41–50 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't blame the market. Blame the engineers who know the risks of such foolishness that lack the courage and conviction to stand up to decision makers.
Both. I also blame the guy willing to spend $2,000 for a glorified blanket that also needs a monthly subscription to work properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My partner has difficulty sleep unless it is the perfect environment (black out curtains, noise cancellation, sound bath, temperature), and is more prone to the effects of a single bad nights sleep. For people like her, $20/mo + $2000 fee is a small price to pay for a solution to a very difficult problem. I would of course, attempt to veto unnecessary IoT devices and subscriptions for usage, but this would be a fight…
How in the world does this necessitate a subscription? All of these things can work without centralization, setup once, and contained entirely within the home.
I can only speculate.
But, there is demand to improve sleep quality. The provider wants to charge a monthly fee for that.
The market simply puts buys and sellers together. People making business decisions will stick with Econ 101--charge what the market will bare, and why shouldn't they?
The state of the product's security wasn't unexpected. I was, however, shocked by this part: > I was willing to overlook: > The bed costs $2,000 > It won’t function if the internet goes down > Basic features are behind an additional $19/mo subscription > The bed’s only controls are via mobile app Nothing about this bed should depend on off-site servers. Nothing about the product should necessitate a subscription fee.…
Come on. We can improve that! The next version of the bed will go into carnivorous mode if the subscription lapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXrAK6sUZ_0
The state of the product's security wasn't unexpected. I was, however, shocked by this part: > I was willing to overlook: > The bed costs $2,000 > It won’t function if the internet goes down > Basic features are behind an additional $19/mo subscription > The bed’s only controls are via mobile app Nothing about this bed should depend on off-site servers. Nothing about the product should necessitate a subscription fee.…
I've heard the sleep people get with this is excellent, but no way in hell am I paying a subscription and requiring an internet connection for my bed. The entire concept is just absurd. If it sells, it sells, I guess.
The "smart" features on it are genuinely useful for me - I have sleep apnea, as well as an eight sleep + the electronic platform. It automatically changes the elevation of my head based on apnea events, and I see a marked reduction in them when using this feature.
I have a cpap machine that also makes automatic adjustments but I still get noticeably better sleep quality with the eight sleep. I also really enjoy the temperature control, since it saves on HVAC costs vs. climate controlling the whole house. I've not tried an aquarium chiller for this purpose, though I have used one for doing temperature control on a beer fermenter, and I can extrapolate from there that I value the management of the actual eight sleep device vs. managing an aquarium chiller's temp control.
The state of the product's security wasn't unexpected. I was, however, shocked by this part: > I was willing to overlook: > The bed costs $2,000 > It won’t function if the internet goes down > Basic features are behind an additional $19/mo subscription > The bed’s only controls are via mobile app Nothing about this bed should depend on off-site servers. Nothing about the product should necessitate a subscription fee.…
I think one would also assume that some fraction of that $2000 would go into a fund to keep those servers up. One thing SaaS has not learned from nonprofits with longevity: you do big fund raisers to get money so you can live on the interest payments. If you think of a new project that will increase your burn rate, you throw another fund raiser. Figure out how many of those beds you expect to be junked for breakage o…
I think SaaS has eschewed strategies for longevitiy because it's contrary to the market's "wisdom" that for-profit companies must have sustained high-rate growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't blame the market. Blame the engineers who know the risks of such foolishness that lack the courage and conviction to stand up to decision makers.
I used to work for match.com and we had a readout in the office that streamed customer feedback. 90% of it was people who had paid subscriptions complaining about intrusive advertising on the site or in the app while logged in. I raised this at a meeting and was told that they weren‘t going to change it because it made too much money. I’m sure engineers raised issues about this as well and were shut down by the busin…
Uh, I don't think I want to buy a used mattress cover on eBay, thanks.