6 ms·

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 custome

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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - cf141q5325 4y ago
      That just brings us back to not properly communicating or understanding the terms of the interaction. If you get it at cost and the shipping company wont cover the damage, somebody will. In this case the recipient will cover shipping to the service center and pine will cover the actual repairs. Thats the deal. Not understanding it is one thing, doing so and demand otherwise later another. edit: again, not defending their packaging skills here.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        The thing is nobody cares whatsoever what they communicate because you just can't legally do that most places. You can write depending on mood box may contain poo, dead rabbits, or live bobcat instead of phone and when you deliver anything but what the user paid for intact and functional their bank is going to take their money back and whomever is taking payments for you may opt to stop doing so if it happens too much. Ultimately "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" just doesn't mean you CAN do that as long as the letters are big enough bold enough or red enough. It means YOU CAN'T DO THAT. You cannot offer goods that don't work on a website where you anticipate people paying with their paycal mastercard visa or amex and expect them not to exercise terms that must exist by law because the alternative to someone doing the easy thing and yoinking their money relatively cheaply back over the wire isn't the incompetent OEM keeping the money its waiting for a very expensive lawsuit wherein the customer takes back not only their $99 but the $5000 it cost them to collect their $99. If enough people do that ultimately they ruin you and people come to take all your tinker toys and auction them to pay your debts. The actual alternative is to have an actual signed contract with prospective "developers" for access to equipment. There isn't a blurb you can put on a website that will serve.

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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    That just brings us back to not properly communicating or understanding the terms of the interaction. If you get it at cost and the shipping company wont cover the damage, somebody will. In this case the recipient will cover shipping to the service center and pine will cover the actual repairs. Thats the deal. Not understanding it is one thing, doing so and demand otherwise later another. edit: again, not defending their packaging skills here.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      The thing is nobody cares whatsoever what they communicate because you just can't legally do that most places. You can write depending on mood box may contain poo, dead rabbits, or live bobcat instead of phone and when you deliver anything but what the user paid for intact and functional their bank is going to take their money back and whomever is taking payments for you may opt to stop doing so if it happens too much. Ultimately "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" just doesn't mean you CAN do that as long as the letters are big enough bold enough or red enough. It means YOU CAN'T DO THAT. You cannot offer goods that don't work on a website where you anticipate people paying with their paycal mastercard visa or amex and expect them not to exercise terms that must exist by law because the alternative to someone doing the easy thing and yoinking their money relatively cheaply back over the wire isn't the incompetent OEM keeping the money its waiting for a very expensive lawsuit wherein the customer takes back not only their $99 but the $5000 it cost them to collect their $99. If enough people do that ultimately they ruin you and people come to take all your tinker toys and auction them to pay your debts. The actual alternative is to have an actual signed contract with prospective "developers" for access to equipment. There isn't a blurb you can put on a website that will serve.