10 ms·

I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I can't see any upside to this and I can't imagine what the discussion looked like wh

by mdip 11y ago

I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I can't see any upside to this and I can't imagine what the discussion looked like when implementing this decision. My (admittedly cynical) guess is that it was one part "We're fielding a lot of support questions on products that aren't ours and our malfunctioning" and two parts "Our customers will be more motivated to buy Philips Hue products since they're already invested in the existing system". The first argument is out the door because now they'll just get a lot of support questions around many more products that don't work. The second might happen for existing customers, but I'm now going to avoid this product as a future customer because compatibility is a feature, and for me, and I'd think anyone who is looking to purchase a tool that manages lighting/small electrics around the home, compatibility is easily the #1 or #2 feature. If there were a choice between a lightswitch that worked with a wide array of lightbulbs, and one that worked with only one company's bulbs, guess which one I'm buying?

IshKebab 11y ago
Having been involved in a couple of these discussions, I'd say it is more like "Shouldn't we control this? Are other people doing stuff with our products that we don't control? That's bad isn't it? Let's stop them." I.e. it's more about paranoid control than actual reasons.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I have heard similar discussions, mostly around support. Which is to say when a third party bulb doesn't work, who gets the support call? When you compute the cost and margin of a consumer device you have to include the cost of support as a burden on overall profit margin. If support costs eliminate profit margin then you start losing money and that sucks. What is worse, if you raise your prices to cover the support cost, the 3rd party bulbs look that much better and that just increases your cost. Sort of a catch 22
- bborud 11y ago
  Actually, earlier today I wrote some MCU code to control my HUE lights, and I figured "hey, why not build a controller to make my christmas lights controlled by the HUE hub". Guess this news answers that. Seen together with the Phillips Hue bulbs I have being noisy as hell, hue just became a lot less interesting. I hope there will be an open source system and manufacturers whose bulbs can easily be integrated. Hopefully some that don't make a lot of noise.
  - rblatz 11y ago
    I've got Phillips Hue bulbs, multiple zigbee GE bulbs that work (well until I update) with hue, multiple z wave switches, a nest. I've been able to control all of it using OpenHab running on a raspberry pi that us a z-stick zwave radio attached. OpenHab is hard to get running but immensely powerful. Especially with the Astro binding, you could for example determine when the sun is shining through a window and close the blinds for each window as direct sun starts shining through it. OpenHab 2 is in development and is supposed to be a lot more user friendly.
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    Do you mean RF noise or audible noise?
    - bborud 11y ago
      Audible noise. Perhaps related to the PWM? They're somewhat dim as well. Not exactly a quality product.
soperj 11y ago
And yet, lots of people don't avoid Apple.
- balls187 11y ago
  > And yet, lots of people don't avoid Apple. On one hand, having to use Apple's proprietary Lightning connector sucks. On the other, having Apple be heavy handed with iOS App Store submissions means I have a higher confidence with my iOS Apps behaving compared to those I install on my Android Device.
  - soperj 11y ago
    The thing that deters me from ever writing something for iOS is that you have to own a Mac to do it.
    - rizwank 11y ago
      I do not believe this is true now given all the third party frameworks available.
      - simcop2387 11y ago
        From what I understand you still need Xcode to sign the package with your developer key to either load it onto a device to test or to send it off to the app store. Though that might not be the case anymore as I haven't looked in a long time.
        lostlogin 11y ago
        I don't find that having a Mac helps me with the code signing all that much. It just doesn't work sometimes.
      - cynicalkane 11y ago
        Apple's EULA actually requires you to build iOS software on a Mac. Using a PC is not a legal option.
tdkl 11y ago
> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Because they can. John Doe will think "oh, I just need to shell out some money to get it working again", or "oh, the system needed an upgrade anyway". The mobile bonanza (well, that one company who gets majority of revenue from hardware) in last couple of years perverted the word "upgrade" from "a software upgrade, which adds new features and ads value to existing purchased product", to "needing to buy a new device to keep on going with existing performance". I'm happy to see this hasn't spread to the desktop PC. Yet.
- usaphp 11y ago
  > that one company who gets majority of revenue from hardware I hope you are not referring to Apple, because compared to other companies , iPhones and iPads are the one who can run current software on older devices with almost no issues. Samsung and other android manufacturers on the other hand have not supported older devices at all until recently (and even now not as good as Apple does). My first gen iPad still runs perfectly fine
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Don't forget Sony. They are pretty reliable about updating their Z-series. Full disclosure: have a Z3, mostly for this and because it was waterproof. The screen is now partially detached in the top after less than one year of use which annoys me but I hope to get it resolved under warranty.
    - tacticus 11y ago
      they also decide to disable normal features because fuck you. android auto does not work on the z3 compacts at all because of their decision to remove the USB charge mode from the phones.
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        Didn't know. Would be interested if anyone could provide an explanation as to why a company would do that. Also: anything else they have disabled?
balls187 11y ago
3rd argument: non certified bulbs may cause damage to the hue system, and be a hazzard risk. Curious what the process is to be listed as Friends of Hue (or w/e).
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  At the moment Phillips refers to traditional-style bulbs as Hue and less traditional lights such as the Bloom lamps and LED LightStrips as "Friends of Hue". There certainly is an interesting question if they would start adding third party vendors to the "Friends of Hue" list, but right now its still a first-party designation for Phillips, so far as I've seen.
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I think it's because Apple more or less proved that the walled garden approach can be wildly successful and everyone is trying to copy them. Seems however that they are the only ones to have success with it.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  They teach it now in business schools as case studies.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    This is probably the point where it all goes wrong. Like the game of deaf phone, by the time the idea reached the mind of students, it's twisted into an abomination, having lost the entire essence in-transit.
