5 ms·

If it’s stolen they will either recover it or replace it. And everyone knows this, so no one will buy a stolen one and they are less likely to be stolen.

fh973 3y ago
If they're still in business.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> And everyone knows this You mean they know the vendor is an infinite supplier of free bikes to steal, deSaaSify, and sell to a different market? Either way, the message doesn't spread itself; I wouldn't overestimate how much small-scale semi-pro thiefs know or care about bullshit tech startups.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Vanmoof's whole thing is recovering the bikes
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Was, didn't work out as planned, did it?
    - Bootvis 3y ago
      Yes, but not because of the anti theft features. The anti theft feature seems to have been a good idea.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    In a fight between a bullshit tech startup whose entire business model shows they're actively hostile to both customers and society at large, and minimally sophisticated thieves with access to a dedicated defeat toolkit that is surely already available to buy somewhere[0], I expect the startup to surrender first. EDIT: the only real advantage VanMoof could have here is if they're selling shitty bikes and overpricing customers for the brand name. That would indeed deter most thieves successfully - by making stealing those bikes not worth the effort. Well, until the metal prices spike or something, and it's profitable to steal them and sell as raw material... -- [0] - See e.g. cheaply available conversion kits for Bird scooters; IIRC they were being sold for something like $30. Though those had a plausibly legal use case: converting decommissioned or seized scooters. There were plenty of the latter, as following the example set by Uber, Bird also pretended law and society don't exist.
j-a-a-p 3y ago
Ah, now i am beginning to understand why they needed 200 million to develop a bike...
onion2k 3y ago
Not any more, so owners will probably need to be a bit more careful now.

fh973 3y ago

If they're still in business.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> And everyone knows this You mean they know the vendor is an infinite supplier of free bikes to steal, deSaaSify, and sell to a different market? Either way, the message doesn't spread itself; I wouldn't overestimate how much small-scale semi-pro thiefs know or care about bullshit tech startups.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
Vanmoof's whole thing is recovering the bikes
- hef19898 3y ago
  Was, didn't work out as planned, did it?
  - Bootvis 3y ago
    Yes, but not because of the anti theft features. The anti theft feature seems to have been a good idea.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  In a fight between a bullshit tech startup whose entire business model shows they're actively hostile to both customers and society at large, and minimally sophisticated thieves with access to a dedicated defeat toolkit that is surely already available to buy somewhere[0], I expect the startup to surrender first. EDIT: the only real advantage VanMoof could have here is if they're selling shitty bikes and overpricing customers for the brand name. That would indeed deter most thieves successfully - by making stealing those bikes not worth the effort. Well, until the metal prices spike or something, and it's profitable to steal them and sell as raw material... -- [0] - See e.g. cheaply available conversion kits for Bird scooters; IIRC they were being sold for something like $30. Though those had a plausibly legal use case: converting decommissioned or seized scooters. There were plenty of the latter, as following the example set by Uber, Bird also pretended law and society don't exist.

j-a-a-p 3y ago

Ah, now i am beginning to understand why they needed 200 million to develop a bike...

onion2k 3y ago

Not any more, so owners will probably need to be a bit more careful now.