Facing backlash from its poor RMA process, Asus now vows to improve with detailed updates on what's changing.
Asus has outlined how it will update its repair service for faulty products, in another response to customer outcry about its poor service.
A new document from Asus includes more information on how it will go about changing a returns process. A process which has very recently been exposed as ineffective and ludicrous by customers struggling to use it for its intended purpose.
Asus begins the document with an admission it "recognizes that our warranty, RMA communications, and repair services have not consistently met these high standards, and we are committed to doing better."
This follows a previous statement on the concerns of customers, which could barely be considered any admission of fault.
Asus outlines seven key improvement areas it will focus on over the coming months. Some of these issues are clearly systemic, however, as some of these improvements will only be enacted from September 30, 2024.
You can access the document yourself from Asus support [pdf warning]. Asus says this will be a living document that it will updating with new information over time—rest assured, we'll keep an eye on it.
Here are the changes in brief:
The last one stands out. It promises to "minimize pricing inconsistencies", which were one of the major pain points for the customer reports that first bubbled to the surface. Similarly, clearer communication in quotation emails would reduce the risk that, you know, someone thinks you're charging them thousands of dollars (more than the cost of the product itself) for a repair to a minor component.
If you aren't familiar with the original case against Asus, it began through reports from customers across Reddit and to YouTube channel GamersNexus which suggested they were experiencing problems returning products to the company for repair or replacement.
GamersNexus followed up by sending their own ROG Ally for repair. It had a busted thumbstick and SD card (as many others have, which is another example of poor communication by Asus). The in-warranty repair expected was not acknowledged, and in its stead the channel received a quote for $200 for "customer induced damage." This damage was not substantive, and it took some back and forth before the in-warranty repair was acknowledged and sorted.
Today, Asus appears to be somewhat owning up to its faults. Though these sorts of systemic faults are tough to gloss over as a customer looking to purchase a product. Why does it take an investigation to highlight a clearly ineffective RMA process?
Trust is hard fought and easily lost.
