Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Internet

Parents Rage Against New Fee To Keep Their Smart Bassinets Smart (nytimes.com) 91

Posted by msmash from the shifting-ownership dept.
Smonster writes: The maker of the Snoo, a popular high-tech bassinet, touched off a firestorm of outrage after requiring a paid subscription to use several key features. Most new parents are looking for a way to reclaim even a hint of the sleep they used to get pre-infant. So a smart bassinet that uses sensors to detect when a crying baby needs pacifying, simulating the sounds and rhythms of the womb, offers an irresistible promise to sleep-strapped parents: another hour or two of shut-eye. The dream doesn't come cheap: One of the more popular models, the Snoo retails for $1,700, though enterprising parents can score one secondhand from friends, neighbors or relatives whose own children have outgrown it.

But last month, that hand-me-down network was dealt a blow when Happiest Baby, the company that makes Snoo, began charging for access to some of the bassinet's premium features -- features that used to be available to Snoo users indefinitely, at no extra cost. Now, access to the app needed to lock in the bassinet's rocking level, to track the baby's sleep and to use the so-called weaning mode, among other features, will cost parents $20 a month. The change has angered secondhand users and original buyers alike. On Reddit, the new subscription model has prompted review bombs, group brainstorms for collective action and detailed instructions for outraged parents seeking recourse. Some have taken to filing complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau and state-run consumer protection offices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parents Rage Against New Fee To Keep Their Smart Bassinets Smart More

Parents Rage Against New Fee To Keep Their Smart Bassinets Smart

Comments Filter:

  • demand an refund!

  • As a parent with a child in band, I was quite sure this meant some stupid digital musical instrument was paywalled.

    • As a parent of nearly middle-aged children, I'd forgotten entirely what a bassinet was and momentarily thought it was a type of dog whose high intelligence was somehow being artificially maintained.

      • Re:Misunderstood. (Score:5, Funny)

        by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @05:54PM (#64719238)

        As a parent with a child in band, I was quite sure this meant some stupid digital musical instrument was paywalled.

        As a parent of nearly middle-aged children, I'd forgotten entirely what a bassinet was and momentarily thought it was a type of dog whose high intelligence was somehow being artificially maintained.

        As not a parent, I thought it was an group of people who adjusted the Tone knobs on your audio equipment. :-)

        • As not a parent, I thought it was an group of people who adjusted the Tone knobs on your audio equipment. :-)

          Isn’t that an audio engineer? I thought it was the handheld smart net that plays a jingle when you land those lillypad lovin’ jumping fish.

    • You're thinking of child bassoon players, or bassoonettes.

    • You've got tuba kidding!

  • Something about the milking machine killed his cow because it was hacked? I'm thinking that "Smart Bassinets" are probably owned by "Stupid Parents".

    Somebody tell Darwin; he has work to do here.

    • Re:Didn't some guys cow get killed by a hack? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @05:53PM (#64719234)

      Something about the milking machine killed his cow because it was hacked? I'm thinking that "Smart Bassinets" are probably owned by "Stupid Parents".

      Somebody tell Darwin; he has work to do here.

      I dunno. I can see the merit in the original product, as a one time purchase. What I can't see is why something like that needs to allow auto-updating into "features now must be paid for, forever." These types of rug-pulls should be highly illegal, but Peloton being a big public spectacle of it seemed to convince the entire corporate culture that this is the path forward. Some people aren't even aware that Peloton was once marketed at cyclists as a way to keep up your routine during the winter. With one-time purchasable "routes" you could buy to "ride along" on some of the better known rides in the bigger tours. No forever fee. When it changed, it was a *HUGE* outcry in cycling forums. Though elsewhere you nary hear a thing about this start. You do hear about how shit the company is in other ways, but the start barely gets mentioned.

      It's gotten to a point where I don't think I'd ever purchase something claiming "smart" that didn't need to be. Not that I was ever big on that sort of hype, but "smart" devices are now simply code for, "will be further monetized once we figure out how to." And that's not really a place I can afford to put myself.