    - natch 11y ago
      How wonderfully perfect that "game of telephone" by the time it reached your ears had transformed into "game of deaf phone."
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I was writing that on mobile so it was inconvenient to double-check if I got the name right (that's what we call this game in Polish anyway - "głuchy telefon", which literally means "deaf phone"). I see how this is fitting though :).
- Agathos 11y ago
  I hardly think Apple was first. What about Nintendo and the NES lockout chip?
roymurdock 11y ago
Boss: We introduced Hue back in 2012 w/ a plan to lose money the first 3 years developing the hub, subsidizing partners, and getting our product out in the market. Tell me we're seeing a positive ROI now. Hue PM: Hue is profitable, but only marginally so. Our strategy of making up the initial investment on $60 per bulb hardware is being undermined by cheap 3rd party lighting fixtures. Plus we're incurring costs responding to all of these non-hue connectivity and reliability issues. Boss: We control a large enough market share now and most of the market is already heavily invested in our ecosystem. Cut off hub connectivity for these 3rd party products. People should not be using non-Hue approved hardware with our software. We're a for-profit company, not a government or a charity. Hue PM: That won't go over well with the early adopters and the tech community. Boss: I've already run the cost/benefit analysis. The tech community might be mad for a little while, but we've got our sights set on industrial and commercial contracts now that we've proved Hue's viability in the consumer market. Do it.
- mbesto 11y ago
  This is 100% spot on. I have been in meetings just like this in a past life.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    While this may happen in other instances, Zigbee Light Link products like these are 100% targeted at consumer markets. If commercial/industrial applications are doing a ZigBee controlled building, they're doing it with ZigBee Building Automation. (alternately, EnOcean, Enlighted, etc. which also target commercial markets with wireless lighting controls) Light Link - "Smart, easy-to-use lighting control designed for consumers." http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstandards/zigbee-light-link/ http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstand... Building Automation - "Innovative, efficient and money-saving workplaces." http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstandards/zigbee-building-automation/ http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstand... It's conceivable that they could carry the Hue brand into other markets, but the existing Hue Bridge that just lost compatibility is definitely not that product.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
djrogers 11y ago
> The first argument is out the door because now they'll just get a lot of support questions around many more products that don't work. I'm not so sure about that - I've owned Hue products for a while now and until this moment never knew that they supported any other lightbulbs. I'm guessing most of their other customers didn't either - this was sold to mainstream consumers, not HA geeks.
stcredzero 11y ago
"Our customers will be more motivated to buy Philips Hue products since they're already invested in the existing system". We all need to put our support behind the most open of the open source lighting control/home automation options! Then the open options will be the most compatible options. If we do it right, then proprietary bulbs will just work with themselves, and the marketplace will punish them.
- mdip 11y ago
  I completely agree. And I'm surprised that any department within the company saw this as a good idea. It was an obviously bad long-term idea, which makes me wonder if they think of this product as a business they plan to be in for the long term or if this is just something they're toying with and trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of before they abandon it. The most basic feature of a "General Lighting" product, besides providing light, is interoperability. They have an opportunity to push general lighting into the next generation and reap the benefits of the long-term experience they have with the early-adopter market. Instead, they've decided to put their product into the category of "Novelty Lighting". Meanwhile, should a competitor come along offering an open solution (there's probably one already?) that gains traction, Philips will lose, and they'll probably dump the product line well before they've lost, fulfilling the only guarantee a lock-in can fulfill: obsolescence. And even if they walk this back, the damage is done. They've shown they are willing to break customer's existing installations via a software update and will do so without more than an FAQ to explain it. They basically pushed a software update with the result of turning the lights off on their customers. It's disappointing more than anything. Someone out there will do better.
coldtea 11y ago
>I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I can't see any upside to this and I can't imagine what the discussion looked like when implementing this decision. Can't see any upside? How about more control and money for Philips, and few people would even care?
natch 11y ago
I imagine that not wanting to be sued for fires, electrocutions, and other ills caused by malfunctioning poor quality electrical devices controlled by Philips controllers could factor into it.
BogusIKnow 11y ago
The way to go for Philips would be the way of Apple. Build an ecosystem around Hue (Apple app store). Have help pages but don't do any support (Apple app store).
gedrap 11y ago
>>> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Or, if you look it at from a different angle, it's a user friendly decision. Maybe there were enough people saying hey this $NO_NAME_CHINESE_MANUFACTURER bulb doesn't work therefore Philips sucks. Can it contribute to introducing a monopoly? Sure. But it's a luxury good so I don't have much problem with that. If Philips controls what is compatible and what is not, it can ensure to a greater degree that customers experience is satisfactory. I understand the general BigBadCorporation vs Open Standards sentiment over HN but, really, it's sometimes for the better.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
incepted 11y ago
> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Really? It's pretty easy to understand. There's very little to lose and a whole lot to gain. Sure, you'll piss off a few people who read Hacker News but most buyers will just shrug and keep buying the only One True Brand, thereby making them millions and granting them a monopoly. If the plan doesn't work, you can still backtrack and open up to third parties. But there's really no downside to trying to force yourself into a monopoly, which is why Phillips, and before them Keurig, Apple and countless other brands, have tried and will try again.

