Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#101

Post by Nition »

chongli wrote: post #53
tfvlrue wrote: post #26

I've been following this story for a while. When people say the soft serve machine is "broken", they really mean "unavailable to serve ice cream to customers". That could mean something as innocuous as performing a pasteurization cycle during the day (because it failed to run at night for some reason, perhaps the machine's clock is set wrong). It could also mean there is a physical problem with some part of the machi…

It also needs to be said that similar machines provided by Taylor to McDonalds' competitors do not have anywhere close to the amount of downtime that McDonalds' machines have. There's also ample evidence that software updates to Taylor's McDonalds machines have made the error codes more cryptic and the machines more unreliable over time. I think there's a pretty strong legal case to be made that these machines are de…

This is maybe backed up by the fact that in other countries, McDonalds serves the same ice-cream from machines that seem to always be working. The "McDonalds ice-cream machine is always broken" meme seems to be a uniquely US phenomenon - or at least it's not completely worldwide.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#102

Post by stickfigure »

ojosilva wrote: post #100
tfvlrue wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of what the Kytch device did. But nothing I've read about it ever gave me the impression that it was overriding lockouts. It was intended as a remote monitoring device and troubleshooting tool. For example, instead of an employee having to read a pattern of blinking lights on the machine itself, a franchise owner might receive an email that says "soft serve machine cleaning requi…

Regardless, like I said, the Kytch box (a Raspberry Pi) is overriding the code that accesses the secret menu of the ice-cream machines [1]. That's outside the intended operation. And that's liability if McD knows about it and says nothing. The machine produces food that goes into people's bodies. Ie, if it were to produce a poisonous glycol ice-cream (glycol one of the pasteurization ingredients) all of a sudden, eve…

Wow, you are going to be horrified when you find out what goes on inside a family-run restaurant or food cart. They actually make food using humans.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#103

Post by mbg721 »

stickfigure wrote: post #102
ojosilva wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, like I said, the Kytch box (a Raspberry Pi) is overriding the code that accesses the secret menu of the ice-cream machines [1]. That's outside the intended operation. And that's liability if McD knows about it and says nothing. The machine produces food that goes into people's bodies. Ie, if it were to produce a poisonous glycol ice-cream (glycol one of the pasteurization ingredients) all of a sudden, eve…

Wow, you are going to be horrified when you find out what goes on inside a family-run restaurant or food cart. They actually make food using humans .

If they like you, they mostly keep humans out of the ingredients, though.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#104

Post by 14 »

gruez wrote: post #72
chongli wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also needs to be said that similar machines provided by Taylor to McDonalds' competitors do not have anywhere close to the amount of downtime that McDonalds' machines have. There's also ample evidence that software updates to Taylor's McDonalds machines have made the error codes more cryptic and the machines more unreliable over time. I think there's a pretty strong legal case to be made that these machines are de…

>There's also ample evidence that software updates to Taylor's McDonalds machines have made the error codes more cryptic and the machines more unreliable over time. Source? >It also needs to be said that similar machines provided by Taylor to McDonalds' competitors do not have anywhere close to the amount of downtime that McDonalds' machines have >I think there's a pretty strong legal case to be made that these machi…

I don’t know the source but definitely did read an article here on HN last year reporting this. Call me a conspiracy theorist but I would bet McDonald’s is paying a pr firm to get reports like that taken away off the net.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#105

Post by BenjiWiebe »

runnerup wrote: post #50
tfvlrue wrote: post #26

I've been following this story for a while. When people say the soft serve machine is "broken", they really mean "unavailable to serve ice cream to customers". That could mean something as innocuous as performing a pasteurization cycle during the day (because it failed to run at night for some reason, perhaps the machine's clock is set wrong). It could also mean there is a physical problem with some part of the machi…

Also it can mean that the first half of the lunch rush used up all the frozen ice cream and it can’t freeze new ice cream instantly. So the later part of a rush period will often have unacceptable soft ice cream. When I ran frozen daiquiri machines it took a lot of finesse to make it through a busy night. Have to constantly manage the temperatures and levels to a nearly absurd precision while doing the rest of your j…

Are you sure that's ever an issue with McDonald's? I've been under the impression that McDonald's Taylor ice cream machines are freeze-on-demand.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#106

Post by gknoy »

infogulch wrote: post #99
joezydeco wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It also needs to be said that similar machines provided by Taylor to McDonalds' competitors do not have anywhere close to the amount of downtime that McDonalds' machines have" But they're not similar machines. The machines in question are models developed for McDonald's that use internal heat treatment to pasteurize the machine and clean it on a more frequent basis. The intent was to keep the machine running longer…

The fact that the design intent is to reduce downtime does not mean it is achieved in practice. McDonald's ice cream machines constantly being "broken" is so well known that it's a meme among normal people. This is not the case for other fast food places that use Taylor machines. I've seen statements from employees confused about why it's such a big deal to clean the machine once a day because it's not that hard. (Pe…

Does this mean that the ice cream machines at other places are just happily dispensing unsafe food?