      • Smart is probably good.
        Requires cloud or app (other than an off-the-shelf client like a web browser with no special configuration) to work is almost certainly bad.

        Smart doesn't necessarily include or exclude the latter. One thing I commonly see are camera type appliances (like a snake camera, hobby microscope, etc) that don't work without a proprietary app. Not a smart device at all, but definitely cheaper than buying a dedicated device with its own battery and screen even though you basically already have

        • For the price of the bassinet at $1700, you'd think they wouldn't have to resort to paid subscriptions to make a profit. But then the problem isn't with not having a profit, but with not having a fully maximized profit.

          • For the price of the bassinet at $1700, you'd think they wouldn't have to resort to paid subscriptions to make a profit. But then the problem isn't with not having a profit, but with not having a fully maximized profit.

            I have to think that the "pass it along" nature of parenting, where people pass the expensive must-haves on to the next folks to have little ones, probably ate at the corporate profit watchers like an ulcer. "It's not fair!" they would say as they stamped their foot. "They should have to buy their own!" Then the dollar signs popped in their eyes, and they went, "AH HA! FOREVER PAYMENTS! NOW EVERYONE PAYS! FOROVER! MWAHAHAHAHA!"

          • Our researchers assure us that if they can afford the $1700 buy-in, they can afford the subscription, and any on-line complaints they make will also effectively promote the value of our pay-walled features.

    • Re:Didn't some guys cow get killed by a hack? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @06:04PM (#64719268) Journal

      > Something about the milking machine killed his cow because it was hacked?

      No. What happened is the company that operates the cloud services the machines use was compromised by ransomware. The data loss and downtime meant the farmer did not get a notification that one of his pregnant cows had a potentially serious medical issue, which the farmer did not notice himself in time. If you stop at the headlines it makes it sound like the milking machine went haywire and mangled the cow. That is not what happened.

      The lesson here, as with the "Smart Bassinets" and the increasing number of devices and software that no longer work because they relied on now defunct cloud services, is to not buy products that rely on cloud services.
      =Smidge=

      • The lesson here, as with the "Smart Bassinets" and the increasing number of devices and software that no longer work because they relied on now defunct cloud services, is to not buy products that rely on cloud services. =Smidge=

        But that means I'll have to get off my ass to turn on a light or check my stove. Oh the horrors...

        • As long as they don't take my TV clicker, it's ok. (Score:5, Funny)

          by mmell ( 832646 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @06:46PM (#64719382)
          When it's time to rock my grandchildren to sleep, I do it the old fashioned way with real rocks.

        • Re:Didn't some guys cow get killed by a hack? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Dragonslicer ( 991472 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @08:57PM (#64719654)

          The lesson here, as with the "Smart Bassinets" and the increasing number of devices and software that no longer work because they relied on now defunct cloud services, is to not buy products that rely on cloud services. =Smidge=

          But that means I'll have to get off my ass to turn on a light or check my stove. Oh the horrors...

          Not if you use lights and other devices that work with a local control hub. I'm a big fan of Home Assistant [home-assistant.io].

          • The lesson here, as with the "Smart Bassinets" and the increasing number of devices and software that no longer work because they relied on now defunct cloud services, is to not buy products that rely on cloud services. =Smidge=

            But that means I'll have to get off my ass to turn on a light or check my stove. Oh the horrors...

            use lights and other devices that work with a local control hub. I'm a big fan of Home Assistant [home-assistant.io].

            Cool. I have. a few spare RasPI laying around so will check them out.

    • Somebody tell Darwin; he has work to do here.

      Are you actually advocating killing babies here? Your posts have been nothing but negative clueless rubbish all day, but I'm beginning to realise you don't write rubbish posts, you're a rubbish person.

  • A fool and his money... (Score:3)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @05:35PM (#64719168)

    Not through the worst of my newborns' witching hours did I seriously consider putting them in app-based gizmos programmed by the lowest bidder sweatshop on the other side of the planet.

    • That may be the case here but this has far wider implications that need to be stopped. If any company can advertise it's products as having certain features and then, after purchase suddenly disable those features unless you pay a subscription to access them then don't you think a lot of companies are going to start doing this? If these turkeys get away with it how long before e.g. Nest/Google start charging a subscription program your thermostat etc.?

