11 ms·

"Throwing a tantrum"? The review in question is something along the lines of "the control app is flashing and doesn't work at all. This is junk, don't waste you

"Throwing a tantrum"? The review in question is something along the lines of "the control app is flashing and doesn't work at all. This is junk, don't waste your money on it. 1/5 stars." If you make any public facing products, you will occasionally get such (and worse) reviews even if your product is a shiny perfection forged in heaven by angels themselves and wrapped in magic. Fact of life. On the other hand, the support engineer's response (that ends with blocking the user's device for good) _is_ a bona fide tantrum, worthy of textbooks. I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. People like these shouldn't be allowed anywhere near tech support roles, as a single such incident can ruin the company unless they can spend tons of money for lawyers. (This is why it is, in my opinion, better to start with enterprise products. Enterprise sales are much less public and you can afford to fire customers you don't like with ease, and vice versa.)

victorhooi 10y ago
He offered the customer a full refund for the product - I don't see the issue. (Well, ok, he could have just turned the other cheek - but I suspect most of us here, when at the receiving end of such abuse, have wanted to say - "You know what? Take your business elsewhere."
- woof 10y ago
  He disabled the device. And you don't see the issue?
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    To be clear, he disabled the app, not the customer's device.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      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.
      - jlgaddis 10y ago
        Yeah, I misinterpreted "device" (as "iPhone").
      - jaclaz 10y ago
        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.
        apostacy 10y ago
        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.
      - TorKlingberg 10y ago
        Since Garadget deliberately and maliciously disabled the device, can the consumer sue for compensation for the time wasted on it?
    - apostacy 10y ago
      The device is useless without the app. They disabled the device.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    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.
    - woof 10y ago
      "Your unit ID 2f0036... will be denied server connection" The Garadget device, not the customers phone! I never mentioned a phone, did I?
      - mirimir 10y ago
        It's an app, so virtual device, I guess.
        woof 10y ago
        The "Garadget controller" (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/softcomplex/garadget-garage-door-futurizer https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/softcomplex/garadget-ga...) looks like a physical device to me.
        mirimir 10y ago
        You're right. I didn't look carefully enough at the Amazon page.
      - bigbugbag 10y ago
        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.
        wapz 10y ago
        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.
  - victorhooi 10y ago
    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).
    - dangrossman 10y ago
      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?
      - mirimir 10y ago
        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.
        ztjio 10y ago
        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.
- sjs382 10y ago
  "offered"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > have wanted to say - "You know what? Take your business elsewhere" "Take your business elsewhere" would be Garadget issuing a refund from their end and then disabling the device.
dqv 10y ago
>I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. I don't agree with disabling the customer's device, but I also don't agree with customers somehow being absolved of having a minimum level of decorum.
- kungtotte 10y ago
  He called their product a piece of shit and that justifies bricking his device? I don't think customers get to behave however they want without repercussions, but come on...
- atemerev 10y ago
  Thanks to psychology, there is a nice way of making it work for both sides (not in this particular case, of course — the damage is done). Hardware companies should (and will, eventually) offer the devices for free and switch to subscription model. Devices like these are not products, they are services. They are useless on their own without the operating backend, support and maintenance. If I am buying the device, I expect it to be working. If I am subscribing to a service, I know that it can be cancelled anytime. (And $5/month are worth much more these days than $99 once. If you can keep the customer that long, of course).
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    I agree But "subscription model" for a garage opener is, sorry to say, stupid Of the things in my home I want a garage opener to have pretty good reliability. I need a plan B if the power is out for a conventional one. I don't want to get locked out if I miss a payment (this is not like rent where these things are regulated and lack of payments are handled through actual notices) Relying on the internet to open your garage is just naive.
    - dangrossman 10y ago
      The product is basically a cloud-enabled garage door remote. It doesn't replace the buttons on the wall in the garage, nor does it replace the garage door opener you use in your car, or however it is you work your door. It supplements them, like buying a spare remote, except this one is app-enabled and can be used without line-of-sight to the door. I have a smart garage door opener, smart deadbolt, smart car (remote start/heat/cool/etc), smart thermostat, smart light fixtures, smart smoke detector... all of them function without internet, or power, as applicable. Light switches, buttons, keys, etc still work. Most smart devices are like that; the remote functionality is supplemental, not a replacement.
restlessmedia 10y ago
I absolutely agree. From an outsider, the reaction from Garadget will stay in my mind far longer than the initial review. Imagine this in a bricks and mortar high-street shop? 'The customer is always right' is a difficult but noble stance - if a customer is being difficult, suck it up, be sickly nice then go out the back and scream when they've left.
- barking 10y ago
  That's only because the reaction was so unusual. I'd react the way you suggest but I admire people who react the way he did. And, every now and then you hear of a business with a fuck you attitude that succeeds, e.g. Ryanair
