3 ms·

Would you drop $3k on a macbook pro, take it out and use it in the dirt and rain, and then be shocked that it didn't hold up as well as some generic $500 laptop

Would you drop $3k on a macbook pro, take it out and use it in the dirt and rain, and then be shocked that it didn't hold up as well as some generic $500 laptop? Would you drop $80k on a new sedan and then be shocked that its boot capacity is the same as a $20k sedan? $200 at a fine dining restaurant and it fills you up as well as a $10 one? No. These things are luxuries sure but it's understood that it extends in a certain way. You buy the expensive macbook if you want to use it like normal in a home or office but have a nicer screen, touchpad, etc. You buy the expensive ruggedised laptop if you need to use it out in the field. You buy a van, trailer, ute, whatever if you need a lot of hauling capability. You buy groceries if you want to feed yourself for a month not one expensive meal. Probably you think I'm being a jackass by comparing thinking this lock should be more secure than a generic lock but I genuinely cant see a difference. It's as obvious to me that you're paying a premium for the convenience aspects of this lock rather than security as it is that you're paying for a nice screen on a macbook not ability to withstand harsh conditions. It being on the Apple store gives me no indication that it's more secure than the average lock, nor does their marketing. So I'm genuinely curious. What is it about this situation that makes you people who think this is a lame response, hilarious, a grift, etc see it differently from the above? Why would you not just expect it to be better in an entirely different dimension than it's marketing itself, but expect it so much so that this is being viewed as some sort of embarrassing scam?

user3939382 4y ago
Customers can easily measure the convenience aspect. Your comparisons (let’s say, a high res monitor or powerful engine) have specs consumers can objectively if not easily qualify. With a lock design, security is its raison d’etre. You assume by the time they’re marking the price up hundreds or thousands of percent for secondary features, that they’ve covered the primary one. And unlike say, a 1080p vs 4k display, you kind of have to trust that they did because we don’t have consumer friendly scales for lock design integrity. You could compare this lock to a good one with a car analogy if it would have taken 2% more cost to turn a Civic into a Mercedes but Honda chose not to. The cost to make this lock reasonably secure isn’t really an issue.
danfang 4y ago
You may have forgotten that the purpose of a lock is not to be opened in many useful ways, but actually to remain closed when you want it.
Zuiii 4y ago
It doesn't include even the most basic of security features. It even lacks security pins which have become standard in all but the cheapest locks. The security this thing provides may make it adequate for securing a wardrobe, but it is in no way appropriate for securing a front door or even a room. This thing can be opened in 10 minutes by a 10 year old with no experience in lock picking. Level should be sued. This product is not fit for the purpose it is being sold.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gregmac 4y ago
The problem is your comparisons are off. It's like the $3k MacBook pro has worse performance than the $500 generic, the $20k car is a better drive, or the $10 meal is better food than the fine dining. Sure, the aesthetic and convenience qualities of the expensive versions are better, but basic functionality of a high-end product has to be at least comparable to the mid-range, and definitely has to be better then the low-end.

user3939382 4y ago

Customers can easily measure the convenience aspect. Your comparisons (let’s say, a high res monitor or powerful engine) have specs consumers can objectively if not easily qualify. With a lock design, security is its raison d’etre. You assume by the time they’re marking the price up hundreds or thousands of percent for secondary features, that they’ve covered the primary one. And unlike say, a 1080p vs 4k display, you kind of have to trust that they did because we don’t have consumer friendly scales for lock design integrity. You could compare this lock to a good one with a car analogy if it would have taken 2% more cost to turn a Civic into a Mercedes but Honda chose not to. The cost to make this lock reasonably secure isn’t really an issue.

danfang 4y ago

You may have forgotten that the purpose of a lock is not to be opened in many useful ways, but actually to remain closed when you want it.

Zuiii 4y ago

It doesn't include even the most basic of security features. It even lacks security pins which have become standard in all but the cheapest locks. The security this thing provides may make it adequate for securing a wardrobe, but it is in no way appropriate for securing a front door or even a room. This thing can be opened in 10 minutes by a 10 year old with no experience in lock picking. Level should be sued. This product is not fit for the purpose it is being sold.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gregmac 4y ago

The problem is your comparisons are off. It's like the $3k MacBook pro has worse performance than the $500 generic, the $20k car is a better drive, or the $10 meal is better food than the fine dining. Sure, the aesthetic and convenience qualities of the expensive versions are better, but basic functionality of a high-end product has to be at least comparable to the mid-range, and definitely has to be better then the low-end.