8 ms·

I got one and had a terrible experience. They ship it from Hong Kong with no packaging foam, so it arrived with a broken screen. I contacted them about it and

I got one and had a terrible experience. They ship it from Hong Kong with no packaging foam, so it arrived with a broken screen. I contacted them about it and they gave me some trouble shooting things which didn't work and then told me I could pay to ship it to their service center, even though it shipped to me broken. They referred me to their return policy which at the time basically says the buyer assumes risk for the product if they ship it broken (which is a violation of Visa and Mastercard's seller's terms of service) I then had to fight them for months to get my chargeback, the whole time they were threatening me in childish ways and only after I won (because obviously, I don't know why they thought they had a chance) did they politely offer to pay for a return label. Horribly run company, if you order from them be sure to use a credit card or something with a chargeback capability

dannyw 4y ago
That experience is frustrating for sure, but for what it's worth, they basically sell these at cost with very little mark up. It's a store for hackers; it's not meant to be a consumer shop. I think they even warn you to not buy if you expect returns or customer service.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > but for what it's worth, they basically sell these at cost with very little mark up. That's worth nothing. > it's not meant to be a consumer shop. I think they even warn you to not buy if you expect returns or customer service. Reminds me of: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures-of-twisp-and-catsby https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures... "Wow! I didn't know you could even do that."
- pdmccormick 4y ago
  So add a very little bit more mark up to ship it correctly and to account for some percentage of returns due to shipping damage.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  The problem is that this amounts to a fantasy they wish were a thing. You aren't legally allowed to ship products to consumers broken and keep their money.
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    They have a bright red notice on the product page begging consumers not to order it. Doing it regardless and demanding it to be treated like an ordinary customer interaction makes sure that this approach will be less likely to be repeated in the future. I do not understand why somebody would do such a thing consciously. We have the situation that somebody wants to distribute the hardware at cost for development. And a big group of people who want exactly this deal. Why is there a need on a personal level to basically sabotage this? Or what am i missing that doesnt make this behavior really dickish? edit: And again, i am not talking about people who misunderstood what exactly was offered here. That absolutly shouldnt happen. I just dont understand why somebody would do this consciously.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      I think the idea is to create a minimum standard of service, so people have the same base expecations. If businesses started selling a lower-priced with zero-guarantees model (which is essentially gambling), it will become a race to the bottom with an abundance of scammers. It would be hard for users to tell if a certain price point means 20% chance of dead-on-arrival, or 80%. But these issues only occur at scale. As long as PinePhone is able to keep their zero-guarantees model under the radar, maybe it's fine
      - cf141q5325 4y ago
        I absolutely understand the argument when it comes to ordinary commercial interactions. This isnt supposed to be one though. Its the solution to the problem how you can get hardware to developers as cheap as possible. I do not understand why anyone would insert themselves into this interaction.
    - em-bee 4y ago
- walrus01 4y ago
  selling things at-cost or whatever is no excuse for shoddy packing methods
- JohnClark1337 4y ago
- lostgame 4y ago
  That’s not an excuse. In fact, smaller hacker shops more often than not provide a better experience than most ‘consumer’ shops; and certainly better than the average massive corporation. It’s the kind of place you can maybe talk to an actual human. It’s not the kind of place where you break your Credit Card Merchant’s rules and refuse refunds on items poorly packaged and broken on arrival. After reading OP’s comment, I will never be ordering from this company, and I was highly considering it.
Bakary 4y ago
In an ethical, commercial and legal sense, you are definitely entitled to a refund in these circumstances. But in a philosophical and aesthetic sense, if you can't fix the screen yourself, you might not be the target audience for this product.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fzfaa 4y ago
  As far as I know pinephone is a phone for software tinkerers.
- omni 4y ago
  I'll bite: how am I supposed to fix at shattered screen, at no additional cost to myself?
  - Bakary 4y ago
    You can't. That's why I made the distinction between the ethical and aesthetic aspect, and concluded that the GP was most definitely entitled to a refund. Since the legal and financial framework supports this logic as I do, they were able to turn that refund into a reality. A decent comparison would be wild, ad-hoc music festivals or raves. Nobody deserves to have painful experiences, and such experiences certainly do not have to be a fundamental part of these events. Nor should people be shamed for complaining after the fact. That said, it's also true that you have to approach these things with a certain mindset that's conducive to making the most of it. The comments I'm seeing here don't reflect that, even if I don't disagree with their arguments regarding commercial responsibility.
  - tomxor 4y ago
    You don't. These devices are sold close to cost price. Ethically the disclaimer still makes sense even if shipping killed your screen and not manufacturing. Although I'm surprised it's not possible to get the shipping company to foot the bill.
cf141q5325 4y ago
Why did you order it if you didnt agree with that policy? They warn you on the product page with giant red lettering. Did you not understand it? Or that it is not a consumer product?
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  You can’t disclaim responsibility for shipping a broken device no matter how many labels you stick on the site.
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    I understand the frustration if you got into this not understanding what was going on. In which case even more effort needs to be made to make sure such misunderstandings dont occur again. Thats why i am asking where exactly the problem stemmed from. If i personally send you a prototype at cost and you demand it to be treated like a normal customer interaction the result will be that i wont be sending out prototypes at cost to just anyone any longer. Thats quite the bummer for people who wanted one. So the question is how can we connect group A (manufacturer) and B(eager testers) without group C(Consumers) getting caught in the whole thing? edit: Not saying what Pine is doing is good or bad, but the core problem isnt specific to Pine and many tinkerers might end up in this situation one day. And charging above cost is extremely counterproductive in some situations because it locks out some developers.
    - Analemma_ 4y ago
      Again, you're missing the point: there is no amount of clever verbiage that makes it ok to charge someone money to ship them a phone with a broken screen and make that person eat the cost. It doesn't matter if you call it a "prototype" and say "you're not a consumer". It is not ok no matter what language you use. If you genuinely want people to be prototype/beta testers, give them the phone for free and then ask for it back at the end of the beta period. But the transaction occurring here is, fundamentally, a consumer transaction no matter what Pine wants to call it, and that comes with certain responsibilities which cannot be disclaimed, period.

