* Who owns the device?
* Is the offer reasonable?
* Should I be upset about this?
* Should I just send it back and ask for a refund?
* What should I do???
* For people who bought the Kickstarter, Space Monkey technically owns the device. We realized this isn't what most people wanted or expected, so if you buy on the site today, YOU own the device.
* In my opinion, yes.
* From a statistical standpoint, most people understood they were leasing the device and were happy we offered an upgrade. The ones who thought they owned the device are upset. We're trying hard to do everything we can to make our customers happy (while still staying in business)
* We want our customers to be happy, if that means refunding you.
* I can't answer that for certain, but I would say do whatever makes you happy.
1. $99 + $120/year (not $149). First year is free.
2. $99 + $79 (upgrade) + $49/year. First year is free. We included 6 months additional service with this offer.
3. Return $99 device, pay $200 up front + $49/year. First year is free. This is basically #2, but more expensive, and no 6 months free.
If I leased some security technology, I wouldn't mind getting a used one if it were cleaned and worked well.
If you read the FAQ on their kickstarter page it states;
"What if I cancel my subscription? We'll give you a pro-rated refund on your subscription once the device is sent back."
Ideally, you shouldn't change the rules after engaging with someone who pays you money. If the company is making a bunch of rationalizations about it with you, you may want to point out to them how frustrated you are with the process and hope they hear you. I really can't tell if that is the case here or not as you haven't posted the correspondence!
I waited a while after my last round of questions before writing this up. It was pretty clear that they had no intention of responding, or at least not within their own deadline.
- Kickstarter project called itself "Complete Cloud storage subscription service"
- Kickstarter project added a $349 level after a few days that included "device ownership". Update #1 on KS highlighted this new reward level. Discussion in forums about ownership option and how it differed from the pure subscription model where you don't own the device.
- Kickstarter FAQ for our project says, in response to "what if I cancel my subscription?", "We'll give you a pro-rated refund on your subscription once the device is sent back."
- Numerous posts in the comment areas about device ownership vs. pure subscription.
- While there are a small handful of others who, like you, didn't understand the subscription model, these are in a tiny minority of all backers. All of them either upgraded after talking with us about it, stuck with their current plan, or were offered a complete refund. None launched public attacks calling us scammers.
Lastly John, our last response to you via our customer support system was yesterday at 12:59, but you just said, "I waited a while after my last round of questions before writing this up. It was pretty clear that they had no intention of responding, or at least not within their own deadline."
Does it seem fair to you to keep asking the same questions over and over again of our support staff, and then launching a public attack like this on a holiday because we didn't get back to you for the 14th time within 24 hours?
As far as my questions to your staff, there was a consistent back and forth until that point. I'm completely sick of dealing with this issue, and it was pretty clear that I was not getting anywhere. I also didn't want to be dealing with this over the holiday, but I didn't set the upgraded deadline as the end of December! It is pretty frustrating and stressful going back and forth and getting absolutely nowhere. I was hoping to get some perspective by posting it. I think that I've gained that perspective, and have decided to ask for a refund. I didn't want it to come to this, as I had previously been very excited about your company and product.
I feel that the "public attack" is more pointing out to people the sleazy thing that you did in inserting a new claim of ownership into an upgrade offer. I felt like this was something that your company was completely unwilling to acknowledge and that it needed to be pointed out.
Going back through the exchange, it looks like our staff offered you a complete refund very early on.
Maybe send me an email outlining an example of how you think the exchange should have gone? alen@ I'm sincere -- I'd like to improve the experience if you have insights to share.
I'd also like to stop real quick and let you know that I do think that you have a great service with tons of potential. The technology is really cool, and I don't even know of anyone at this point who would come in as a close second. I've also been following your company since you won some startup competition a couple years ago, and was anxiously awaiting the service. I backed the project very quickly after getting the email from you guys that it was available.
> We'll give you a pro-rated refund on your subscription once the device is sent back.
That statement could be taken to imply a prepaid amount for a service could be refunded if the customer was willing to part with something of value - the drive. What it doesn't imply is that the device is leased. If anything, it seems like a simple incentive to get a canceling customer to return the drive - if they don't, you don't give them their money back.
I think you are continuing to make rationalizations about this whole thing. The indication is the slew of blaming statements in your response above to emil. See "launching a public attack like this on a holiday" for reference of said blaming statement. I think emil deserves to be heard here.
Simply acknowledging that the device was intended to be leased and clarifying that on the KickStarter page should do the trick.
That was the selling point!! Dirt cheap physical storage + cloud backup, with the trade off that you didn't own the device.
I hate to criticise, but your post seems quite entitled. It's fine if you misunderstood the produce, and perhaps SM should have shown goodwill in letting you have the device after all (rather than this ruckus).
The example that I gave was that if I were to walk into Verizon and get one of their free phones that accompanies the service
That's not true though is it. Your contract leases the phone to you - if you tried to cancel that service you would still be charge some sum X, where X is basically what is left to pay on the phone. For the period of that service your contract fee is extra to pay for the phone (when your service period ends, if you want to keep the phone you'd be crazy not to switch to a cheaper service without a free phone!! When my contract runs down I can switch to one half the price without a phone upgrade).
What SM appear to be saying is that they leased the device, but crucially without quantifying the cost of the device. That they are now able to do that might mean it is no longer cheap enough for you or others, that's their risk. But I think you've overreacted to the situation.
1. which I thought about backing then decided it wasn't something I would use as my backup needs are an order of magnitude larger)