Hacker News Reader

Comment by woof | Hacker News Reader

He disabled the device.

And you don't see the issue?

To be clear, he disabled the app, not the customer's device.

The device's primarily-marketed feature is opening your garage from an app. To do this, the app and the device talk through the company's server. This developer blocked the customer's app from the server. That breaks the device's primary functionality.

Yeah, I misinterpreted "device" (as "iPhone").

As a side note, I wonder about the original app design, I mean, Wi-Fi/Internet connection is down and I cannot enter my garage (unless I still have anyway handy the original garage remote or key), the company's server is down (for whtever reason) and I am locked outside the garage, there is a DDOS on (say) Cloudflare and I am locked out of the garage ... :(

Usually this kind of hiccups happen not in a sunny warm day, but when it is heavily raining, during a storm, etc.

This is a major flaw with a lot of technology now. The assumption that you will have an internet connection. It's horribly inefficient, especially when we have robust p2p wireless protocols.

Since Garadget deliberately and maliciously disabled the device, can the consumer sue for compensation for the time wasted on it?

The device is useless without the app. They disabled the device.

Where did you get that from ? It seems to me he simply banned the device unique ID on the server side.

Is it even possible for an app developer to disable an iphone ? Apple would be mad.

"Your unit ID 2f0036... will be denied server connection"

The Garadget device, not the customers phone! I never mentioned a phone, did I?

It's an app, so virtual device, I guess.

The "Garadget controller" (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/softcomplex/garadget-ga...) looks like a physical device to me.

You're right. I didn't look carefully enough at the Amazon page.

Sorry confusion on my part, the guy mentions his iphone app not working and the dev answer that the device is banned. My bad.

Anyways, device is not disabled as in bricked, it's blacklisted on the server side of thing.

There isn't too much difference between a bricked device and a device that most likely loops trying to connect to the server and fails indefinitely with no other functionality.

"Bricked" being an irreversible state, I agree (technically). If there isn't a way for the customer to reverse the ban, it might as well be bricked in the practical sense, from the customer's perspective.

Mate, if you're aiming to split hairs, you're doing a fine job.

We are talking about the device that he sold him right? Not the iPhone? Lol.

He offered a full refund (although he admittedly could be a bit more tactful).

If he's said - I'm disabling it, too bad, I'd agree that's out of line.

However, what was actually said was - You're a jerk - I don't want your business, give me back the device, and I'll give you the money back.

Now they don't have to deal with each other, and nobody loses out (well, except for wasted time on both sides).

How would you feel if you bought a Tesla Model S, then a few weeks later they called you up and said "we don't like your online review of your car, so we're going to disable most of its functionality, but you can return it for a refund". $8000+ in option packages on that car rely on cloud functionality run by Tesla. If you don't -want- a refund, but -want- the car you already paid for that's sitting in your driveway, should the manufacturer be able to roll back your purchase on their whim?

Yes, great analogy.

But Amazon can nuke accounts and disable "purchased" books, video, etc, at will. So there's a gray area. I think what Amazon does ought to be illegal, but hey.

So, with a little shame I'll admit I've actually been "banned" from Amazon. The one thing I can still access is all the digital content such as books, videos, and like, games or game keys that are associated with my account. I can't get into half of the account settings, can't even view my stored payment methods, for example.

But, to their credit, I can read my stupid Kindle books. Luckily their eBook DRM is terrible and I have liberated my content, but, still... to their credit, they did not block what I had paid for.

Now, I'm not saying it's impossible for them to block this content, but, it seems they are sensitive to the dubious legality or morality of doing so. I suspect it might have something to do with the huge negative backlash they got a few years ago when they did disable someone's entire content library and it got publicized.

Sorry about being banned, bro.

But I am pleased to hear that Amazon is no longer (always, anyway) blocking access after account termination.

If companies want to keep control of media and devices in this way we need a law to make them behave. Disabling a device without due notice should receive a hefty fine and compensation to the user.

Preventing or no longer supporting access to media should be similar and require an alternative format be made available, so Amazon can block access to an ebook or movie but must provide a download instead.

That would balance alittle the current disparity of power the companies hold IMO.

Recently NowTV/Roku unlawfully accessed my set-top box and disabled an app, the main reason for having the device, because they don't like it. They claim it's illegal but it's available from the curated app-store if I buy the more expensive device from the same manufacturer (or indeed a device from many other manufacturers).

I can't afford a lawsuit and we don't have group actions in the UK. Net effect a company cripples a device because they don't like how it is being used, and commit unauthorised access of a computer system in the process (currently illegal, but only individuals are being prosecuted for it).

We need protection from such companies.

I'm sorry to hear about your Roku. Whenever I get a device, I now have to spend time backing up as much as I can, for the inevitable "upgrades" that will hit me. With Android devices, you should always copy all of the .apk files off. I have a script somewhere which disambiguates the filenames and rsyncs them to my backup server. It has saved me many times. It's ridiculous that I have to go through so much trouble to have the same level of stability I had with a desktop pc I would buy from Dell, in the sense that Dell would give you a restore disc that will return your device to factory functionality.

I keep trotting this comment out every few weeks, because it happens so often now that the cloud eats something we own. Probably my most frustrating experience was when Apple forced me to update iOS, but they removed many features that I relied on. BTSync broke, Nightshift functionality that I was using with Flux was rendered unusable. And a ton of other little annoyances[1].

Apple heavily damaged my iPad with an update awhile ago. And Apple won't take no for an answer, and will keep downloading the next iOS update even over a cellular connection, so I had to firewall it.

Computing today might seem seamless, but, just you try and go against the grain. You'll encounter a remarkable amount of resistance. All I want is so have agency over the devices that I buy.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11986500

Musk did actually blacklist a someone for tweeting something unfavorable towards Musk.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/03/sour-model-x-unveiling-...

But he did not disable a car. Refusing to continue to sell new products to a customer you consider rude is very different from bricking the product the customer is already having bought and using.

LOL?

Garadget sold a product to the customer, accepted the customers money -then disabled the product when the customer wrote a negative review.

Who's the jerk?

Yeah, but he disabled the device before refunding any money.

No, he disabled the thing then told the customer that his only option was to return it to Amazon for a refund.

That's not at all the same narrative.

The issue is we've entered an age where, because of devices' entanglement with the cloud, the manufacturer's interest in the object isn't exhausted at the moment of sale. This is a big change in the way things have traditionally been done, and in the long term it could have major consequences.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened - but usually manufacturers are pretty reticent about it, and try to avoid looking capricious in their actions. When Amazon removed books from customers' Kindles they got a bunch of flack for it, even though there was some sort of reason involving the copy not having been licensed properly, or something.

If I brought a normal washing machine and it leaked a lot, I could post a factual review on line without fear of retribution. If I brought an internet-enabled washing machine and it leaked a lot, should I expect that posting a factual review online would get my washing machine remotely disabled? This would not be good for getting trustworthy reviews.

And if a device can be remotely disabled because of a negative review, can it also be disabled because, say, I'm a Yankees supporter and the guy taking my support call thinks Yankees suck? What if the support guy thought it would be funny to see me hopping on one foot while holding a shoe on my head - can he disable my device until I send him a video of that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com