6 ms·

Because it was sold as "just pay once and get your mailing list", not as "just pay once and get your mailing list for a few months then no more mailing list"

publicfig 13y ago
Which is why they are refunding money, which negates the "just pay once" aspect.
- anon808 13y ago
  yeah, but the customer didn't want the money, they wanted the service. That's why they gave the money in the first place. Obviously it's a very good showing that 37S is refunding customers their money, but I wouldn't be completely happy if I were a customer since what I was promised (the service) is no longer being delivered. I would feel a little burned. Do this often enough, and customer trust is eroded. How many folks are going to think twice before signing up for 37S next new product? I would.
  - throwaway420 13y ago
    They gave a full refund without being asked, exported data, and gave their customers suggestion so I don't think that they could have handled this any better.
    - anon808 13y ago
      I'd like to know how breeze customers feel about it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Guvante 13y ago
Which is part of the reason they are closing the service, they can't provide the service they promised to provide.
- MartinMond 13y ago
  Of course they could provide the service. They still provide Backpack for existing customers. They just don't want to because they don't care.
  - anon808 13y ago
    The economics are different, backpack customers I assume still pay to use the service so there's a revenue stream to maintain a small customer base. Breeze customers already paid, so if they kept supporting existing breeze customers they'd be doing it for free (no new breeze money coming in). This is another reason why I never understood the pay once, use forever pricing scheme for saas products, it just doesn't match up with how the product is delivered.
jiggy2011 13y ago
How long should they run the service at a loss for before they are allowed to bin it? According to the site , they are giving you your data back anyway.
- dave_sid 13y ago
  To be fair, they were the ones that took the gamble of a one-off payment rather than a subscription, so should really have stuck to their guns and supported it. At least longer than 4 months.
- icebraining 13y ago
  For as long as they agreed to do so. They shouldn't have promised what they couldn't deliver. It's wrong when ISPs do it ("unlimited!") and it's just as wrong when small "fun" tech companies to it.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Since 37s can't run this service until the end of time then it seems reasonable to expect it to end at some point.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      In my opinion, the only reasonable time is when the company closes; anything else falls short of what they promised. Which doesn't mean that closing in ten years or ten days would be the same, of course.
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        Then you make it less likely that they will consider offering the service in the first place. Sometimes things just don't make business sense and you kill them. I have killed stuff in the past that has literally had 1 user , it wouldn't seem sensible at all to keep it running simply for that one person (unless they were paying me significantly). The best way to judge a company in my opinion is how they handle it when they do. In this case distribution to customers was minimized.
anon808 13y ago
I think that's exactly right, the transaction pitched to customers is not what it turned out to be, and that's never good, no matter how it's communicated. I think people are choosing to see this from 37S (or any other software co's) perspective. Fine, whatever 37S's expectations were to begin with didn't work out, so 37S is closing the service. Makes perfect sense, and godspeed, 37S. But the other side of a transaction is a customer that put money, time and effort into this product. Even if 37S gives back the money, the customer isn't made completely whole; I don't think it's illogical to think folks wouldn't be completely happy with this outcome, no matter how great of a job 37S did communicating the closing.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I don't know if it is reasonable to expect the customer to be made completely whole. Nothing in this world is permanent. If my favorite coffeeshop closes I am inconvenienced because maybe I now have to walk further for worse coffee, but they don't really owe me anything. It's not like alternatives are hard to find either.
  - anon808 13y ago
    They don't have to make the customer whole, i'm just saying we shouldn't expect customers to be happy just because they got their money back.

publicfig 13y ago

Which is why they are refunding money, which negates the "just pay once" aspect.

anon808 13y ago
yeah, but the customer didn't want the money, they wanted the service. That's why they gave the money in the first place. Obviously it's a very good showing that 37S is refunding customers their money, but I wouldn't be completely happy if I were a customer since what I was promised (the service) is no longer being delivered. I would feel a little burned. Do this often enough, and customer trust is eroded. How many folks are going to think twice before signing up for 37S next new product? I would.
- throwaway420 13y ago
  They gave a full refund without being asked, exported data, and gave their customers suggestion so I don't think that they could have handled this any better.
  - anon808 13y ago
    I'd like to know how breeze customers feel about it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Guvante 13y ago

Which is part of the reason they are closing the service, they can't provide the service they promised to provide.

MartinMond 13y ago
Of course they could provide the service. They still provide Backpack for existing customers. They just don't want to because they don't care.
- anon808 13y ago
  The economics are different, backpack customers I assume still pay to use the service so there's a revenue stream to maintain a small customer base. Breeze customers already paid, so if they kept supporting existing breeze customers they'd be doing it for free (no new breeze money coming in). This is another reason why I never understood the pay once, use forever pricing scheme for saas products, it just doesn't match up with how the product is delivered.

jiggy2011 13y ago

How long should they run the service at a loss for before they are allowed to bin it? According to the site , they are giving you your data back anyway.

dave_sid 13y ago
To be fair, they were the ones that took the gamble of a one-off payment rather than a subscription, so should really have stuck to their guns and supported it. At least longer than 4 months.
icebraining 13y ago
For as long as they agreed to do so. They shouldn't have promised what they couldn't deliver. It's wrong when ISPs do it ("unlimited!") and it's just as wrong when small "fun" tech companies to it.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Since 37s can't run this service until the end of time then it seems reasonable to expect it to end at some point.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    In my opinion, the only reasonable time is when the company closes; anything else falls short of what they promised. Which doesn't mean that closing in ten years or ten days would be the same, of course.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      Then you make it less likely that they will consider offering the service in the first place. Sometimes things just don't make business sense and you kill them. I have killed stuff in the past that has literally had 1 user , it wouldn't seem sensible at all to keep it running simply for that one person (unless they were paying me significantly). The best way to judge a company in my opinion is how they handle it when they do. In this case distribution to customers was minimized.

anon808 13y ago

I think that's exactly right, the transaction pitched to customers is not what it turned out to be, and that's never good, no matter how it's communicated. I think people are choosing to see this from 37S (or any other software co's) perspective. Fine, whatever 37S's expectations were to begin with didn't work out, so 37S is closing the service. Makes perfect sense, and godspeed, 37S. But the other side of a transaction is a customer that put money, time and effort into this product. Even if 37S gives back the money, the customer isn't made completely whole; I don't think it's illogical to think folks wouldn't be completely happy with this outcome, no matter how great of a job 37S did communicating the closing.

jiggy2011 13y ago
I don't know if it is reasonable to expect the customer to be made completely whole. Nothing in this world is permanent. If my favorite coffeeshop closes I am inconvenienced because maybe I now have to walk further for worse coffee, but they don't really owe me anything. It's not like alternatives are hard to find either.
- anon808 13y ago
  They don't have to make the customer whole, i'm just saying we shouldn't expect customers to be happy just because they got their money back.