5 ms·

The customer gets to get a refund for the product. This way it is not bricking per-se but refusal of service. My understanding of bricking is that you have a de

The customer gets to get a refund for the product. This way it is not bricking per-se but refusal of service. My understanding of bricking is that you have a dead device and no recourse in getting a replacement or a refund. The interesting question to me is what exactly you buy for $99: just the device ? Is the cloud-based service included in the price also? Especially since the developer can only make an assumption as to how long (in years) a customer will be using the service.

ouid 10y ago
Surely whether a customer has a right to review a product and some recourse in the event of retaliation qualifies as an interesting question, as well though, right?
- protomyth 10y ago
  as pointed out on Amazon this might run afoul of https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5111 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5111 H.R. 5111 (114th): Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016
- mnglkhn2 10y ago
  You seem to imply that I approve of the manner the seller reacted. Not the case. My comment was on the use of the word "bricking", which I found improper in this case, as well as on the nature of the product, the question being what is the product, just the device or access to the remote servers? Aside from a snide remark, nothing was added by your comment. I suppose you were just triggered and felt the need to do some virtue signaling.
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    Was the last part really needed? Let's keep things civil!
  - ouid 10y ago
    Well now I'm triggered. I was really only offering you an opportunity to clarify. There is a difference between offering a refund and forcing a refund. This was clearly a retaliatory action and you either didn't understand that, or disagree with the premise.
    - mnglkhn2 10y ago
      If you start from the premise that "the customer is always right" then I can see why it looks like a retaliatory action. The thing is that "the customer is always right" is just a customer relation principle/approach and not law. In order to actually have a legal point against the action taken by the merchant first it is necessary to clarify what the actual product is in that transaction.
      - bigbugbag 10y ago
        Let's try it this. You get cloud powered pacemaker and you contact the company on its forum because it gives you cardiac arrhythmia. The answer from the company is "we don't want you as a customer so we remotely blocked your pacemaker from ever functioning, you now have a choice between us keeping your money for something that will not work because we made sure it won't or give us our device back and the third party store will give you a refund". I made thicker lines to make the point appear more clearly, but it's drawn with the same pen.
        mnglkhn2 10y ago
        You seem to confuse a product that costs tens of thousands of USD (the pacemaker) with one that costs only $100 and you purchase on Amazon on a 2-day delivery. The former is sold within an industry that is not only heavily regulated but also very mature and governed by laws that have had time to maturate over decades if not hundreds of years. The latter is sold within a nascent industry (IoT) and the definition of a product is not yet properly settled. Hence my question as to what you actually buy. But hey, if you can clearly draw lines for me with your imaginary pencil, more power to you. But it does not replace proper and balanced argument.
lazyasciiart 10y ago
I have found it common to refer to devices as "bricked" without any reference to whether a refund was available, and I have definitely heard people say they returned their bricked device to a store, so I don't think your usage of the term is standard.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Usually a bricked device is not up for refund, but stores policy differs, employees may not check if the device works, sometimes the policy is clear that they don't take bricked devices but they accept it on case by case basis. There's no a absolute stance on refund for bricked devices.
flukus 10y ago
Bricked == rendered non-functional. When you brick a phone it isn't necessarily dead of natural causes, there could be a hardware lockout, like a moisture detector.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  ok let's go through this again. Bricked means the device is now useless or a brick, it's only use will be a paperweight. Totally different from non-functional, removing the batteries will render a device non-functional. In this case the device was blacklisted on the server side. For a device to be denied access it has to ask for access first which a bricked device would not be able to do. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bricked http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bricked
  - flukus 10y ago
    Ok, that's a better definition. But it still fits for this device, to the owner it's no more than a brick because it's been remotely disabled.
jo909 10y ago
I don't have the exact quote, but it was definitely state somewhere that the device purchase includes access to the cloud service for the device lifetime. So for $99 you clearly bought not only a device, but also the required service.
- antfarm 10y ago
  From the Amazon product page Q&A: What happens if the company goes out of business? Does the app require a server to be active in order to use the App? The app requires a server component as does any consumer friendly product with mobile access. [...] The main server component is maintained by the Particle and pre-paid for the life of the device. [...] [https://www.amazon.com/forum/-/Tx1SJ70QRGDYZAY/ref=ask_dp_dp... https://www.amazon.com/forum/-/Tx1SJ70QRGDYZAY/ref=ask_dp_dp...]

