Amazon is bricking $2,350 Astro robots 10 months after release
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Amazon has cancelled lots of consumer stuff in the past (the Alexa buttons or whatever they were) but cancelling business-facing things is new. Businesses are much more cancellation averse than forgetful consumers have proven to be.
(Unless you're talking about the entirety of Dave Limp's organization, which produced a lot of things...)
No one involved trusts Amazon to actually employ them 2 years from now, thus Amazonians have an extremely short-term mindset.
It's not like they can't look across the lake to Bellevue and see Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve and others delivering consistently. The Amazon culture is just too toxic to allow this to actually grow into a popular product.
AT&T could only push that pile of crap so far, they really did have their sales teams push it hard though. Very hard to convince a customer to get a Fire phone rather than a Galaxy S4, or even an S3.
When the Fire phone was on Fire sale, it was a pretty good value for users though. The launcher was weird, but you could smuggle Google Play store on it, and it had a good processor.
The phone had only been out for a few weeks at the point, the sales and return numbers must have been awful.
AT&T tried really hard to push that product like they did with the Nokia Lumias, but with specs worse than a Samsung Galaxy S3, a crummy app store, ancient Android, and going head to head against the Galaxy S4 with a 1366 by potato screen it was a fools errand to launch that product.
Would of been nice for them to open source the SDK too.
As the person proposing such purchases you want to be able to show successes. Amazon just bricking it means you don't have much to show for, probably burnt political capital for nothing to get these, and if anyone was opposed to getting these they are now proven right.
Both on the organizational and individual level these kinds of things are far more impactful in business products than in a hobbyist product
Have fun doing accounting for those credits.
Very bad look.
Is it? Let’s say I buy a Foo rather than a Bar because it brings better value for money. A few months later, the device is bricked, and I get my money back, but Bar doesn’t sell my 2nd choice anymore or it got more expensive.
Even if it isn’t, I may have made additional investments in time (e.g. learning how to operate it) or money (e.g. buying an longer charging cable) that I won’t get back.
It's basically in the range of an expensive laptop, fancy fridge + dishwasher, big couch, etc... Something that might have taken multiple weekends to shop for and maybe even a day off work to get delivered, possibly followed by months of personalization for an electronics product like a laptop.
If you are a business owner who bought one of these and happy with the device would you be “all good” with a refund?
There are costs associated with fielding new tech. At the minimum now people have to evaluate and install some new tech/service. Possibly you are now scrambling around to get a new guard service which can keep your property secure, perhaps at an elevated rate. At the worst your property is going to be burglarised because of the lack of security coverage.
This sucks. It damages Amazon’s reputation a tiny little bit. Every time anyone evaluates some tech or service they think about “will this thing go away one day and leave me in the lurch”? Doing this just increased the estimated probability of Amazon flaking out on you just a tiny bit. That means the next time they are selling something their own brand they will have just a tiny bit harder time to convince companies to be the early adopters. This kind of damage is cumulative in a non-linear way. And reputation is one of those things which are very hard to restore once you have ruined it.
There is nothing “all good” about it. At best this is an “on balance of costs and benefits this course of action was less damaging for Amazon than the alternatives”.
Without a doubt.
> After all, they know only 30 people in the entire US bought the thing
Do you have a source for that?
> number for illustration
What do you mean by that? What is it illustrating?
Is this some post-truth thing where you make up something and then provide a weird disclaimer to let people know that you just made up a thing out of thin air? If so, it ain’t cool.
Instead, they went with an abitrary low number and declared it to be arbitrary.
const ILLUSTRATIVE_LOW_SALES = 30
Seems fine to me.
They could have said "I don't think they sold too many." It would have clearly indicated that they are speculating and expressed the same information.
The problem with the sentence "they know only 30 people in the entire US bought the thing" is that it indicates precise knowledge where there is none. Is it 30, 32, 300 or 3000? who knows? We don't even know that the 30 is the right order of magnitude. We just speculate that it must not have been too many units. How much is "not too many" for Amazon? How colossal a flop this was?
