product, vs the options of customers that have dealt at arms-length with the sponsor or brand in question.

1. Its hard to tell tone in texts - so when someone uses the word 'need' I assume they mean 'need' not 'should'
2. Shill has an extremely bad connotation to it in many/most people's mind - and I dont think its appropriate to name other members of the forum.
3. OK - So I own Radion lights - I love them - I argue for them - should I be held to a different standard than someone who does not own them but has an opinion?
4. BTW - most of the people when talking about Neptune have said 'im a beta tester, etc - just not in every post...

 

[robbyg]

‘Need, should, could, must, etc’ just semantics really. I would hope you would be smart enough not to get hung up on the meaning of a specific word in a statement.

In my opinion, those whom have some kind of relationship with a sponsor need to declare it if they don’t want to be accused of being shills

Sponsors have their own sections and those who are on the forum representing a sponsor in an official capacity are clearly shown as being such. Is it really a step to far to consider that these influencers that have some relationship with sponsor(s) should declare it?

I think that if you want to have a proper discussion then those people who have had a personal relationship with the company should just declare it out right before they get outed by someone else. I have made no bones about the Fact that I have a good relationship with Aquatronica. I have received items from them to test and keep, but that relationship was not built by me getting anything free from them at the start. I bought all my equipment and then as an engineer I felt obligated in that first year (2004) to give them feedback as to what was not working to it's full potential. They really appreciated the fact that I understood the hardware inside the controller and the code involved. So each of my suggestions was not pie in the sky suggestions but ones they could implement, and many of them where implemented.

When the next controller the ACQ115 came out I never bought one or got one. The most recent one the ACQ140 was almost the same story. My old ACQ110 had been running for over 10 years without even a hint of a problem. So I was very reluctant to change it, (I have learned not to touch what aint broken) even though they had offered me the new controller when it came out. I ended up waiting a year before I finally gave in and got one from them at wholesale price. I paid full price at the dealer for my oxygen probe, dosing pumps and most every other item. I was never part of any Beta testing program and the only bugs I ever found were small ones that had no effect on operation. The guy who designs the hardware and software is extreamly competent when it comes to making bug free code since he designed modules for airplane and vehicle control systems.

I would imagine that such people would wear such a badge with honour (and rightly so as they are clearly done something right in order to have achieved special status with a sponsor).

I put my equipment in my signature. You have now reminded me that I need to do a proper signature for this Forum. As for badges, that would run contrary to how true Shills operate.

 

[vangvace]

2. Shill has an extremely bad connotation to it in many/most people's mind - and I dont think its appropriate to name other members of the forum.
3. OK - So I own Radion lights - I love them - I argue for them - should I be held to a different standard than someone who does not own them but has an opinion?

Were the Radion's gifted to you by the company? Do you have ongoing semi-professional relations with Ecotech? If yes, then you are more of an influencer than a hobbiest... for that brand. If you throw shade at other products or treat Ecotech with a zealot's fever, you cross over to a perceived shill without conscientiously knowing it.

 

[MnFish1]

Were the Radion's gifted to you by the company? Do you have ongoing semi-professional relations with Ecotech? If yes, then you are more of an influencer than a hobbiest... for that brand. If you throw shade at other products or treat Ecotech with a zealot's fever, you cross over to a perceived shill without conscientiously knowing it.

lets agree to disagree. shilling is a deliberate act as compared to 'without consciously' knowing it. For example - just because I got a discount from a company that someone else doesnt get doesn't mean I cant or won't post negative things about it. It may make me post more positives - thats it not being a 'shill' thats having a bias.

IMO - when you call people 'shills' (basically anyone who repeatedly posts positives) without knowing whether they are or are not receiving anything - to me - my opinion - it goes against what this forum is about.

I dont think its necessary for everyone to post or have it explained each time they post a positive thing about a company repeatedly.

The main reason I think this is really 'unworkable' is that - how would you treat someone who has had lets say a tank break and wreck their house - causing tens of thousands of dollars' - repeatedly posting negatives about a company - shoudl they have a badge saying 'I had a bad experience with company xxx' - so im a negative shill? I dont think so

 

[vangvace]

lets agree to disagree. shilling is a deliberate act as compared to 'without consciously' knowing it. For example - just because I got a discount from a company that someone else doesnt get doesn't mean I cant or won't post negative things about it. It may make me post more positives - thats it not being a 'shill' thats having a bias.