ouid 10y ago

Surely whether a customer has a right to review a product and some recourse in the event of retaliation qualifies as an interesting question, as well though, right?

protomyth 10y ago
as pointed out on Amazon this might run afoul of https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5111 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5111 H.R. 5111 (114th): Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016
mnglkhn2 10y ago
You seem to imply that I approve of the manner the seller reacted. Not the case. My comment was on the use of the word "bricking", which I found improper in this case, as well as on the nature of the product, the question being what is the product, just the device or access to the remote servers? Aside from a snide remark, nothing was added by your comment. I suppose you were just triggered and felt the need to do some virtue signaling.
- jsjohnst 10y ago
  Was the last part really needed? Let's keep things civil!
- ouid 10y ago
  Well now I'm triggered. I was really only offering you an opportunity to clarify. There is a difference between offering a refund and forcing a refund. This was clearly a retaliatory action and you either didn't understand that, or disagree with the premise.
  - mnglkhn2 10y ago
    If you start from the premise that "the customer is always right" then I can see why it looks like a retaliatory action. The thing is that "the customer is always right" is just a customer relation principle/approach and not law. In order to actually have a legal point against the action taken by the merchant first it is necessary to clarify what the actual product is in that transaction.
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      Let's try it this. You get cloud powered pacemaker and you contact the company on its forum because it gives you cardiac arrhythmia. The answer from the company is "we don't want you as a customer so we remotely blocked your pacemaker from ever functioning, you now have a choice between us keeping your money for something that will not work because we made sure it won't or give us our device back and the third party store will give you a refund". I made thicker lines to make the point appear more clearly, but it's drawn with the same pen.
      - mnglkhn2 10y ago
        You seem to confuse a product that costs tens of thousands of USD (the pacemaker) with one that costs only $100 and you purchase on Amazon on a 2-day delivery. The former is sold within an industry that is not only heavily regulated but also very mature and governed by laws that have had time to maturate over decades if not hundreds of years. The latter is sold within a nascent industry (IoT) and the definition of a product is not yet properly settled. Hence my question as to what you actually buy. But hey, if you can clearly draw lines for me with your imaginary pencil, more power to you. But it does not replace proper and balanced argument.

lazyasciiart 10y ago

I have found it common to refer to devices as "bricked" without any reference to whether a refund was available, and I have definitely heard people say they returned their bricked device to a store, so I don't think your usage of the term is standard.

bigbugbag 10y ago
Usually a bricked device is not up for refund, but stores policy differs, employees may not check if the device works, sometimes the policy is clear that they don't take bricked devices but they accept it on case by case basis. There's no a absolute stance on refund for bricked devices.

flukus 10y ago

Bricked == rendered non-functional. When you brick a phone it isn't necessarily dead of natural causes, there could be a hardware lockout, like a moisture detector.

bigbugbag 10y ago
ok let's go through this again. Bricked means the device is now useless or a brick, it's only use will be a paperweight. Totally different from non-functional, removing the batteries will render a device non-functional. In this case the device was blacklisted on the server side. For a device to be denied access it has to ask for access first which a bricked device would not be able to do. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bricked http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bricked
- flukus 10y ago
  Ok, that's a better definition. But it still fits for this device, to the owner it's no more than a brick because it's been remotely disabled.

jo909 10y ago

I don't have the exact quote, but it was definitely state somewhere that the device purchase includes access to the cloud service for the device lifetime. So for $99 you clearly bought not only a device, but also the required service.

antfarm 10y ago
From the Amazon product page Q&A: What happens if the company goes out of business? Does the app require a server to be active in order to use the App? The app requires a server component as does any consumer friendly product with mobile access. [...] The main server component is maintained by the Particle and pre-paid for the life of the device. [...] [https://www.amazon.com/forum/-/Tx1SJ70QRGDYZAY/ref=ask_dp_dp... https://www.amazon.com/forum/-/Tx1SJ70QRGDYZAY/ref=ask_dp_dp...]