dannyw 4y ago

That experience is frustrating for sure, but for what it's worth, they basically sell these at cost with very little mark up. It's a store for hackers; it's not meant to be a consumer shop. I think they even warn you to not buy if you expect returns or customer service.

paulcole 4y ago
> but for what it's worth, they basically sell these at cost with very little mark up. That's worth nothing. > it's not meant to be a consumer shop. I think they even warn you to not buy if you expect returns or customer service. Reminds me of: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures-of-twisp-and-catsby https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures... "Wow! I didn't know you could even do that."
pdmccormick 4y ago
So add a very little bit more mark up to ship it correctly and to account for some percentage of returns due to shipping damage.
michaelmrose 4y ago
The problem is that this amounts to a fantasy they wish were a thing. You aren't legally allowed to ship products to consumers broken and keep their money.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  They have a bright red notice on the product page begging consumers not to order it. Doing it regardless and demanding it to be treated like an ordinary customer interaction makes sure that this approach will be less likely to be repeated in the future. I do not understand why somebody would do such a thing consciously. We have the situation that somebody wants to distribute the hardware at cost for development. And a big group of people who want exactly this deal. Why is there a need on a personal level to basically sabotage this? Or what am i missing that doesnt make this behavior really dickish? edit: And again, i am not talking about people who misunderstood what exactly was offered here. That absolutly shouldnt happen. I just dont understand why somebody would do this consciously.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    I think the idea is to create a minimum standard of service, so people have the same base expecations. If businesses started selling a lower-priced with zero-guarantees model (which is essentially gambling), it will become a race to the bottom with an abundance of scammers. It would be hard for users to tell if a certain price point means 20% chance of dead-on-arrival, or 80%. But these issues only occur at scale. As long as PinePhone is able to keep their zero-guarantees model under the radar, maybe it's fine
    - cf141q5325 4y ago
      I absolutely understand the argument when it comes to ordinary commercial interactions. This isnt supposed to be one though. Its the solution to the problem how you can get hardware to developers as cheap as possible. I do not understand why anyone would insert themselves into this interaction.
  - em-bee 4y ago
walrus01 4y ago
selling things at-cost or whatever is no excuse for shoddy packing methods
JohnClark1337 4y ago
lostgame 4y ago
That’s not an excuse. In fact, smaller hacker shops more often than not provide a better experience than most ‘consumer’ shops; and certainly better than the average massive corporation. It’s the kind of place you can maybe talk to an actual human. It’s not the kind of place where you break your Credit Card Merchant’s rules and refuse refunds on items poorly packaged and broken on arrival. After reading OP’s comment, I will never be ordering from this company, and I was highly considering it.