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Ryanair only succeeds because my tolerance for "fuck you" is more than my tolerance for expensive flights. The moment I have a cheap alternative, I'm never touching Ryanair again, and sometimes not even then.
    - barking 10y ago
      In my experience there are a small percentage of customers, bullies basically, who are toxic and have the ability to ruin the experience for your good customers by taking up an inordinate amount of resources in money, time and employee mental state. Maybe part of the reason they are cheap is because they don't pander to this type?
      - matt4077 10y ago
        Dunno. I once tried to check in online, but the service was just giving me errors. Tried for half an hour. When the service was back up, it wouldn't let me check in because that closes two hours before the flight. There were around 20 people at the check-in, all of which had had the same problem. They made every single one pay 45 Euro per boarding pass, telling us to file a complaint later. Filed a complaint, got a canned response "sorry, those are the rules". Didn't feel like suing them. So, let me say this to Ryanair: "I'm very sorry for being toxic, and ruining the experience. Also: eat me!"
qqg3 10y ago
It's quite clear a lot of people in here are approaching this with a "B2B" mindset where clients and contracts can be fired and terminated. This scenario is "B2C", "the customer is always right" may be a tired phrase but it rings truer than you might think. A lot of people are saying this guy should be respectful of this small, indiegogo compnay. Problem is, they are ignoring the fact the product is being sold on Amazon, this may be the customers' only exposure to the company so they might not have any idea of how large the company/operation is! Customers have an expectation of quality on Amazon
- throwanem 10y ago
  > the customer is always right This is a useful perspective to take if you're in sales. For a support engineer, not so much. When I did Tier 1 for credit cards, the mantra everywhere invoked was instead: "The customer is not always right, but is always deserving of respect." Which has always struck me as a much more balanced and sensible attitude to take, when the objective is to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem is between the keyboard and the chair. It happens. But it's still a problem that merits solving, rather than being a jackass about, because it's still stopping the customer from using your product, and why should he give you money for something he can't use? Of course, that doesn't seem likely to apply here - pretty hard for an app crash to be a PEBKAC. I've found it a useful enough perspective to merit mention here, in any case. And perhaps such an attitude would've dissuaded the Garadget representative in this thread from so precipitously making a fool of himself, too.
  - LeoNatan25 10y ago
    The two are exactly the same from the outcome perspective; you always treat the customer with respect and try to please them.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Ideally, yes. The more nuanced formulation acknowledges the existence of limits on what will be done - you don't, for example, get a 90-day delinquency reaged off your account once you pay up to date, no matter how you ask. It also, and I think this has merit for Tier 1 reps who are constantly exposed to all the marvelous and frequently trying vicissitudes of humanity, explicitly calls out respect as a value. Certainly I found that explicit reminder useful from time to time, and I know others did as well. Perhaps this fellow might have, too.
yunolisten 10y ago
> I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. This behaviour is all too common, sad but true.
linuxkerneldev 10y ago
> the support engineer's response (that ends with blocking the user's device for good) _is_ a bona fide tantrum, worthy of textbooks. I don't think that's a support engineer. I'm pretty sure that's Denis Grisak, the founder of Garadget. I find it fascinating that he used the phrase "only demonstrates your poor impulse control" to the customer while arguably his own response seems to suggest his own impulse control may require reinforcement.
- atemerev 10y ago
  That explains some things. I have been a founder too, and I am aware that this is a lot more stressful than it seems from the outside, and this one star review might have been the last straw. However, dealing with angry customers is a part of the job (like everything else, until proper employees are hired). Let's say that this person is not particularly good at said job.
  - jdeibele 10y ago
    I was a founder and did tech support for years. Eventually stopped doing it for a couple of years and tried doing it again. I wanted to fire every customer who called in because of the abusive way they treated the support people. The support people patiently explained to me that it was part of their job and they didn't take it personally. I have found people are on a grid with "people helpers" as one axis and "problem solvers" as the other. Close to 100% people helper, you know that you can help this person because you've done it 100x. Close to 100% problem solver, you're going out of your mind because you've done this 100x.
  - problems 10y ago
    They wouldn't have had an issue here if they'd just kept this quiet and via direct support email instead of in public. It's not like he was being abusive to an individual support staff member, he cussed about the app in an Amazon review and on their forum because it was genuinely failing for him. Nothing wrong with that, people get worked up when stuff doesn't work sometimes, you need to be able to handle some level of that when doing support for your product. And worse, they're selling a physical product which they just made effectively useless after that customer invested time in installation and setup. Sad to see the warnings about cloud services being abused in this way seem to be quite true.
beedogs 10y ago
> I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. You are? I'm not. A lot of people here are just as unscrupulous as the developer and will defend any unethical and terrible behaviour as long as it makes a dime at the end of the day. Take a look at any Uber thread and you'll see the same kind of comments from people who think that, if they're as ruthless and unethical, one day they'll be the new unicorn on the block.

