By the time [redacted]'s stability problems seemed to be under control, the damage had already been done.
Years of site crashes, slow speeds, serious bugs, and a lack of new features had taken its toll. [redacted] was declining rapidly while competitor sites, new and old, continued their rapid ascension.
One site barely over a year and a half old had grown to over 10 times the popularity of [redacted], even though [redacted] had a two year head start.
The countless hours Plaintiff spent monitoring [redacted], assisting with site troubleshooting, shifting goals and strategies to accommodate site setbacks,
dealing with customer dissatisfaction, and the ultimate humiliation of watching newer sites leapfrog [redacted] in success negatively affected Plaintiff's personal health.
The last major development performed by Defendant on [redacted] began in December 2011, known as the "tipping feature" and was not completed until mid December 2012, approximately 8+ months longer than estimated by Defendant.
The launch of the tipping feature was typical of all site feature launches for [redacted] - it was met with a frustrating level of problems.
The launch was attempted twice but failed, required 15 hours of downtime, lacked certain previously specified functionality, and caused an avalanche of new critical bugs that negated any benefit the feature provided to [redacted].
Development abruptly ended after the launch of the tipping feature.
On November 30, 2012, Defendant informed Plaintiff that laws in the USA had prohibited Defendant from developing websites like [redacted] since 2009.
Defendant was concerned about facing penalties since authorities had recently audited another development company resulting in penalties.
Therefore, a new development company called [redacted] was hired by Plaintiff to carry on development duties.
Still in the process of acquainting themselves with the development code for [redacted], [redacted] was burdened with tackling numerous critical bugs left by Defendant, many which remain unresolved to date (March 7, 2013).
Whether through neglect, incompetence, wilful intent, or a combination thereof,
Defendant's inability to develop and maintain [redacted] in functioning order caused Plaintiff to lose millions of dollars in revenue,
irreparably harmed [redacted]'s reputation, handicapped the site's potential, and damaged Plaintiff's livelihood and physical health.
Years of site crashes, slow speeds, serious bugs, and a lack of new features had taken its toll. [redacted] was declining rapidly while competitor sites, new and old, continued their rapid ascension.
One site barely over a year and a half old had grown to over 10 times the popularity of [redacted], even though [redacted] had a two year head start.
The countless hours Plaintiff spent monitoring [redacted], assisting with site troubleshooting, shifting goals and strategies to accommodate site setbacks,
dealing with customer dissatisfaction, and the ultimate humiliation of watching newer sites leapfrog [redacted] in success negatively affected Plaintiff's personal health.
The last major development performed by Defendant on [redacted] began in December 2011, known as the "tipping feature" and was not completed until mid December 2012, approximately 8+ months longer than estimated by Defendant.
The launch of the tipping feature was typical of all site feature launches for [redacted] - it was met with a frustrating level of problems.
The launch was attempted twice but failed, required 15 hours of downtime, lacked certain previously specified functionality, and caused an avalanche of new critical bugs that negated any benefit the feature provided to [redacted].
Development abruptly ended after the launch of the tipping feature.
On November 30, 2012, Defendant informed Plaintiff that laws in the USA had prohibited Defendant from developing websites like [redacted] since 2009.
Defendant was concerned about facing penalties since authorities had recently audited another development company resulting in penalties.
Therefore, a new development company called [redacted] was hired by Plaintiff to carry on development duties.
Still in the process of acquainting themselves with the development code for [redacted], [redacted] was burdened with tackling numerous critical bugs left by Defendant, many which remain unresolved to date (March 7, 2013).
Whether through neglect, incompetence, wilful intent, or a combination thereof,
Defendant's inability to develop and maintain [redacted] in functioning order caused Plaintiff to lose millions of dollars in revenue,
irreparably harmed [redacted]'s reputation, handicapped the site's potential, and damaged Plaintiff's livelihood and physical health.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий