5 ms·

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 n

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.
    - cf141q5325 4y ago
      I am not arguing that you dont have the rights as a consumer. You obviously have. I confused why somebody would claim them despite knowing that the only reason they can get a device in the first place is because they are ordering something that is not meant to be ordered by consumers. They arent priced in. You used a mechanism and involved yourself into an interaction you werent supposed to be in. Because the fix for the problem at hand is no longer allowing just anyone to get a devkit. Because the whole point is to get the device to developers as cheap as possible. edit: Or differently put, the problem here isnt that OP got damaged hardware but that he ended up in an interaction he wasnt supposed to be in. And keeping people from accidentally ending up in there is one problem you can work on, but what motivates people to do this consciously?
    - immibis 4y ago
      I think the people arguing the opposite view might have misunderstood the complaint as being about software. I'm sure Pine64 does get complaints about the software not being usable and that's why they have the big red disclaimers. There's no excuse for shipping a broken screen and not fixing it, or issuing a refund, prototype or not.
catskul2 4y ago
There are so many boilerplate disclaimers that are meaningless, how can you possibly ask this question? If you stuck to "didn't you agree with that policy" perspective, you'd never get in a car, on a plane, or buy anything.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  Thanks. I am asking because you can (and absolutely should) work on people accidentally ending up in an interaction they werent supposed to be in. Thats a problem you can work on, especially with your feedback about disclaimer fatigue. And having a look now the current order page is indeed quite the clusterfuck. When i ordered it was just one big red line right above order button, Either way, its something that can be worked on cooperatively. Its in both parties interest that this doesnt happen. What is a lot harder, and needs additional information about the motivation, is why somebody would consciously engage into this interaction and then demand it to be a different format. Because then it becomes a task of filtering out motivated people.

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.
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    I am not arguing that you dont have the rights as a consumer. You obviously have. I confused why somebody would claim them despite knowing that the only reason they can get a device in the first place is because they are ordering something that is not meant to be ordered by consumers. They arent priced in. You used a mechanism and involved yourself into an interaction you werent supposed to be in. Because the fix for the problem at hand is no longer allowing just anyone to get a devkit. Because the whole point is to get the device to developers as cheap as possible. edit: Or differently put, the problem here isnt that OP got damaged hardware but that he ended up in an interaction he wasnt supposed to be in. And keeping people from accidentally ending up in there is one problem you can work on, but what motivates people to do this consciously?
  - immibis 4y ago
    I think the people arguing the opposite view might have misunderstood the complaint as being about software. I'm sure Pine64 does get complaints about the software not being usable and that's why they have the big red disclaimers. There's no excuse for shipping a broken screen and not fixing it, or issuing a refund, prototype or not.

catskul2 4y ago

There are so many boilerplate disclaimers that are meaningless, how can you possibly ask this question? If you stuck to "didn't you agree with that policy" perspective, you'd never get in a car, on a plane, or buy anything.

cf141q5325 4y ago
Thanks. I am asking because you can (and absolutely should) work on people accidentally ending up in an interaction they werent supposed to be in. Thats a problem you can work on, especially with your feedback about disclaimer fatigue. And having a look now the current order page is indeed quite the clusterfuck. When i ordered it was just one big red line right above order button, Either way, its something that can be worked on cooperatively. Its in both parties interest that this doesnt happen. What is a lot harder, and needs additional information about the motivation, is why somebody would consciously engage into this interaction and then demand it to be a different format. Because then it becomes a task of filtering out motivated people.