Google Offers Refunds After Smart Glasses Stop Working (bbc.com) 69
Smart glasses company North has told customers that their $600 purchases will stop working in a few days' time. The Canadian company, recently purchased by Google, says its Focals glasses will cease functioning on Friday. From a report: From then, owners will not be able to use "any features" of the glasses, or connect to the companion app. But the company has also said it will automatically refund all customers. It promised to send the purchase price back to the original payment method, and to contact those customers whose refunds it could not process. At the end of June, North announced it was being acquired by Google, and would not release a planned second-generation device. It also said it would "wind down" its first generation smart glasses, released last year. Customers found out that meant the smart glasses would be rendered "dumb" through a statement published on the company's website and by email.
More proof (Score:3, Insightful)
More proof that you don't own anything, no matter what the overlords say. You are renting your existence at this point. First sale doctrine is dead, "your" data belongs to anyone else but you, "your" hardware and the physical embodiment of the contained software is open for others to remotely reach in and destroy, without legal repercussion.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, with the refund, you're not renting. You're temporarily loaning money to the company in exchange for the smart glasses service instead of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
My PC is running Linux, auto updates are turned off, and I'm using full disk encryption.
If anyone owns my PC, it's me.
Admittedly, that's just my laptop. I run Windows 7 for gaming on a desktop. I run scripts to rip out the telemetry crap that Microsoft puts into the updates. Although that's not necessary any more... no updates, no sneaky bullshit in updates
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass --Next vs Apple Glass (Score:2)
If you paid for Google... (Score:1)
You got ripped off.
Just be like most of us and consume free services in exchange for them farming your data. Google is already famous for starting and dropping projects as their fancies take them.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says they didn't buy anything from Google.
Re: (Score:1)
That's why I said "If" but I can certainly see that what I posted did a piss poor job of it and I deserved your comment in response. I stand corrected!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's worse return on investment than even a moderate-yield savings account.
Re: (Score:2)
Your savings account doubles your $600 within a year and a half? What's your bank?
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't double. It came back as exactly the same amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just be like most of us and consume free services in exchange for them farming your data.
That isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
So much development time saved!
seems fair to me? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can complain all you want about them losing functionality after you paid for them, until the day they refund your purchase price. After that, you have no right to complain about it, you got your refund. (and it's a full refund, after you got value out of it for awhile, I'd say you came out ahead!)
(though they pretty much had to... no refund would have immediately turned into a smashingly successful class-action lawsuit)
Re:seems fair to me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't "unsell" it - the customers don't have to return the product. It was refunded, you keep it, and that make it a free gift.
WTF (Score:2)
I can only assume you work for the google dept doing this?
No, its NOT a free gift, its a paperweight - as is made clear, they are breaking its functionality, with VERY little warning.
Re: (Score:2)
"free gift" is a legal term, it means you receive something with no obligation. If someone gives you a free gift and you don't want it, throw it away. Nobody's forcing you to keep it or use it, and you haven't been harmed by receiving it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more about them actively modifying the device itself. I own the physical instances of the bits. You may not flip them.
Cutting off service is altogether different and subject to contract law. IANAL. I'm actually inclined to be pretty biased in favor of not bearing a burden to provide a service, unless there was some consideration and a contract supporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I would say more than fair actually.
I don't even know if a refund is necessary for it to be fair, but definitely a stand-up thing to do. It's a fast paced world... but just like I cannot get my money back on a car model that got canceled, I don't think I would classify as a company being bought out and failing or being shutdown is in the "fair/unfair" category of life.
It's just unfortunate. Or in the case of these folks... fortunate.
Now, if they got their purchase back plus interest... that would be aweso
Re: (Score:2)
"but just like I cannot get my money back on a car model that got canceled,"
This is a little different, your doesn't stop being a car. You can also get 3rd party parts to keep it running as a car.
This is more like the day the model got canceled they flipped a switch and your car would no longer start or move again on its own. Sure you still look at it in your driveway, even go sit in it. but would that be fair?
Re:seems fair to me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Refunding a product that stopped working with no replacement within the warranty period is almost a bare minimum / legal requirement. On top of the purchase price you also invested your time learning the product and maybe even came to rely on it. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to complain.
Re: (Score:3)
In exchange for that inconvenience though you have benefitted from it by being able to use it for its original purpose. Many things you buy you aren't just buying the pile of materials, you're buying the service of the object. When you buy a 9V battery, you're not trying to pay for a lump of carbon and zink in a metal shell - you're buying it for its ability to power your radio for awhile. If someone refunds you the price of the battery, you're ahead because you got to play your radio for awhile, with no
Re: (Score:2)
The glasses are not an expendable (i.e., are not like the spent battery).
