Comment by cameldrv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cameldrv | Hacker News Reader

Usually Internet (and real life) shitstorms are made when two assholes collide. Customer may be an asshole trying to stick it to the little indiegogo guy in a way he knows will have a disproportionate impact. On the other hand, the iPhone app does really suck and crashes constantly. Even big companies can't seem to make reliable software these days. All of that said, you went into business, so time to put on the big boy pants and be a professional. You sold the guy a device that comes with a service, and is useless without it. Don't pretend that you can just cut off the service because you don't like the guy and you've still fulfilled your obligations as a manufacturer.

On a broader note, IoT hardware that you install in your house that needs a service provided by a shaky startup company is going to cease to be a salable product fairly soon as more people get burned by it. We really need a low-attack-surface, standardized protocol to control and monitor these things without the support of the manufacturer. If we could make universal remote controls for AV equipment in the eighties, we ought to be able to make a universal remote control for home gadgets in the '10s.

> trying to stick it to the little indiegogo guy

If it was purchased from Amazon the customer may not know anything about the indiegogo or the size of the "company". Just expected to get a working product.

Shouldn't matter indiegogo or not, a product SHOULD work.

MQTT Perhaps? You could have a simple MQTT broker in your house that's the gateway to your in-home MQTT controlled/monitored devices. Your broker could easily establish bridge connections to other brokers for specific namespaces. Just need a simple method to define these needed bridge connections for the devices in the home. I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if all of my IoT type devices had zero access to the internet directly.

Well, he's also offering a refund. Not sure where the problem is in that case with the service provider's response. If you have sh*tty customers it's smart to drop them fast and focus on your good customers.

Yeah, he bricked the device and then told him his only option was to return and refund through Amazon.

Let's not pretend that Garadget is somehow being magnanimous here.

What device? The cloud-enabled device he sold himself? What I understand is that he's blocking that user from using the cloud.

Yes, the device the user paid 99 dollars for and is now useless. So for the user to get his money back he has to send back the device.

And? That's how it works.

He doesn't like the customer's tone of voice so he can decide to turn the customer's device into a $99 paperweight? That's not at all how it works.

You're being strangely defensive over this whole thread and I'm going to echo another commenter in asking, are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?

That's how cloud services work. If you buy a cloud service, then F up with the cloud provider, your cloud device is worthless.

And there's really no problem with it, since you can get your money back. You don't lose any money.

> are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?

Let's say it's true. Would I say it, after going so far of somehow getting a 2843 days old HN account for it? Or let's say I'm not. Why would I even bother to answer to anyone but a moderator (who would probably send me an email in that case)? So, what's your point? Trying to discredit a discussion partner because you run out of arguments?

That's how it works if you're a shitty, unethical company that has no business being involved in the security space.

No. That's probably illegal.

Don't break the law.

It doesn't matter what fine print the customer signed, if the contract is illegal.

Consumer protection laws protect us from this BS.

I don't think that point is as clear as you imagine. Really bricking a device may be illegal (and is probably already contested enough in front of a judge that a lawyer can tell you the details). But this device probably works 100% the same, just the server responds with "Not authorized". So in fact the device is still working perfectly fine.

> Well, he's also offering a refund.

No, he isn't. He suggests returning the device to point of purchase, Amazon, who have no control over this situation.

Maybe Amazon is different in other countries (I doubt it), but in my country after ordering on Amazon you send stuff back to the seller, not to Amazon. The ticket for that is handled in Amazon's interface but the actual interaction happens with the seller.

You seem to have confused orders fulfilled by Amazon, and people selling products on their platform as third party sellers.

You don't state which country your in, or answer the question someone asked of you regarding the potential affiliation you may have with this company.

Quote:

1 point by erikb 14 hours ago [-]

I've been actually answering that question twice, yunoreed.

Time is a concept you seem not to understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com