IMO - when you call people 'shills' (basically anyone who repeatedly posts positives) without knowing whether they are or are not receiving anything - to me - my opinion - it goes against what this forum is about.

I dont think its necessary for everyone to post or have it explained each time they post a positive thing about a company repeatedly.

The main reason I think this is really 'unworkable' is that - how would you treat someone who has had lets say a tank break and wreck their house - causing tens of thousands of dollars' - repeatedly posting negatives about a company - shoudl they have a badge saying 'I had a bad experience with company xxx' - so im a negative shill? I dont think so

You are right, I should have left out the word "without" but it was a nod to those that could be in denial.

I do think there are those that qualify as shills here and on social media. Do I need to name them? No. Does the forum need to name them? No. Is it my opinion and applies for specific topics? Yes.

However, I do think an influencer badge would be a positive thing to add for the Youtuber/podcaster/Instagram/Social Media content creators; possibly linking to their thing like the new build thread badges do. .

 

[Thales]

--

 

[Silver14SS]

R2R should sell tinfoil hats with clownfish on them.

Would those be reef safe?

 

[porter_painter]

lets agree to disagree. shilling is a deliberate act as compared to 'without consciously' knowing it. For example - just because I got a discount from a company that someone else doesnt get doesn't mean I cant or won't post negative things about it. It may make me post more positives - thats it not being a 'shill' thats having a bias.

IMO - when you call people 'shills' (basically anyone who repeatedly posts positives) without knowing whether they are or are not receiving anything - to me - my opinion - it goes against what this forum is about.

I dont think its necessary for everyone to post or have it explained each time they post a positive thing about a company repeatedly.

The main reason I think this is really 'unworkable' is that - how would you treat someone who has had lets say a tank break and wreck their house - causing tens of thousands of dollars' - repeatedly posting negatives about a company - shoudl they have a badge saying 'I had a bad experience with company xxx' - so im a negative shill? I dont think so

Perhaps in your opinion shilling is deliberate, but that's not the actual definition. I'll post it again, as you don't seem to understand based on your comments about the 'negative shill':

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

If you were given a free radion (for example):

MnFish Post - 'Hey radions are amazing, you should buy one' = shilling
MnFish Post - 'Hey, I got a free radion and they are amazing, you should buy one' = not shilling.

Hope that helps

 

[porter_painter]

Perhaps in your opinion shilling is deliberate, but that's not the actual definition. I'll post it again, as you don't seem to understand based on your comments about the 'negative shill':

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

If you were given a free radion (for example):

MnFish Post - 'Hey radions are amazing, you should buy one' = shilling
MnFish Post - 'Hey, I got a free radion and they are amazing, you should buy one' = not shilling.

Hope that helps

Just to be clear, the example relates to being given a radion by ecotech or one of their agents....not winning one as a prize for instance

 

[GrouperBait]

I’m sending my eb832 back today. I have had a lot of issues and I get frustrated with the interface. I may have gotten a bad batch. I’m still covered under the warranty so I’m counting on them taking care of my current issue.

 

[MnFish1]

Perhaps in your opinion shilling is deliberate, but that's not the actual definition. I'll post it again, as you don't seem to understand based on your comments about the 'negative shill':

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

If you were given a free radion (for example):

MnFish Post - 'Hey radions are amazing, you should buy one' = shilling
MnFish Post - 'Hey, I got a free radion and they are amazing, you should buy one' = not shilling.

Hope that helps

I also posted several definitions - and as I said - they aren't neutral in connotation.. They have a negative connotation. This is a public forum - and I think its offensive to imply that just because people post a positive opinion that that means they are acting as a 'plant or stooge'. Now - if the company whose product they are discussing insisted -or is paying them or there is some kind of ongoing relationship with the company - they should disclose it.

I agree if a company officer or employee is posting on behalf of a product - they should disclose it - every post - not in a badge (most employees use the symbol of their company as a clue that this has happened).

You have no clue how many people that are posting positively about the apex have any relationship. Most are probably just defending their decision to spend money on a product that others seem to be criticizing (thats human nature). Just like people who have had a negative experience tend to emphasize the negative.

By the way - being a 'plant' or a 'stooge' - the examples used in your definition - imply that the company is somehow complicit in their behavior - ie. a carnival barker who is trying to get people to play a game they cant win.

My opinion - if someone got a free apex or was a beta tester - as long as they are telling the truth - (ie. not lying - saying the product was great when in fact it was horrible) - there is nothing to disclose. Just like when I say the apex is unreliable - I dont need to go into every detail as to why that is the case (to me).

To me - it seems like you dont like the fact that other people may think your opinion is incorrect - and thus they are shills. I tend to believe that most people here are honest - not lying, and are telling their actual experience - whether they are beta testers or not (ie your badge idea is a solution in search of a problem)

 

[porter_painter]

I also posted several definitions - and as I said - they aren't neutral in connotation.. They have a negative connotation. This is a public forum - and I think its offensive to imply that just because people post a positive opinion that that means they are acting as a 'plant or stooge'.

Where has this been suggested? Nowhere in my posts

Now - if the company whose product they are discussing insisted -or is paying them or there is some kind of ongoing relationship with the company - they should disclose it.

This is what I am saying, and have been saying throughout

I agree if a company officer or employee is posting on behalf of a product - they should disclose it - every post - not in a badge (most employees use the symbol of their company as a clue that this has happened).

You have no clue how many people that are posting positively about the apex have any relationship. Most are probably just defending their decision to spend money on a product that others seem to be criticizing (thats human nature). Just like people who have had a negative experience tend to emphasize the negative.

Exactly why I am suggesting that people should disclose such a relationship if one exists. Then we might have a clue.

By the way - being a 'plant' or a 'stooge' - the examples used in your definition - imply that the company is somehow complicit in their behavior - ie. a carnival barker who is trying to get people to play a game they cant win.

My opinion - if someone got a free apex or was a beta tester - as long as they are telling the truth - (ie. not lying - saying the product was great when in fact it was horrible) - there is nothing to disclose. Just like when I say the apex is unreliable - I dont need to go into every detail as to why that is the case (to me).

You have contradicted yourself in a single post: "Now - if the company whose product they are discussing insisted -or is paying them or there is some kind of ongoing relationship with the company - they should disclose it."

The problem is that you have no way to know if someone is being truthful. The point is that if they have a relationship with the vendor, then disclosing in makes them more transparent (or truthful) with their appraisal of the product.

To me - it seems like you dont like the fact that other people may think your opinion is incorrect

Wow - it's still early any you've already won the award for the most hyprocital post of the day ;Nailbiting

- and thus they are shills. I tend to believe that most people here are honest - not lying, and are telling their actual experience - whether they are beta testers or not (ie your badge idea is a solution in search of a problem)

Therein lies the problem. You don't appear to have correctly read understand my posts. Unfortunately nothing I can do can make up for your incapacity to do this, repeatedly.

I am not accusing anyone of being a shill because they disagree with me. I've not really voiced an opinion on the subject. Just that people can be seen as operate as shills because they are not disclosing how they interact(ed) with a company.

Perhaps if you elected to spend a little more time reading other people's posts rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions you would be a little less confused.

 

[Jon Fishman]

It’s hard for me to say “here are my positives and here are my negatives”. I have never had another controller so I have nothing to compare it to.

Replaced a PMUP and had a display die...... and I don’t really know how to work the thing, but that isn’t the Apex’ fault

 

[MnFish1]

Where has this been suggested? Nowhere in my posts



This is what I am saying, and have been saying throughout



Exactly why I am suggesting that people should disclose such a relationship if one exists. Then we might have a clue.



You have contradicted yourself in a single post: "Now - if the company whose product they are discussing insisted -or is paying them or there is some kind of ongoing relationship with the company - they should disclose it."

The problem is that you have no way to know if someone is being truthful. The point is that if they have a relationship with the vendor, then disclosing in makes them more transparent (or truthful) with their appraisal of the product.



Wow - it's still early any you've already won the award for the most hyprocital post of the day ;Nailbiting



Therein lies the problem. You don't appear to have correctly read understand my posts. Unfortunately nothing I can do can make up for your incapacity to do this, repeatedly.

I am not accusing anyone of being a shill because they disagree with me. I've not really voiced an opinion on the subject. Just that people can be seen as operate as shills because they are not disclosing how they interact(ed) with a company.

Perhaps if you elected to spend a little more time reading other people's posts rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions you would be a little less confused.

Thanks for the constructive criticism