by mdip 11y ago

IshKebab 11y ago

Having been involved in a couple of these discussions, I'd say it is more like "Shouldn't we control this? Are other people doing stuff with our products that we don't control? That's bad isn't it? Let's stop them." I.e. it's more about paranoid control than actual reasons.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I have heard similar discussions, mostly around support. Which is to say when a third party bulb doesn't work, who gets the support call? When you compute the cost and margin of a consumer device you have to include the cost of support as a burden on overall profit margin. If support costs eliminate profit margin then you start losing money and that sucks. What is worse, if you raise your prices to cover the support cost, the 3rd party bulbs look that much better and that just increases your cost. Sort of a catch 22
bborud 11y ago
Actually, earlier today I wrote some MCU code to control my HUE lights, and I figured "hey, why not build a controller to make my christmas lights controlled by the HUE hub". Guess this news answers that. Seen together with the Phillips Hue bulbs I have being noisy as hell, hue just became a lot less interesting. I hope there will be an open source system and manufacturers whose bulbs can easily be integrated. Hopefully some that don't make a lot of noise.
- rblatz 11y ago
  I've got Phillips Hue bulbs, multiple zigbee GE bulbs that work (well until I update) with hue, multiple z wave switches, a nest. I've been able to control all of it using OpenHab running on a raspberry pi that us a z-stick zwave radio attached. OpenHab is hard to get running but immensely powerful. Especially with the Astro binding, you could for example determine when the sun is shining through a window and close the blinds for each window as direct sun starts shining through it. OpenHab 2 is in development and is supposed to be a lot more user friendly.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  Do you mean RF noise or audible noise?
  - bborud 11y ago
    Audible noise. Perhaps related to the PWM? They're somewhat dim as well. Not exactly a quality product.