Umm, imagine a complex software application that required learning (e.g., a professional image editor or a CAD system) and that you are using daily just stopped working, and you get refunded your purchase price. Happy now? Can do your job?
Imagine your bank closing your account without a warning, and refunding your last month fees. If that does not create a mess, I envy your simple life.
Imagine your home being purchased by the state, wi
Ummm, no. (Score:3)
How about someone who has set up and invested in a business that makes use of these smart glasses?
Is the company offering to refund all their sunk costs?
It is a clear violation of ownership rights, being glossed over no doubt with legal bs about licensing, etc.
I'm sure some users are happy with it (the ones not really using the devices any more).
For others it could be a very expensive and annoying thing.
Dont just assume everyone fits in your own personal situation/opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
> you have no right to complain about it,
Few things are this simple.
If they offered 3 years of service as a guarantee and you accepted that offer as part of your purchase and then spent $100k developing a business workflow around it, and then they say "too bad, here's $600" then you absolutely have cause.
Or maybe their terms said "best effort no guarantees" in which case you have to be dumb to spend that kind of money but people do much dumber things than that.
Re:seems fair to me? (Score:4, Informative)
That's why every contract for services usually excludes incidental damages and expenses - that is, damages that were caused by the service not being available. All you get is the refund amount and however much you paid for the services.
If you were planning a workflow around the things and going to spend significant amounts of money, you start entering into negotiations. It may cost a few dollars in terms of lawyers and fees and other things, but that way you're less reliant on things (which can include being able to run the services yourself, customizations you want, etc)
And yes, if you were planning on that kind of investment, companies talk. Sales people loves it when customers call them wanting to buy stuff. It's also when you find out if the company is serious enough for such an investment - quite a few companies blow off small deals and sales (Qualcomm, nVidia, etc won't pick up the phone unless you want to do millions in sales) so you might want to not invest in that particular thing to your workflow. (Some companies do offer a small business partnership through another third party company - even though Qualcomm might not answer the phone, they will happily refer you to a company that will help you - basically that company agregates the sales of many customers so Qualcomm won't have to deal with a bunch of small fry).
Re: (Score:2)
All of this though spells out why nobody should see "cloud enabled" as anything but a gigantic fail. Do not buy cloudy products. Do not use cloudy products. Be a good friend and talk your friends out of buying cloudy products.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully they get to keep the hardware, or eBay it for cheap so I can run a custom firmware on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume you buy a house. You get rid of your crappy little apartment, you box up all your stuff, you move all of your furniture into your new house.
The next day the seller tells you he regrets selling the house, gives you all your money back, and takes back his house.
You have all your money back, sure. But you have no place to live now, your couch is sitting on another man's property, and the weather forecast says rain's coming tonight.
Are you going to complain just a tiny little bit?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a bit, yes, but toys like smart glasses are somewhat higher on Maslow's hierarchy than housing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Since it was a closed development environment, there were no apps, software, or accessories made outside of the company. There was no one else to screw over, except the customers, and with the full refund they don't really have anything to complain about either.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a not too smart comment because it's oblivious to any morsel of economics. For the price of a product is not an approximation of the value for the buyer (or the seller); it's an approximation of an optimization goal toward something like, maximize sales volume or profit, or even, act as a loss leader to make up losses on related future sales (eg. consumables, Gillette). In particular, experimental or novel hardware is often a loss leader.
Why is it relevant? Because for any product of significant dis
Refund to ORIGINAL purchaser, not current owner (Score:1)
I wonder how many were resold?
Those original buyers now get refunded money after they sold to 3rd party. And 3rd party gets NOTHING.
What about additional features purchased with the 'smart glasses'?
"North originally released the Focals just last month for $999, but it has now shifted its pricing to a model that resembles how glasses are typically charged. The most basic pair, which I tested, now cost $599.99. Prescription lenses cost an extra $200, which you can submit to your insurance for reimbursement;
Re: (Score:2)
You can complain all you want about them losing functionality after you paid for them, until the day they refund your purchase price.
Try applying this logic to industrial equipment, rather than a consumer toy.
Re: (Score:2)
The full refund is the right thing to do, but it still ignores reliance. If you buy something it is because you want to use it. You might have bought something else had it not existed, or you might have found another way to do whatever you're using it for. Then, suddenly, it's gone.