victorhooi 10y ago

He offered the customer a full refund for the product - I don't see the issue. (Well, ok, he could have just turned the other cheek - but I suspect most of us here, when at the receiving end of such abuse, have wanted to say - "You know what? Take your business elsewhere."

woof 10y ago
He disabled the device. And you don't see the issue?
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  To be clear, he disabled the app, not the customer's device.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    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.
    - jlgaddis 10y ago
      Yeah, I misinterpreted "device" (as "iPhone").
    - jaclaz 10y ago
      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.
      - apostacy 10y ago
        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.
    - TorKlingberg 10y ago
      Since Garadget deliberately and maliciously disabled the device, can the consumer sue for compensation for the time wasted on it?
  - apostacy 10y ago
    The device is useless without the app. They disabled the device.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  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.
  - woof 10y ago
    "Your unit ID 2f0036... will be denied server connection" The Garadget device, not the customers phone! I never mentioned a phone, did I?
    - mirimir 10y ago
      It's an app, so virtual device, I guess.
      - woof 10y ago
        The "Garadget controller" (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/softcomplex/garadget-garage-door-futurizer https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/softcomplex/garadget-ga...) looks like a physical device to me.
        mirimir 10y ago
        You're right. I didn't look carefully enough at the Amazon page.
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      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.
      - wapz 10y ago
        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.
- victorhooi 10y ago
  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).
  - dangrossman 10y ago
    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?
    - mirimir 10y ago
      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.
      - ztjio 10y ago
        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.
sjs382 10y ago
"offered"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> have wanted to say - "You know what? Take your business elsewhere" "Take your business elsewhere" would be Garadget issuing a refund from their end and then disabling the device.

dqv 10y ago

>I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. I don't agree with disabling the customer's device, but I also don't agree with customers somehow being absolved of having a minimum level of decorum.

kungtotte 10y ago
He called their product a piece of shit and that justifies bricking his device? I don't think customers get to behave however they want without repercussions, but come on...
atemerev 10y ago
Thanks to psychology, there is a nice way of making it work for both sides (not in this particular case, of course — the damage is done). Hardware companies should (and will, eventually) offer the devices for free and switch to subscription model. Devices like these are not products, they are services. They are useless on their own without the operating backend, support and maintenance. If I am buying the device, I expect it to be working. If I am subscribing to a service, I know that it can be cancelled anytime. (And $5/month are worth much more these days than $99 once. If you can keep the customer that long, of course).
- raverbashing 10y ago
  I agree But "subscription model" for a garage opener is, sorry to say, stupid Of the things in my home I want a garage opener to have pretty good reliability. I need a plan B if the power is out for a conventional one. I don't want to get locked out if I miss a payment (this is not like rent where these things are regulated and lack of payments are handled through actual notices) Relying on the internet to open your garage is just naive.
  - dangrossman 10y ago
    The product is basically a cloud-enabled garage door remote. It doesn't replace the buttons on the wall in the garage, nor does it replace the garage door opener you use in your car, or however it is you work your door. It supplements them, like buying a spare remote, except this one is app-enabled and can be used without line-of-sight to the door. I have a smart garage door opener, smart deadbolt, smart car (remote start/heat/cool/etc), smart thermostat, smart light fixtures, smart smoke detector... all of them function without internet, or power, as applicable. Light switches, buttons, keys, etc still work. Most smart devices are like that; the remote functionality is supplemental, not a replacement.

restlessmedia 10y ago

I absolutely agree. From an outsider, the reaction from Garadget will stay in my mind far longer than the initial review. Imagine this in a bricks and mortar high-street shop? 'The customer is always right' is a difficult but noble stance - if a customer is being difficult, suck it up, be sickly nice then go out the back and scream when they've left.