> Seems fine to me.
I'm afraid you are too used to the blurry edges of the "truth". We can push back against that. If someone is speculating they should say that.
I agree. This was not speculation though. It was a hypothetical, signaled by the use of "illustrative".
The OP was making a point, not about that order of magnitude, they were saying that whatever the number is, Amazon knows it. Even if the OP, myself and yourself don't. It is possible they deliberately selected an implausibly low number, in order to further signal this as a hypothetical.
>> I'm afraid you are too used to the blurry edges of the "truth".
Please, less of the personally directed comments like this. I am trying to explain how you have misconstrued the OP's comments. It would be great if you could take us as arguing in good faith.
I did not misconstrued the OP's comment. I understood them completely, and exactly as you explain them. I even understand the meta level. Saying " After all, they know only 30 people in the entire US bought the thing" sounds strong, and authoritative. Even with the disclaimer it sounds stronger than saying "I think not too many people bought the robot."
> they were saying that whatever the number is, Amazon knows it.
It will be very hard to convince me that the original phrasing is fine by rephrasing it. It just further proves it that you can say the same thing without having to make up a number.
> It would be great if you could take us as arguing in good faith.
But that is the core of my argument. What I'm saying is that the form of the argument "strong and concrete statement (followed by sideway, weak disclaimer)" is manipulative. It is not a good faith form of argument. There are other ways to say the same thing and I recommend using those forms.
I also accept that you are saying in good faith that you think this is fine. I truly believe that that is your opinion, and you are communicating it in good faith. There is no problem there.
What I further believe is that you hold that opinion because you have encountered many cases of statements subtly manipulating, or subtly bending the truth and you have become desensitised to them. That is what I believe makes you think it is fine.
Things like "asterisk illustrative image" on food packaging where in truth you will never make those ingredients look like the illustration. Or "asterisk your experience my vary" on a battery life or gas mileage claim where in real life you will never get those numbers. Or a breakfast cereal claiming it improves concentration, but when you read their studies you realise what they tested is that it improves concentration over not eating anything for breakfast at all. None of these are actual lies, but they are all meant to manipulate you into thinking something other than the truth.
Our memetic landscape is saturated with these "half-truths" because they work. I don't like it. I think we would be better of if we would not let these slide. I'm seeing the same pattern in the comment we started talking about, and I called it out for that. I believe I said that in as civilised way as I can.
The root comment was not about money but reputation. How confidently can someone buy something from Amazon to use if a 'sorry, I changed my mind, give it back and solve your task some other way, I am out of here!' is hanging over the head.
It's the risk of buying experimental tech. If you don't want this to happen you can wait until it's an established product.
It was clearly sold as a trial run and refunded but I haven't found a replacement that works as seamlessly.
Out of garbage bags? Press the button. Out of dishwasher tabs? Press another button. Rinse aid? Same.
For me it's just a way to get 15% off stuff that isn't too time-sensitive. Running a little low, stock up. Same way people use Costco or similar if there's one convenient I suppose.
(Tangential, but would be great if you could subscribe on a price basis: send me two of these with my S&S order if the price is below £12.34 or whatever (and not otherwise).)
It reminds me of Uber's prebook a taxi, which (may have changed), doesn't prebook anything and if there aren't any ubers when you booked you are out of luck.
The trick is to go in and review the order before it’s due to ship (you get an email reminder) and cancel/substitute/defer any items you don’t need or that are priced too high.
Occasionally I’ve also noticed items that are showing out of stock on the product page, but they still managed to find stock for my S&S order.
It definitely doesn't 'take the lowest recent price', it doesn't even claim to, it gives you whatever discount (either 0/5 or 5/15 percent depending the product, and less/more than five items respectively) against the exact product listing and exact seller for that listing that you set it up against. I've cancelled/skipped them and ordered the same literal product (maybe a different listing) cheaper as a one-off order on numerous occasions. Nevermind all the ones I have set up that are basically just 'salt' or whatever and I don't care about the brand, the cheapest brand can vary a lot and if you're not careful you can end up subscribed to one that happens to go maliciously expensive.
