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

Website Impounded

fitnesssf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#151

Post by greaterweb »

homosaur wrote: post #132
greaterweb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unfortunate side effect of what this developer has set in motion. I don't know enough about either side to make a determination of who is right or wrong, but neither do the people harassing this business on Facebook. From his Behance page: "Half a year's worth of work, weeks of waiting on end because they couldn't find the fingers at the end of their arms and in the end they try to screw me over by ignorin…

No, I don't think it was an unfortunate side effect, I think it's exactly what he wanted to happen. I know if I were a customer at that gym that I would never be back if someone was trying to screw with my industry. I'd also tell everyone I ever knew not to go there. My guess is that this was not the method of first resort.

You may be right, it may be exactly what he wanted to happen.

The trouble I have thus far is the information is insufficient to make a fair determination of who is right and who is wrong. People are having knee-jerk reactions and harassing the gym without fully knowing the story, and yes, that is truly unfortunate.

If you are ready to close the case on this one simply by a developer claiming he wasn't paid, well, you may wish to rethink your logic with that one.

Has anyone vouched for the credibility of this developer? Have more details surfaced as to the extent of the invoice dispute? Without those answers it's unfounded to hold anything against this gym solely based on the developers claims that he wasn't paid.

Re: Website Impounded

#152

Post by lkrubner »

fencepost wrote: post #18

My suspicion is that this is being done because it's international. If Fitness SF is as I suspect in San Francisco while the developer is in Europe, collections will be a real headache. Sue? Sure, probably where you are, probably win. Then collect from the European presence of a California fitness club. I see a potential disconnect. Sue in California? How much is THAT going to cost someone based in Europe? And really…

That is a very good point. I feel badly for the developer. Losing 6 months of work must be a shocking ordeal. I recently had a client not pay me for half of month of work, and that was a bit of shock to my finances. I do think the developer is right close the site till they are paid. For the most part, lawsuits don't work in these situations -- the expense of mounting the lawsuit, and the risk that it might drag on for months or years, means that is often better to simply move on focus on new things. But it is still a sad experience. I wrote about my own experiences here: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/a-sad-time-at-kaching... For me, because I am in New York and they are in San Francisco, and the amount of money is fairly small, it doesn't make sense for me to waste any time pursuing it.

Re: Website Impounded

#153

Post by ultramundane8 »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #48
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

So let's say that the customer always pays on time and the developer did build this sort of time bomb. (And let's assume no technical knowledge on the part of the customer. Therefore, the time bomb is never discovered.) Are you saying that the relationship was negatively affected? I would claim that the developer could mistrust the customer without elsewhere mistreating them.

My post was a little more geared towards disputing that the work relationship is doomed if the customer and developer can't trust each other.

I had no intention of endorsing a time bomb approach, but just continued on that theme theoretically.

I thought I had expressed that through the sequence of my statements (assuming a possible case then showing that it is at odds with the trust assertion), but will try to be clearer in the future.

I definitely think there are some good replies to the actual practice of installing a time bomb, especially from pragmatism.

Re: Website Impounded

#154

Post by homosaur »

greaterweb wrote: post #151
homosaur wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think it was an unfortunate side effect, I think it's exactly what he wanted to happen. I know if I were a customer at that gym that I would never be back if someone was trying to screw with my industry. I'd also tell everyone I ever knew not to go there. My guess is that this was not the method of first resort.

You may be right, it may be exactly what he wanted to happen. The trouble I have thus far is the information is insufficient to make a fair determination of who is right and who is wrong. People are having knee-jerk reactions and harassing the gym without fully knowing the story, and yes, that is truly unfortunate. If you are ready to close the case on this one simply by a developer claiming he wasn't paid, well, you…

Yeah, you're right, we don't necessarily know the details, but if I were the gym owner and I felt like I was in the right, I'd stand up for myself rather than cower, close down all my Facebook pages to not face criticism, and tell everyone my site was hacked. That's really the single biggest reason I think the gym is most likely in the wrong.

Re: Website Impounded

#155

Post by gcb0 »

logn wrote: post #135
gcb0 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good point. Things like those should be Illegal. Not the 'time bomb'/"genuine advantage' but the fact that people lie to you during the sale. a Trial Period is explicit. Renting is explicity. time bomb and genuine advantage or how microsoft is selling Office at staples nowadays is not! it's criminal and devised to take money out of the likes who still pay AOL on top of Cable for Internet.

Genuine Advantage and related DRM philosophical issues aside, I don't see a problem with deactivating a product designed on behalf of a client who hasn't paid. Not warning them is tricky (and not sure if it even serves a purpose), but even if they sue you, just file a counter-suit for an unpaid invoice.

exactly, not warning them.

that's why when i see microsoft 'selling' office to people that are used to buying office and they do not realize they are 'renting' it for a year, i think it should be illegal.

Re: Website Impounded

#156

Post by gcb0 »

yuhong wrote: post #122
gcb0 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good point. Things like those should be Illegal. Not the 'time bomb'/"genuine advantage' but the fact that people lie to you during the sale. a Trial Period is explicit. Renting is explicity. time bomb and genuine advantage or how microsoft is selling Office at staples nowadays is not! it's criminal and devised to take money out of the likes who still pay AOL on top of Cable for Internet.

"time bomb and genuine advantage or how microsoft is selling Office at staples nowadays is not!" What do you mean?

microsoft is selling it's subscription model version of office, along with other software that is not subscription based.

so basically they are making people believe they are buying office when they are renting it for a year.

Post reply on HN