barking 10y ago
That's only because the reaction was so unusual. I'd react the way you suggest but I admire people who react the way he did. And, every now and then you hear of a business with a fuck you attitude that succeeds, e.g. Ryanair
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Ryanair only succeeds because my tolerance for "fuck you" is more than my tolerance for expensive flights. The moment I have a cheap alternative, I'm never touching Ryanair again, and sometimes not even then.
  - barking 10y ago
    In my experience there are a small percentage of customers, bullies basically, who are toxic and have the ability to ruin the experience for your good customers by taking up an inordinate amount of resources in money, time and employee mental state. Maybe part of the reason they are cheap is because they don't pander to this type?
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Dunno. I once tried to check in online, but the service was just giving me errors. Tried for half an hour. When the service was back up, it wouldn't let me check in because that closes two hours before the flight. There were around 20 people at the check-in, all of which had had the same problem. They made every single one pay 45 Euro per boarding pass, telling us to file a complaint later. Filed a complaint, got a canned response "sorry, those are the rules". Didn't feel like suing them. So, let me say this to Ryanair: "I'm very sorry for being toxic, and ruining the experience. Also: eat me!"

qqg3 10y ago

It's quite clear a lot of people in here are approaching this with a "B2B" mindset where clients and contracts can be fired and terminated. This scenario is "B2C", "the customer is always right" may be a tired phrase but it rings truer than you might think. A lot of people are saying this guy should be respectful of this small, indiegogo compnay. Problem is, they are ignoring the fact the product is being sold on Amazon, this may be the customers' only exposure to the company so they might not have any idea of how large the company/operation is! Customers have an expectation of quality on Amazon

throwanem 10y ago
> the customer is always right This is a useful perspective to take if you're in sales. For a support engineer, not so much. When I did Tier 1 for credit cards, the mantra everywhere invoked was instead: "The customer is not always right, but is always deserving of respect." Which has always struck me as a much more balanced and sensible attitude to take, when the objective is to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem is between the keyboard and the chair. It happens. But it's still a problem that merits solving, rather than being a jackass about, because it's still stopping the customer from using your product, and why should he give you money for something he can't use? Of course, that doesn't seem likely to apply here - pretty hard for an app crash to be a PEBKAC. I've found it a useful enough perspective to merit mention here, in any case. And perhaps such an attitude would've dissuaded the Garadget representative in this thread from so precipitously making a fool of himself, too.
- LeoNatan25 10y ago
  The two are exactly the same from the outcome perspective; you always treat the customer with respect and try to please them.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Ideally, yes. The more nuanced formulation acknowledges the existence of limits on what will be done - you don't, for example, get a 90-day delinquency reaged off your account once you pay up to date, no matter how you ask. It also, and I think this has merit for Tier 1 reps who are constantly exposed to all the marvelous and frequently trying vicissitudes of humanity, explicitly calls out respect as a value. Certainly I found that explicit reminder useful from time to time, and I know others did as well. Perhaps this fellow might have, too.

yunolisten 10y ago

> I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. This behaviour is all too common, sad but true.

linuxkerneldev 10y ago

> the support engineer's response (that ends with blocking the user's device for good) _is_ a bona fide tantrum, worthy of textbooks. I don't think that's a support engineer. I'm pretty sure that's Denis Grisak, the founder of Garadget. I find it fascinating that he used the phrase "only demonstrates your poor impulse control" to the customer while arguably his own response seems to suggest his own impulse control may require reinforcement.

atemerev 10y ago
That explains some things. I have been a founder too, and I am aware that this is a lot more stressful than it seems from the outside, and this one star review might have been the last straw. However, dealing with angry customers is a part of the job (like everything else, until proper employees are hired). Let's say that this person is not particularly good at said job.
- jdeibele 10y ago
  I was a founder and did tech support for years. Eventually stopped doing it for a couple of years and tried doing it again. I wanted to fire every customer who called in because of the abusive way they treated the support people. The support people patiently explained to me that it was part of their job and they didn't take it personally. I have found people are on a grid with "people helpers" as one axis and "problem solvers" as the other. Close to 100% people helper, you know that you can help this person because you've done it 100x. Close to 100% problem solver, you're going out of your mind because you've done this 100x.
- problems 10y ago
  They wouldn't have had an issue here if they'd just kept this quiet and via direct support email instead of in public. It's not like he was being abusive to an individual support staff member, he cussed about the app in an Amazon review and on their forum because it was genuinely failing for him. Nothing wrong with that, people get worked up when stuff doesn't work sometimes, you need to be able to handle some level of that when doing support for your product. And worse, they're selling a physical product which they just made effectively useless after that customer invested time in installation and setup. Sad to see the warnings about cloud services being abused in this way seem to be quite true.

beedogs 10y ago

> I am also quite surprised by the number of comments here at HN siding with Garadget. You are? I'm not. A lot of people here are just as unscrupulous as the developer and will defend any unethical and terrible behaviour as long as it makes a dime at the end of the day. Take a look at any Uber thread and you'll see the same kind of comments from people who think that, if they're as ruthless and unethical, one day they'll be the new unicorn on the block.