The coffee I like isn’t available anywhere near me. And even if it was, it’s just one more thing to stay on top of because I damn sure don’t want to run out.
I go through it consistently enough that I just haven’t had to think about coffee in probably two years. Every once in a while I open my door and some has appeared and that’s exactly when I realize I was running low.
I don't use it for price, at least not wholly, but I do have to pay attention to it if I don't want a surprise ridiculous price. If that makes sense.
(Although I just noticed I said in top-level comment that it was just for price, heh. I suppose it's just a mix of things, and I've never really thought much about why I use it. Price can be nice, but definitely convenience too: the prompt to check if I do need more of whatever or can skip it, otherwise I would likely run out and only then order/go out to buy.)
Sure, but then you're losing out on "have the thing on hand at all times without having to think about it".
That basically defeats any advantage of a subscription. You might as well just have a bookmark calendar event that leads to the one-click purchase.
Sibling gave some other clear benefits, but I'd also add it's helpful just to have a basket prepared for you too. Imagine if you walked into the supermarket and someone offered you a basket of things you'd told them you often like to buy. Maybe you don't want them today, there could be all manner of reasons, but you might, it's still helpful.
I imagine they prioritized the short-term profits of a just-in-time middleman.
It IS a predictable problem. And they predicted it, and did something about it.
If you live in a super hot location you can’t always get stuff shipped year round.
I’d prefer that to dealing with the return and refund process.
Which.. yeah, would be cool, but I do think it's a level of analysis everyone who uses S&S is aware does not happen.
There are many stories stating that the driver never shows up, or shows up 15 minutes early and leaves charging you with a no-show fee.
I pre-booked a ride to get to the airport at 4AM, figuring prebooking is the best way to make sure I had availability. Driver accepted it at 9PM, was not awake at 4AM. The Lyft app made me call support to cancel the pre-book and get an on demand ride. I couldn't cancel even though my driver wasn't active.
I have a few from ~2016 that I was playing with a couple months ago. You have to block them from connecting to amazon servers... I got them working and started but didn't finish tying them into a local flask server.
Seems kind of redundant when you can just “hey Alexa, order garbage bags”.
They both came out approximately at the same time, 2014-2015.
Scrolling through functionality on wikipedia [0] almost makes it sound as though it doesn't even do that now. There's just a reference to a 2019 meeting about people not using it to order products.
My gut reaction is that Bottomless is laughably absurd, an IoT device and middleman in search of a problem. But I’m trying to analyze it fairly. In what circumstance is this better than a normal product subscription that allows skips?
Anyone actually used it or know someone that uses it loyally?
That's just not true. Companies cancel things all the time. Obviously these weren't exactly selling well -- what else is a company supposed to do?
The fact that literally no other company has the reputation for cancelling things that Google has, should tell you that their reputation is something very specific to Google, for whatever reason.
That's the whole fucking problem! People buy computers but cannot change the software running on them.
This is a cloud connected device so it seems like an entirely fair outcome.
If they didn't refund customers then I would be complaining too, but that's simply not the case here.
Given how niche of a product this was I'm not sure people are going to be really upset at this ...
That's without going into any hassle associated with replacing it's use.
I'm not saying that people would be justified in being really upset but I'd certainly understand why they would be (especially for a niche product because that means it's harder or more expensive to replace)
I had been thinking about cancelling, when something happened that made me disappointed in their customer service, something that used to be top of the line for Amazon. Didn’t even get offered a free month of Prime for their fuckup. Made the decision easy.
But since then, they’ve been incessant, trying to get me to buy Prime again on literally every order. At least now it’s up to 1 free month if I come back, at first they tried 1 free week. I know, I know, "ads always and forever work", and if I say anything else I’m some arrogant idiot, but this is once again advertising that leaves a sour taste in my mouth and is certainly something I remember.
