4 ms·

>do you really think it's worth keeping it running indefinitely? At some point, I think it becomes less about "worth" and more about doing the right thing. Is

>do you really think it's worth keeping it running indefinitely? At some point, I think it becomes less about "worth" and more about doing the right thing. Is it fair that everyone who bought that device is left holding a worthless chunk of plastic because of the inscrutable whims of various SV tech giants? If not for reams of legalese nobody reads and yet has to agree to in order to even hook the thing up, it would probably already be illegal in some way.

SystemOut 11y ago
Yeah, but normally when companies get bought for small amounts of money it's because they're running out of cash and would probably get shut down anyways. If they were making a profit they'd have been bought for more or they would have raised more cash if their business looked like it might be sustainable.
- victorhooi 11y ago
  I agree with you - I have no inside knowledge of this, but all the evidence from the time points to not many Revolv units being shipped - I'd be surprised if there were more than several thousand units sold in total, over the lifespan of the company. They'd have no chance of ever recouping their investment, or gaining any kind of critical mass. An acquirhire was probaby a good thing, at that stage - the founders/employees get a new job, and the customer base get an extension on the shutdown, at least for a couple years.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
victorhooi 11y ago
Your point about "doing the right thing" is a complete logical fallacy. Are you implying that group A is somehow more deserving that group B? Don't forget - the "tech giants" you refer to are comprised of people, most of whom have jobs and families This isn't about whims of tech giants - more about whims of the market. If the pitchfork-waving masses on HN screaming about Revolv had all actually, well, bought a Revolv, I suspect the company wouldn't have gone bust. The fact of the matter is - the market (or we) spoke - we didn't like Revolv, and that was the reason they failed in the marketplace. I don't think Nest made any secret of it - as soon as they bought out Revolv, they announced it quite publicly on their blog - we are stopping all sales of this product, immediately - but we will continue to support it for some time. This was no deep conspiracy - it was, well, the product's a wash, we're buying out the company, and keeping the team. Think about it - they probably still had stock of the product lying around at the time - they would rather just destroy those than sell them - what does that tell you about the product? http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7061557/nest-acquires-rev.. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7061557/nest-acquires-rev.... http://www.cepro.com/article/theories_on_home_automation_hub.. http://www.cepro.com/article/theories_on_home_automation_hub.... There were heaps of pundits at the time who speculated on why Revolv failed. I think that's a far more worthy topic of discussion (i.e lessons learned on why it didn't gain traction), than going on about why we're not supporting a failed product from 2 years ago.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Charging money for hardware and then remotely disabling it sounds awfully similar to fraud.
  - timothya 11y ago
    They're giving full refunds to all their customers, so it's more like those customers got to use the device for "free" while it was available.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      That is a different story. If only all vendors did the same.
      - Godel_unicode 11y ago
        No, that's literally exactly the story in question. What if this is the Google answer for hardware going forward? Buy what you're interested in before it's ready, give us signal about what's good/bad, and if we kill it we pay you back what it cost. Isn't that what we as consumers want?
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is. Which one did I commit? Calm down, please. I am not "waving a pitchfork". I didn't own a Reolv, I don't have a horse in this race. However, I do think that there's a valid discussion to be had over the fate of a device that's integrated to the point a "home automation hub" is. The normal expectation is that these devices continue to work for the life of the device, not when some company throws a switch somewhere. The problem here is that there's no alternative. No graceful degradation. If Ecobee dies tomorrow, I still have a working thermostat. This? None. Your device is now literally and figuratively worthless, the money you spent on it literally wasted. Were I a purchaser of one of these things, I'd be feeling damn scandalized, ripped off, and rightly so.
  - 11y ago

SystemOut 11y ago

Yeah, but normally when companies get bought for small amounts of money it's because they're running out of cash and would probably get shut down anyways. If they were making a profit they'd have been bought for more or they would have raised more cash if their business looked like it might be sustainable.

victorhooi 11y ago
I agree with you - I have no inside knowledge of this, but all the evidence from the time points to not many Revolv units being shipped - I'd be surprised if there were more than several thousand units sold in total, over the lifespan of the company. They'd have no chance of ever recouping their investment, or gaining any kind of critical mass. An acquirhire was probaby a good thing, at that stage - the founders/employees get a new job, and the customer base get an extension on the shutdown, at least for a couple years.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

victorhooi 11y ago

Your point about "doing the right thing" is a complete logical fallacy. Are you implying that group A is somehow more deserving that group B? Don't forget - the "tech giants" you refer to are comprised of people, most of whom have jobs and families This isn't about whims of tech giants - more about whims of the market. If the pitchfork-waving masses on HN screaming about Revolv had all actually, well, bought a Revolv, I suspect the company wouldn't have gone bust. The fact of the matter is - the market (or we) spoke - we didn't like Revolv, and that was the reason they failed in the marketplace. I don't think Nest made any secret of it - as soon as they bought out Revolv, they announced it quite publicly on their blog - we are stopping all sales of this product, immediately - but we will continue to support it for some time. This was no deep conspiracy - it was, well, the product's a wash, we're buying out the company, and keeping the team. Think about it - they probably still had stock of the product lying around at the time - they would rather just destroy those than sell them - what does that tell you about the product? http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7061557/nest-acquires-rev.. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7061557/nest-acquires-rev.... http://www.cepro.com/article/theories_on_home_automation_hub.. http://www.cepro.com/article/theories_on_home_automation_hub.... There were heaps of pundits at the time who speculated on why Revolv failed. I think that's a far more worthy topic of discussion (i.e lessons learned on why it didn't gain traction), than going on about why we're not supporting a failed product from 2 years ago.

nitrogen 11y ago
Charging money for hardware and then remotely disabling it sounds awfully similar to fraud.
- timothya 11y ago
  They're giving full refunds to all their customers, so it's more like those customers got to use the device for "free" while it was available.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    That is a different story. If only all vendors did the same.
    - Godel_unicode 11y ago
      No, that's literally exactly the story in question. What if this is the Google answer for hardware going forward? Buy what you're interested in before it's ready, give us signal about what's good/bad, and if we kill it we pay you back what it cost. Isn't that what we as consumers want?
Karunamon 11y ago
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is. Which one did I commit? Calm down, please. I am not "waving a pitchfork". I didn't own a Reolv, I don't have a horse in this race. However, I do think that there's a valid discussion to be had over the fate of a device that's integrated to the point a "home automation hub" is. The normal expectation is that these devices continue to work for the life of the device, not when some company throws a switch somewhere. The problem here is that there's no alternative. No graceful degradation. If Ecobee dies tomorrow, I still have a working thermostat. This? None. Your device is now literally and figuratively worthless, the money you spent on it literally wasted. Were I a purchaser of one of these things, I'd be feeling damn scandalized, ripped off, and rightly so.
- 11y ago