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

Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 250 posts

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#71

Post by giancarlostoro »

masfuerte wrote: post #68
giancarlostoro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Fitbit Ionic had a recall, I applied for a refund 2 years later, sent in the watch (you have to mail it), and it took months to get my cash. I wouldn't hold my breath, it might take a while, which I think is fine, so long as they get it done.

I applied for a ticket refund for a heavily delayed train in the UK. A month after I applied they agreed and said they would deposit the money into my PayPal account. Three months later I remembered to check, and they hadn't. When I contacted them they were all "lol, whoops, how did that happen?". And finally paid me. Big companies really do take the piss.

In my case I waited patiently because it was outsourced, so I assumed its a company with maybe 10 people running through thousands and thousands of recalls for various companies. They might be slow, but as long as they get to it, doesn't bother me.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#72

Post by honeybadger1 »

I am going to make it political because I have never liked companies that peacock, appealing to social justice causes, but this is a staple case of why I feel this way.

Companies, like Spotify only do these types of things to soften their dominant business tactics, just like Google, just like Amazon, etc. They appeal to emotion just like politicians appeal to emotion with religion or social justice causes in their speeches to soften their image so they get away with the decisions based on who they actually are and how they really feel later or when rubber meets actual road.

Spotify is just a business interested in doing things that make them the most money possible and they have a history, like others, to appeal to people with social peacocking to soften their image while being so dominant in the market.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#73

Post by tialaramex »

jvanderbot wrote: post #61
bravetraveler wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, stop voting for people that need coerced to their job. I know this is reductive - save your fingers. Write, but do the not-vote-thing if they don't listen. The desire to not be hoodwinked has already been expressed. Just not this specific way. Or, expressed more positively I guess, vote for those who don't need goaded to do the obviously good thing.

There are a whole bunch of "Right" things to do. How does one choose? By listening to the people who they represent in real time . Otherwise, how can they possibly set priorities once during election season for the whole term for any possible future issue ? Democracy is closed-loop control. You need a feedback signal. It's a feature - not a bug.

You should be choosing people who will make the right choice. Occasions when sudden change needs radically new information should be rare. If you ask me how "my" representative (MP Alan Whitehead, so arguably no longer "my representative" because there's an election next month and Parliament is dissolved) voted on an issue I didn't even know about, I can usually make a pretty good guess based on what I know about Alan.

e.g. taxes -- Alan doesn't like taxation as much as me, so "Increase tax on..." means probably that's a No from Alan. However, he does think we should soak the ultra-rich, so, while a tax on booze, cars, or even holiday homes would be a non-starter, Alan can probably get behind a plan to increase tax, say, on owning a private jet, or a new tax on billionaires.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#74

Post by rockostrich »

ActionHank wrote: post #36
Ekaros wrote: post #22

I have to admit at least Google handled the Stadia well in this regard. The money just got refunded to me without me taking any action at all.

Both were pretty lame tbh. What would be ideal is to open up devices to be flashed with custom FW or OS installs and some rudimentary docs on doing so. That would be enough for the community to run with it if there is sufficient demand and value.

> Both were pretty lame tbh.

Strongly disagree. While the arbitrary deadline on the bluetooth flasher tool that Google created is dumb, I ended up with 4 bluetooth controllers for free. Seems like a pretty great deal to me.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#75

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

murillians wrote: post #12
dylan604 wrote: post #10

"Some remain frustrated by the scheduled obsolescence of hardware that was only released to the general public in February 2022. Car Thing first released to a limited number of subscribers in October 2021." What is the purpose of this device in the first place? In 2021/2022, smart phones with bluetooth or usb/audio cables were in full effect which is how I'm assuming >99.999% of users use Spotify. Were there Spotify…

Car Thing was only a remote for your phone's Spotify app. It was targeted towards people that had bluetooth or aux inputs to their car's stereo, but not Apple CarPlay or Android Auto that allowed you to control Spotify directly through the radio.

I have a Car Thing for my 2015 Chevy Volt, and I really enjoyed it. For exactly the reasons you mention, it lets me control Spotify with a great UI. I can also just play my phone over Bluetooth but it's not like I can select different playlists, browse songs, etc. from my car's dashboard - all I can do is go back or forward.

I'm also surprised they're bricking Car Thing. Given how it works, I didn't realize it would even need server data in the first place.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#78

Post by croes »

thayne wrote: post #65
bravetraveler wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more... 'vote, but directed elsewhere' - I'm not really championing for non-participation. It already won. I'm posting fairly incendiary stuff because most don't vote, yet everyone has an opinion.

That assumes there is a candidate to vote for who cares.

I don't know for the US but in other countries you can vote but make it invalid, so it counts for the total votes but not for a candidate.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#79

Post by jvanderbot »

tialaramex wrote: post #73
jvanderbot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a whole bunch of "Right" things to do. How does one choose? By listening to the people who they represent in real time . Otherwise, how can they possibly set priorities once during election season for the whole term for any possible future issue ? Democracy is closed-loop control. You need a feedback signal. It's a feature - not a bug.

You should be choosing people who will make the right choice. Occasions when sudden change needs radically new information should be rare. If you ask me how "my" representative (MP Alan Whitehead, so arguably no longer "my representative" because there's an election next month and Parliament is dissolved) voted on an issue I didn't even know about, I can usually make a pretty good guess based on what I know about Ala…

Sure - there's some element of trust. But I can only trust politicians judgement on tech issues so far.

Re: Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process

#80

Post by School-Cotton »

crazygringo wrote: post #62
goodluckchuck wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t need more laws. We need to repeal the arbitration act, and let things like this get resolved in court, where we can establish a precedent against this kind of stuff.

No, courts don't just make up precedent out of thin air. Courts follow laws as written, and make decisions and establish precedent whenever laws are vague, in edge cases, or when laws conflict. But for stuff like this new laws are absolutely required. Why would you prefer unelected judges to be making stuff up, instead of democratically elected lawmakers whose literal job it is to decide these kinds of policies with…

At least in the U.S., I (like most people) trust unelected judges much more than the (quasi-democratically at best) elected legislature.
Post reply on HN