I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was actually for, and neither could he, as it was basically solely a party trick for him. They don't even vacuum floors like a Roomba does!
The linked article talks about security patrols or whatever, but simply installing security cameras is cheaper and better. A robot obviously rolling along the floor is easy to avoid or to disable.
That would give me pause after things like swatting... offline device maybe, but on the internet, just to end up on Shodan? Nah
Minor nitpick, I've just come back from a multilevel house with stairs and ways to roll to|from any room; wide doorways, ramps, spiral outside groundwork, screw-drive elevator.
It's well thought out and practical, the own builder did the shed first and lived on site for two years with earth moving gear (owner | contractor) digging out big rocks, placing them, recessing walls into hillside, building out steel frame, etc.
The only tasks that come to mind that involve a moving robot are tasks that require moving around to perform the task. A Roomba is the obvious and most well-known example, but there are also now robotic lawnmowers that make sense for the same reason (and I even use the city of Halifax using them earlier this year to maintain public grounds!).
Another use case I can think of that physically requires moving around would be watering plants. That would require a more advanced and larger robot, so it's not there yet, but imagine a Roomba-type base station but with a water hook-up, and a robot with a water tank and an extendable hose-arm. For how many house plants I have, how much work it is to water them regularly, and how much better the robot could do the job if it watered plants daily (but only exactly the amount it needed by using a moisture probe), this is definitely something I would consider.
The problem of course is that all of these actually useful robots are purpose-specific; none are general. A Roomba is not a lawnmower is not a plant waterer. The Amazon device tried to be a general purpose robot, but because it doesn't have vacuums or grass cutters or a water hose or anything used to actually accomplish a specific task, it's good for nothing. I can walk aimlessly around my apartment too, but I don't need a robot for that!
What is it you say you do here?
Maybe it’s cost prohibitive to produce something like this robot at tiny scale, but it seems like the best way to develop would be to identify a few partner businesses, super serve them well and then sell to general public.
Stripe is famous for developing products that way. E.g. stripe subscriptions were built in concert with Atlasian and other companies, then released to everybody [1].
To be fair, maybe that’s what they are doing with their home product. And to be doubly fair, building a subscription billing product is far more straightforward than introducing a new category.
[1] https://www.lennyspodcast.com/building-a-culture-of-excellen...
They’re just using the standard startup playbook here
As someone who worked inside Amazon, the LPs and particular "customer obsession" are quite a lot more malleable than they might appear. For example, a PM might pitch "ads by default in Prime Video" as quote-unquote customer obsessed because ads inform customers about products that they could use.
Just a hypothetical scenario of course.
Burn those people a few times and they’re gone forever.
It has a chilling affect to work new ideas when you know the next round of cost cutting could take your job
https://killedbymicrosoft.info/
Skype for Business is still supported!
Because it is data mining source!
google voice, you can still even get under 24h support replies! From freaking google! An actual support email reply, with a first name basis message!
It's awesome and scary, Like having a bear waking you up while camping.
I think you may mean king of (y)our enterprise, not in a constitutional monarchy way but the feudal form. Note how hard it is to make One Drive go away permanently on Windows. You can't, unless you nobble Windows updates and that is not too bright an idea.
1. You can get rid of OneDrive by uninstalling it.
2. You seem to be implying that MS will get rid of its desktop applications. This seems unlikely give that the desktop applications work well and are popular. Do you have any proof that they will be replaced.
3. You also claim that releasing a new version of Outlook somehow is equivalent to canceling it or ruining it. I switched to the new version and it worked fine. I actually liked how the user interface was simplified.
It's fine to prefer other products. That being said, spreading FUD is really not helpful.
Do you have any proof about MS Office desktop apps being cancelled? I have not heard about that. Also, the new Outlook works fine.