soperj 11y ago

And yet, lots of people don't avoid Apple.

balls187 11y ago
> And yet, lots of people don't avoid Apple. On one hand, having to use Apple's proprietary Lightning connector sucks. On the other, having Apple be heavy handed with iOS App Store submissions means I have a higher confidence with my iOS Apps behaving compared to those I install on my Android Device.
- soperj 11y ago
  The thing that deters me from ever writing something for iOS is that you have to own a Mac to do it.
  - rizwank 11y ago
    I do not believe this is true now given all the third party frameworks available.
    - simcop2387 11y ago
      From what I understand you still need Xcode to sign the package with your developer key to either load it onto a device to test or to send it off to the app store. Though that might not be the case anymore as I haven't looked in a long time.
      - lostlogin 11y ago
        I don't find that having a Mac helps me with the code signing all that much. It just doesn't work sometimes.
    - cynicalkane 11y ago
      Apple's EULA actually requires you to build iOS software on a Mac. Using a PC is not a legal option.

tdkl 11y ago

> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Because they can. John Doe will think "oh, I just need to shell out some money to get it working again", or "oh, the system needed an upgrade anyway". The mobile bonanza (well, that one company who gets majority of revenue from hardware) in last couple of years perverted the word "upgrade" from "a software upgrade, which adds new features and ads value to existing purchased product", to "needing to buy a new device to keep on going with existing performance". I'm happy to see this hasn't spread to the desktop PC. Yet.

usaphp 11y ago
> that one company who gets majority of revenue from hardware I hope you are not referring to Apple, because compared to other companies , iPhones and iPads are the one who can run current software on older devices with almost no issues. Samsung and other android manufacturers on the other hand have not supported older devices at all until recently (and even now not as good as Apple does). My first gen iPad still runs perfectly fine
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Don't forget Sony. They are pretty reliable about updating their Z-series. Full disclosure: have a Z3, mostly for this and because it was waterproof. The screen is now partially detached in the top after less than one year of use which annoys me but I hope to get it resolved under warranty.
  - tacticus 11y ago
    they also decide to disable normal features because fuck you. android auto does not work on the z3 compacts at all because of their decision to remove the USB charge mode from the phones.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      Didn't know. Would be interested if anyone could provide an explanation as to why a company would do that. Also: anything else they have disabled?

balls187 11y ago

3rd argument: non certified bulbs may cause damage to the hue system, and be a hazzard risk. Curious what the process is to be listed as Friends of Hue (or w/e).

WorldMaker 11y ago
At the moment Phillips refers to traditional-style bulbs as Hue and less traditional lights such as the Bloom lamps and LED LightStrips as "Friends of Hue". There certainly is an interesting question if they would start adding third party vendors to the "Friends of Hue" list, but right now its still a first-party designation for Phillips, so far as I've seen.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I think it's because Apple more or less proved that the walled garden approach can be wildly successful and everyone is trying to copy them. Seems however that they are the only ones to have success with it.

supercanuck 11y ago
They teach it now in business schools as case studies.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This is probably the point where it all goes wrong. Like the game of deaf phone, by the time the idea reached the mind of students, it's twisted into an abomination, having lost the entire essence in-transit.
  - natch 11y ago
    How wonderfully perfect that "game of telephone" by the time it reached your ears had transformed into "game of deaf phone."
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I was writing that on mobile so it was inconvenient to double-check if I got the name right (that's what we call this game in Polish anyway - "głuchy telefon", which literally means "deaf phone"). I see how this is fitting though :).
Agathos 11y ago
I hardly think Apple was first. What about Nintendo and the NES lockout chip?

roymurdock 11y ago

Boss: We introduced Hue back in 2012 w/ a plan to lose money the first 3 years developing the hub, subsidizing partners, and getting our product out in the market. Tell me we're seeing a positive ROI now. Hue PM: Hue is profitable, but only marginally so. Our strategy of making up the initial investment on $60 per bulb hardware is being undermined by cheap 3rd party lighting fixtures. Plus we're incurring costs responding to all of these non-hue connectivity and reliability issues. Boss: We control a large enough market share now and most of the market is already heavily invested in our ecosystem. Cut off hub connectivity for these 3rd party products. People should not be using non-Hue approved hardware with our software. We're a for-profit company, not a government or a charity. Hue PM: That won't go over well with the early adopters and the tech community. Boss: I've already run the cost/benefit analysis. The tech community might be mad for a little while, but we've got our sights set on industrial and commercial contracts now that we've proved Hue's viability in the consumer market. Do it.