How might you feel if you drove somewhere a couple hours away for a meeting, then a representative from the dealership shows up, hands you a refund check, dumps your stuff on the curb, and drives the car away?
They did give you a
Re: (Score:2)
If a person is buying a product that relies on a service to stay running, common sense should tell them that the usefulness of the item is going to drop (or completely disappear) when (not IF) the service is continued. Like when you buy an online game, you do that knowing if the servers close down, your game will become useless.
You only have grounds to be upset about that
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I refuse to touch any cloud dependent anything for exactly this reason, but that doesn't negate an obligation to keep the damned things functional. Google must realize they could face a significant liability since they're giving a full refund.
Push a final update! (Score:1)
(Also because I want a cheap pair of smartglasses to play around with)
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were a company which pledged to not be evil . . .
I was thinking the same thing. There are going to be a ton of these available on eBay in a few days.
Princess Bride (Score:5, Funny)
"Purchases. You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means."
We need consumer protection (Score:3)
to prevent devices that are so reliant on the cloud that they just stop working at a moments notice. At the very least they should remain as-is stuck in time with no further updates,
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that different than your iToy, while you may own the hardware you only licensed the operating system. If Apple decides tomorrow to disable every iToy with a version more than two years old there isn't much you could do about it other than to unlock it and install your own OS.
That's OK, we're used to it (Score:2)
That's OK, we're used to it.
---Panoramio users
redundant (Score:2)
Customers found out that meant the smart glasses would be rendered "dumb" through a statement published on the company's website and by email.
Sounds like they were already dumb.
Smart (Score:2)
Obviously it was a 'smart' buy for this 'smart' product. I'll bet users feel very 'smart' right about now.
I wish we could drop the ridiculous marketing term 'smart'.
The refund isn't a remedy (Score:3)
My Google Glass with the $400 prescription lenses have gathered dust for years.
It's frustrating to be an early adopter hung out to dry.
Google, if you're listening, we don't want a refund, we want a trade in program.
Re: (Score:1)
Google, if you're listening, we don't want a refund, we want a trade in program.
Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Assholes and Fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Shutting down someone's already purchased product when you buy a company is typical corporate assholery. Awful. I hope it comes back and sticks to their face, but not likely.
On the other hand, you're a complete fool if you buy something that has a sole-source service lock-in. Purchasers should expect to get screwed. That's the way lock-in works.
Re: (Score:2)
Purchasers should expect to get screwed.
Not necessarily, it depends on the scale of ecosystem that builds up around the product. The Echo devices are certainly a sole-source service product, but with the multibillion dollar industry around it pretty much ensures that it's not going away any time soon. Early adopters are always taking a risk, but I think most people know that. The first people who purchased an Echo spent $150 on a device that no one knew for sure would succeed, but now it's a fixture in millions of homes around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me a 'total moron' if you want, but that won't make you right. Especially this bit of conspiracy-think, "reports everything to the cloud". Do you know how to use WireShark? Set it up, have a typical conversation around someone's Echo, and then look at your trace. You'll find an occasional ping back to AWS to ensure that it still has connectivity, but that's all you'll see until someone uses the wake up word. Then you see a short flurry of activity while it sends the request to be interpreted, and
Re: Assholes and Fools (Score:2)
Um...Amazon has disappeared people's purchased and downloaded ebooks. (Orwell case: https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com] )
They've also handed Alexa recordings to law enforcement. (Hot-tub case: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/... [geekwire.com] )
This is why no one should be using cheap dongles for single-source services. They're a dark pattern designed to exercise complete hegemony over the user.
Your purchase says "screw me, please!"
Re: (Score:2)
Your own link says that Amazon only handed over data to police after the device owner agreed to voluntarily waive any right to privacy he might have had. Ultimately they came up empty, since the only recordings were associated with requests to the Echo.
Yeah, the ebook case still annoys me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Assholes and Fools (Score:2)
Supposing one doesn't want the refund, but instead wants the item they purchased to keep working, as promised, when purchase was offered?
You sell me steak knives, and the blade disappears upon your whim...Wait: what about all this steak I'm trying to eatâ½
I think this sort of behavior ought to be regulated, if not outlawed.
Perhaps a legal requirement that the purchasing company open the bricked product to services so that another vendor _could_ step in, or that the community _could_ support it wou
not cool (Score:1)
Can I keep mine? (Score:2)
I've jail-broken my Focals glasses and they work fine with my own apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they throwing money away? (Score:2)