4 ms·

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 no

by 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
    even if what you say is true, it should have been possible to properly wrap the package so that the phone inside doesn't get damaged. that doesn't cost to much. and if they can't cover the risk of damage with money back, they could offer insurance for that instead. i'd gladly pay a bit extra.
    - cf141q5325 4y ago
      Not going to argue on that. I am just very confused by the sentiment of people ordering something as if it was a consumer product despite knowing the only reason they can get one is because they are using the mechanism for developers to get hardware at cost. Which means the obvious solution is stricter screening of who can get one.
      - zeroego 4y ago
        Developers can’t use broken hardware. The packaging doesn’t have to be fancy, but it does have to be secure enough that the phone arrives undamaged. Otherwise no development can be done. The OP is not unreasonable for wanting a physically unbroken product, sold at cost or not.
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.

by dannyw 4y ago

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
  even if what you say is true, it should have been possible to properly wrap the package so that the phone inside doesn't get damaged. that doesn't cost to much. and if they can't cover the risk of damage with money back, they could offer insurance for that instead. i'd gladly pay a bit extra.
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    Not going to argue on that. I am just very confused by the sentiment of people ordering something as if it was a consumer product despite knowing the only reason they can get one is because they are using the mechanism for developers to get hardware at cost. Which means the obvious solution is stricter screening of who can get one.
    - zeroego 4y ago
      Developers can’t use broken hardware. The packaging doesn’t have to be fancy, but it does have to be secure enough that the phone arrives undamaged. Otherwise no development can be done. The OP is not unreasonable for wanting a physically unbroken product, sold at cost or not.

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.