mbesto 11y ago
This is 100% spot on. I have been in meetings just like this in a past life.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  While this may happen in other instances, Zigbee Light Link products like these are 100% targeted at consumer markets. If commercial/industrial applications are doing a ZigBee controlled building, they're doing it with ZigBee Building Automation. (alternately, EnOcean, Enlighted, etc. which also target commercial markets with wireless lighting controls) Light Link - "Smart, easy-to-use lighting control designed for consumers." http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstandards/zigbee-light-link/ http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstand... Building Automation - "Innovative, efficient and money-saving workplaces." http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstandards/zigbee-building-automation/ http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/applicationstand... It's conceivable that they could carry the Hue brand into other markets, but the existing Hue Bridge that just lost compatibility is definitely not that product.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

djrogers 11y ago

> The first argument is out the door because now they'll just get a lot of support questions around many more products that don't work. I'm not so sure about that - I've owned Hue products for a while now and until this moment never knew that they supported any other lightbulbs. I'm guessing most of their other customers didn't either - this was sold to mainstream consumers, not HA geeks.

stcredzero 11y ago

"Our customers will be more motivated to buy Philips Hue products since they're already invested in the existing system". We all need to put our support behind the most open of the open source lighting control/home automation options! Then the open options will be the most compatible options. If we do it right, then proprietary bulbs will just work with themselves, and the marketplace will punish them.

mdip 11y ago
I completely agree. And I'm surprised that any department within the company saw this as a good idea. It was an obviously bad long-term idea, which makes me wonder if they think of this product as a business they plan to be in for the long term or if this is just something they're toying with and trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of before they abandon it. The most basic feature of a "General Lighting" product, besides providing light, is interoperability. They have an opportunity to push general lighting into the next generation and reap the benefits of the long-term experience they have with the early-adopter market. Instead, they've decided to put their product into the category of "Novelty Lighting". Meanwhile, should a competitor come along offering an open solution (there's probably one already?) that gains traction, Philips will lose, and they'll probably dump the product line well before they've lost, fulfilling the only guarantee a lock-in can fulfill: obsolescence. And even if they walk this back, the damage is done. They've shown they are willing to break customer's existing installations via a software update and will do so without more than an FAQ to explain it. They basically pushed a software update with the result of turning the lights off on their customers. It's disappointing more than anything. Someone out there will do better.

coldtea 11y ago

>I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. I can't see any upside to this and I can't imagine what the discussion looked like when implementing this decision. Can't see any upside? How about more control and money for Philips, and few people would even care?

natch 11y ago

I imagine that not wanting to be sued for fires, electrocutions, and other ills caused by malfunctioning poor quality electrical devices controlled by Philips controllers could factor into it.

BogusIKnow 11y ago

The way to go for Philips would be the way of Apple. Build an ecosystem around Hue (Apple app store). Have help pages but don't do any support (Apple app store).

gedrap 11y ago

>>> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Or, if you look it at from a different angle, it's a user friendly decision. Maybe there were enough people saying hey this $NO_NAME_CHINESE_MANUFACTURER bulb doesn't work therefore Philips sucks. Can it contribute to introducing a monopoly? Sure. But it's a luxury good so I don't have much problem with that. If Philips controls what is compatible and what is not, it can ensure to a greater degree that customers experience is satisfactory. I understand the general BigBadCorporation vs Open Standards sentiment over HN but, really, it's sometimes for the better.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

incepted 11y ago

> I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions. Really? It's pretty easy to understand. There's very little to lose and a whole lot to gain. Sure, you'll piss off a few people who read Hacker News but most buyers will just shrug and keep buying the only One True Brand, thereby making them millions and granting them a monopoly. If the plan doesn't work, you can still backtrack and open up to third parties. But there's really no downside to trying to force yourself into a monopoly, which is why Phillips, and before them Keurig, Apple and countless other brands, have tried and will try again.