I own an MS Partner (secure http www dot blueloop dot net - ooh obfuscation missus!) I think we are currently "Silver" (whatever that means). It's a business relationship and that's all. We have a lot of MS "all in" customers that we have brought on and done as they ask to lead them to the cloud. We get rather little "kick back" in return and technical resources and support that don't exist but that is changing somewhat as we have tasked someone with sorting out all the little hurdles and minutae. It is a bloody faff though!
I've been an IT consultant, personally, for 30 odd years.
1. Yes you can uninstall OneDrive but it has a habit of re-installing itself, whenever MSO is updated or the wind comes from the Nor'East.
2. They wont be replaced as such, desktop versions will simply fall out of support. Try a search here: (1) As far as I can tell, you are supposed to hit the webby versions instead.
3. The new version of Outlook is a web app dressed up as a desktop app. That's what electon web apps do. Nothing wrong with that but it is not really a desktop app anymore.
I spend quite a lot of my time worrying about IT, given that I am a Managing Director of a small IT company. I've done this for 24 years. I've seen "FUD" and the like come and go over the years and have learned when to filter it out or not.
It's now time for a particular change: "stuff my coffers with gold because COVID n that has screwed my finances". Ignore the AI bollocks that the world is fixating on, its all about the bottom line for a lot of firms and that means cough redistribution of wealth - ie we need to come up with innovative ways of parting you from your money.
Lots of firms are now going all in on subscription based licensing to prop up the finances - it is practically a meme. VMware (Broadcom) is an obvious recent example in the news and MS has published end of life guidelines for quite a lot of products.
(1) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/?produc... (2) https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/exchange-team-blog/ex... (3) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/policies/modern
You can either do as you are told or not ... the choice is yours.
I spent a year learning silverlight and XAML, so I might sound a bit bitter...
"Amazon's email to customers encourages owners to recycle Astro for Business through the Amazon Recycling Program, with Amazon covering associated costs."
Google shuts stuff down left and right and nobody seems to be leaving.
I don't think you're right about that
I used to pay for their stuff, but I have moved to Seafile and Fastmail. Only google product I still use is YouTube, everything else has been replaced and I don't consider new Google products anymore.
And I guess they sold so few that this just made more sense to refund everyone than keeping maintaining the servers.
I had a cat feeder that required cloud, and when that company went out of business I had a brick and no refund. (Yeah I was crazy to buy the thing, but I had my reasons and knew the risks.) That’s the risk with these cloudy devices.
I have a hard time imagining Amazon is so much as shutting down 1000 devices here.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/20/23415167/amazon-glow-sup...
Maybe they find it easier to convince consumers to let amazon spy on them and their homes than it is to convince businesses to let amazon spy on what happens in the office, or maybe the data they were collecting from businesses doesn't seem like it's be as valuable to them as the data they'll collect by putting a mobile camera and microphone in households.
The last these bets is AI, which already has Wall Street recoiling at the cost.
That was a shock in the warehousing industry. Many companies make equipment for automated warehouses, and those are long-term commitments for the buyer. To have a key supplier bought out by a competitor, and external customers then cut off was a new thing.
please, tell me someone had an armed response Astro video somewhere
Amazon have googled Astro robots.
Amazon is doing just that (and giving them an Amazon credit on top of the refund).
So no, they shouldn't be obligated to release the code, because obviously that's code that may be greatly reused, and they don't exactly want to help out competitors (nor should they be obligated to).
Also, they're refunding the devices entirely (with an additional credit) and taking them back for recycling. So they seem to be doing 100% the right things here.
It's entirely common to pivot from non-product-market-fit to product-market-fit. That's what companies are supposed to do.
/s
will the robots receive a self-destruct command (real bricking), or will required external APIs be shut down (effectively bricking, but with a possibility of third-party service resurrection) ?
That said, the idea that the davelimp organization is given carte blanche for headcount and resources is laughably inaccurate.
So... this was a security bot right?
Did they want to use generative AI to hallucinate your security videos instead of, you know, filming them?