[cmeacham98]

> Events outside our control, such as Apple updating the firmware in the future to prevent the device from working, will not qualify for a refund.

I fully understand why you would want to do this, but as a consumer I would never buy this product with this clause.

[pompidoo]

I understand your point. In this case the price point makes this a bearable risk, especially to protect much more valuable items. A refund is only useful if only a certain % of people have issue or the company is big. Since this is my only product, an Airtag update that bricks the devices would just bankrupt the company and make me unable to refund most people as my margin is very low anyway.

[jonpurdy]

I was thinking that the price must be high if folks are worried about it not working and getting a refund.

For 10EUR, not only would I not worry about a refund but now I’m buying one or two to use myself on my bicycle and car.

[andygeorge]

sure but you've acknowledged that your product is something that Apple considers bad and could shut it down. that can usually be overlooked for things like emulation, but you've developed a product that does something Apple specifically added protections against after they learned of its dangerous misuse

[outworlder]

> sure but you've acknowledged that your product is something that Apple considers bad

No. Everyone that builds projects inside someone else's ecosystem is subject to this. Even companies that like what your are doing might break it if they aren't specifically testing against your product.

[birdman3131]

That does not read as "something that Apple considers bad" but rather "something that Apple COULD consider bad"

[dudeinjapan]

A reasonable solution would be to get to buy the newer model half-off if this happens. Obviously the maker can’t just have his entire biz nuked with refunds if Apple happens to update firmware.

[mulmen]

I think you have your priorities wrong. Why should an unsustainable business be prioritized over consumer benefit?

Nobody has a right to a successful business but when consumers can trust their purchases they are more likely to make additional purchases.

[pompidoo]

I felt like adding that disclaimer was a nice thing to do, informing the customer and letting them make their own decision. It makes almost no difference to remove that disclaimer (well, it would increase sales). it is not to protect myself. The price is very low and margin is very thin, what happens if Apple bricks the device? There would be very little money left to refund the customers, and most of the refunds would be eaten by transaction fees. Is it worth it for the customers to receive a few cents back? And that's assuming I keep all the money in the company and don't pay myself.

[mulmen]

Agree that the transparency is nice but the limitation it mentions disqualifies the product for me.

[_aavaa_]

The lack of trust in the purchase comes from Apple, not from this seller. It's apple that's reaching into your device and force updating the firmware without your consent.

[mulmen]

No. The product in this case relies on unintended functionality in a specific firmware version of an Apple device that is specifically designed to not be suitable for this application. In this case it is the add-on device that is not offering refunds if it stops working.

[_aavaa_]

Yes.

> if it stops working.

It doesn't magically stop working though, it would be apple explicitly putting in effort to break this functionality and forcing you to update a device you own, forcing you to use it only how they want you to use it.

[gsck]

https://xkcd.com/1172/

[mulmen]

It doesn’t require Apple deliberately breaking this product. They could change the required functionality for an unrelated reason.

[spuz]

Where do you get the idea that Apple specifically designed the AirTag to not be suitable for a third party device to control when it switches on and off? I can understand how they might not approve of this adaptation to their product but I don't see any reason to believe they specifically designed against it.

[mulmen]

The AirTag is specifically designed to not be used to track people without their knowledge.