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#107

Post by kmeisthax »

paulmd wrote: post #77
ansible wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think that the McDonalds franchise owners would push back on McDonalds corporate about this issue. They would rightly be complaining that they are losing revenue because the Taylor ice cream machine has low reliability. Even one service call per month is a significant cost to a low-margin business like a quick-serve restaurant. It is quite possible there is some hinky corporate politics and such within McDo…

McDonald's exerts extremely extremely tight control over its franchisees by corporate standards. Every single thing about a McDonald's is meticulously specified and regulated by corporate, from the equipment installations to the number of pickle slices that go on a burger and the soap that goes into the bathroom. Franchisees in general don't wear the pants in this relationship. If McD corporate says you use this mach…

I have to wonder if Taylor agreed to custom-build McDonalds an ice cream machine specifically because they figured they had implied license to hose franchisees on service costs. Or, in other words, if McDonalds had said "make the machine reliable enough to serve ice cream 100% of the time with no service calls", then Taylor would have charged 10x or something. The fact that McDonalds is libeling Kytch sounds like Taylor is speaking through McDonalds' mouth.

Even if McDonalds had been more reserved, however; Kytch still has some industrial-espionage claims that might go somewhere.

Also, for those wondering exactly how controlled McDonalds' franchise relations are: McDonalds franchisees are required to rent their locations from McDonalds, because McDonalds front-runs their business partners and buys the most valuable land[0] from under them. Literally nothing about the business of being a McDonalds franchisee works the way capitalism or business ownership is "supposed" to work[1]. It's more like paying to work at a somewhat-lucrative job than actually owning a business. McDonalds is a richest-of-the-rich company that sells business opportunities to the poorest-of-the-rich crowd[2], who are looking for a way to park lots of wealth[3] in a safe asset.

[0] Typically, land immediately next to US Interstate off-ramps or equivalently high-traffic highways

[1] Unless you're a left-winger, in which case the McDonalds "strip our business partners of capital interest in the store" policy is how capitalism is "supposed" to work, and treating your business partners as equals is a historical aberration.

For the record I do find the left-wing critique of capitalism to be at least somewhat grounded in current business reality.

[2] Menial labors of the capitalist class. If you define "poor, middle-class, and rich" based on how people make their money (poor: unskilled labor, middle-class: skilled labor, rich: capitalism), then you can recursively subdivide that grouping further, with richest-of-the-rich being people whose wealth comes from owning other businesses through some means (usually trademark or copyright).

[3] McDonalds wants their franchisees to hold at least $750,000 of liquid capital and be able to invest between $1,000,000 and $2,200,000 into their stores.

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#108

Post by jjkaczor »

infogulch wrote: post #99
joezydeco wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It also needs to be said that similar machines provided by Taylor to McDonalds' competitors do not have anywhere close to the amount of downtime that McDonalds' machines have" But they're not similar machines. The machines in question are models developed for McDonald's that use internal heat treatment to pasteurize the machine and clean it on a more frequent basis. The intent was to keep the machine running longer…

The fact that the design intent is to reduce downtime does not mean it is achieved in practice. McDonald's ice cream machines constantly being "broken" is so well known that it's a meme among normal people. This is not the case for other fast food places that use Taylor machines. I've seen statements from employees confused about why it's such a big deal to clean the machine once a day because it's not that hard. (Pe…

It's not just a meme, but trackable enough that someone built a website:

https://mcbroken.com/

Re: Ice cream machine hackers sue McDonald's

#109

Post by sandworm101 »

gknoy wrote: post #106
infogulch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the design intent is to reduce downtime does not mean it is achieved in practice. McDonald's ice cream machines constantly being "broken" is so well known that it's a meme among normal people. This is not the case for other fast food places that use Taylor machines. I've seen statements from employees confused about why it's such a big deal to clean the machine once a day because it's not that hard. (Pe…

Does this mean that the ice cream machines at other places are just happily dispensing unsafe food?

No. It means that they just open up and clean the machine each day, just like every other appliance that touches food. The MD machine was designed to run without daily cleaning.
Post reply on HN