Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mulmen 404 days ago
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.
2 comments
pompidoo 404 days ago
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.
link
mulmen 404 days ago
Agree that the transparency is nice but the limitation it mentions disqualifies the product for me.
link
_aavaa_ 404 days ago
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.
link
mulmen 404 days ago
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.
link
_aavaa_ 404 days ago
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.

link
gsck 403 days ago
https://xkcd.com/1172/
link
mulmen 404 days ago
It doesn’t require Apple deliberately breaking this product. They could change the required functionality for an unrelated reason.
link
spuz 404 days ago
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.
link
mulmen 404 days ago
The AirTag is specifically designed to not be used to track people without their knowledge.
link
_aavaa_ 403 days ago
Is that why it released it with built in integration in android so that android users automatically are notified of tags following them?

Or is that why the tag flashes and makes sounds frequently so that people without phones can know they’re being tracked?

link