431–440 of 453 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno. Don't American's bleep their TV shows?
Only on over the air, and if it's only the word "fuck"
A few years ago Jon Stewart (late night cable) played a clip of the routine and they were all bleeped except for one.
I don't see this story going anywhere positive for Garadget. Blocking functionality because of a bad review? This will backfire horribly.
They didn't block it because of the review. Read the stuff in the link and not just the headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Return the product if you're not happy then. You're not entitled to a service, only the piece of hardware.
At once, your majesty. But seriously, it's not you or the creator's call whether I have to return the product. I don't have to return it if I gave it a bad review. Just because I bought something from a store doesn't mean I'm now accountable to the creator. I hope you don't have to test your theory in court, because you will lose - because the law is clear on this matter.
The law is clear. You can keep the product. You are not entitled to services. You can keep your lump of silicon, that is all you are entitled to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? That's how it works.
He doesn't like the customer's tone of voice so he can decide to turn the customer's device into a $99 paperweight? That's not at all how it works. You're being strangely defensive over this whole thread and I'm going to echo another commenter in asking, are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?
And there's really no problem with it, since you can get your money back. You don't lose any money.
> are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?
Let's say it's true. Would I say it, after going so far of somehow getting a 2843 days old HN account for it? Or let's say I'm not. Why would I even bother to answer to anyone but a moderator (who would probably send me an email in that case)? So, what's your point? Trying to discredit a discussion partner because you run out of arguments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? That's how it works.
No. That's probably illegal. Don't break the law. It doesn't matter what fine print the customer signed, if the contract is illegal. Consumer protection laws protect us from this BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, he's also offering a refund. Not sure where the problem is in that case with the service provider's response. If you have sh*tty customers it's smart to drop them fast and focus on your good customers.
> Well, he's also offering a refund. No, he isn't. He suggests returning the device to point of purchase, Amazon, who have no control over this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people here only read the headline and immediately start aiding the destruction of what seems to be a single person's business. I have experienced myself how painful it can be to stay polite towards a*hole customers, so as said in some comment: It's totally fine to quit a customer who acts like that and refund him.
You didn't answer the question. Are you affiliated with them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their domain still leads to an indigogo page. People should avoid startups those use crowdfunding websites as risk free capital gainer preorder pages. They don't get proper investment for a reason.
> They don't get proper investment for a reason. That's not always true. Ergodox-ez.com has an awesome product (a keyboard) they funded through indiegogo. Not to mention basically every 3d printer company, even the VC funded ones. Crowdfunding (and pre-ordering in general) helps hardware startups raise the cash they need to manufacture a batch of product. Without it, they'd have to raise the full cost of the batch in…
What I do see is they use an open source firmware, used on several other keyboards.
I don't know why many comments about "the customer is clearly an asshole, therefore he deserves the lock not working/the company has the legal rights to do so blah blah" are modded so high right now. Even when the customer is an asshole, that has absolutely nothing to do with a security device betraying him or not. I'm very glad that the customer is now only denied access to the app. I can see one day a company that…
I agree mostly, except the last part about DRM. I don't like DRM either, but this isn't DRM, this is a case where a physical device is dependent upon a cloud/internet service to actually function. So if the company either goes belly-up, or (as in this case) decides to capriciously revoke your device's access, you're left with a device that simply does not function. Personally, I think this is terrible, but I think th…