Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikb | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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