Bakary 4y ago

In an ethical, commercial and legal sense, you are definitely entitled to a refund in these circumstances. But in a philosophical and aesthetic sense, if you can't fix the screen yourself, you might not be the target audience for this product.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fzfaa 4y ago
As far as I know pinephone is a phone for software tinkerers.
omni 4y ago
I'll bite: how am I supposed to fix at shattered screen, at no additional cost to myself?
- Bakary 4y ago
  You can't. That's why I made the distinction between the ethical and aesthetic aspect, and concluded that the GP was most definitely entitled to a refund. Since the legal and financial framework supports this logic as I do, they were able to turn that refund into a reality. A decent comparison would be wild, ad-hoc music festivals or raves. Nobody deserves to have painful experiences, and such experiences certainly do not have to be a fundamental part of these events. Nor should people be shamed for complaining after the fact. That said, it's also true that you have to approach these things with a certain mindset that's conducive to making the most of it. The comments I'm seeing here don't reflect that, even if I don't disagree with their arguments regarding commercial responsibility.
- tomxor 4y ago
  You don't. These devices are sold close to cost price. Ethically the disclaimer still makes sense even if shipping killed your screen and not manufacturing. Although I'm surprised it's not possible to get the shipping company to foot the bill.

cf141q5325 4y ago

Why did you order it if you didnt agree with that policy? They warn you on the product page with giant red lettering. Did you not understand it? Or that it is not a consumer product?

Analemma_ 4y ago
You can’t disclaim responsibility for shipping a broken device no matter how many labels you stick on the site.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  I understand the frustration if you got into this not understanding what was going on. In which case even more effort needs to be made to make sure such misunderstandings dont occur again. Thats why i am asking where exactly the problem stemmed from. If i personally send you a prototype at cost and you demand it to be treated like a normal customer interaction the result will be that i wont be sending out prototypes at cost to just anyone any longer. Thats quite the bummer for people who wanted one. So the question is how can we connect group A (manufacturer) and B(eager testers) without group C(Consumers) getting caught in the whole thing? edit: Not saying what Pine is doing is good or bad, but the core problem isnt specific to Pine and many tinkerers might end up in this situation one day. And charging above cost is extremely counterproductive in some situations because it locks out some developers.
  - Analemma_ 4y ago
    Again, you're missing the point: there is no amount of clever verbiage that makes it ok to charge someone money to ship them a phone with a broken screen and make that person eat the cost. It doesn't matter if you call it a "prototype" and say "you're not a consumer". It is not ok no matter what language you use. If you genuinely want people to be prototype/beta testers, give them the phone for free and then ask for it back at the end of the beta period. But the transaction occurring here is, fundamentally, a consumer transaction no matter what Pine wants to call it, and that comes with certain responsibilities which cannot be disclaimed, period.