      It's fine for companies to change the model they use

      • Re:Wider Implications (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @06:32PM (#64719342)

        That may be the case here but this has far wider implications that need to be stopped. If any company can advertise it's products as having certain features and then, after purchase suddenly disable those features unless you pay a subscription to access them then don't you think a lot of companies are going to start doing this? If these turkeys get away with it how long before e.g. Nest/Google start charging a subscription program your thermostat etc.?

        The business model seems to be hook people on a product and once you see sales slowing see if you can milk users by charging for what was once free. I suppose somewhere in 8pt type on page 210 of the TOCs it says "We can screw you by charging for what we said was for for life, cause hey, you know we really meant as long as we kept making more money."

        Consumer laws need some revision so the when companies pull this shit they have to take teh product back and refund your money, or continue to honor teh original deal for those who bought product when it was offered.

        • There ARE consumer laws already, however none of them can be enforced because they all require a lawyer and court costs that will significantly exceed the $240 you would spend (aprox 2 years for this product) to just pay the subscription.

          What is really needed is a loser pay system, so when companies do shady stuff like this, they have to pay all court costs. Lawyers hate this system, as do large companies and have spent a significant amount saying it is a bad system despite being unable to actually show

          • There ARE consumer laws already, however none of them can be enforced because they all require a lawyer and court costs that will significantly exceed the $240 you would spend (aprox 2 years for this product) to just pay the subscription. What is really needed is a loser pay system, so when companies do shady stuff like this, they have to pay all court costs. Lawyers hate this system, as do large companies and have spent a significant amount saying it is a bad system despite being unable to actually show numbers of how it is bad. (Well it is bad for companies because it makes much stronger consumer protection laws, I can now sue for the $5 I am owed).

            Well, loser pay would be great - when you win. But would you risk a several thousand dollar lawyer bill from MegaCorp if you sue for $5 and lose? If a class action case is lost, who pays the winner? The named parties?

      • If any company can advertise it's products as having certain features and then, after purchase suddenly disable those features unless you pay a subscription to access them...

        You mention the cure for this ill, but by doing so in your last few lines and with a lack of forcefulness I think you've effectively buried your own lede. I would express it in a bolder and more draconian fashion.

        Basically, ANY product containing ANY mechanism allowing its features, performance, or behaviour to be altered after purchase without express knowledge, permission, and positive action on the part of the purchaser, should simply be banned. Period, no exceptions, end of discussion, with brutal enfor

        • Well, in my defence I'm a scientist not a journalist and we put our conclusions at the end but I completely agree with you - we can't allow companies to do this but I suspect it must already be illegal because frankly it is functionally a bait and switch scheme, the only difference is the delay before they implement the switch..

      • The technical capacity to change the behavior exists in any gizmo that needs an internet connection and the good graces of the vendor in order to function.

        If they don't change to the subscription model, maybe they just fold and brick your device. Or they get hacked and brick your device. Or they change their systems and brick your device.

        This is why I have dumb thermostats in my house and why I print out paper copies of anything important that gets sent to my email.

        • If they don't change to the subscription model, maybe they just fold and brick your device.

          Fine, then that is what they should do since then they will act as a warning to future companies to more realistically price their products. If you allow them to enrich themselves further through extortion then you encourage such behaviour. Indeed, you can even largely fix the bankruptcy issue by requiring that companies that go bust must release the source code for any app required by their products under an open source or public domain license. That way while the company can't help you anymore you at lea

    • What about first world capitalist techie sweat shops?

  • I'm experiencing much schadenfreude lately. I love reading how people, putting all their faith in technology and the subscription model get savaged by the vendors.

    Serves you all right. Dumbasses. Trade ownership and the physical for leasing and the digital and this is what you get.

    "Imagine no possessions." Sorry, John, but I grew up listening to your tripe and I believed it up until I saw where you lived (and died) and how many (and what type) of cars you had.

    Possessions one owns and controls are good. E

  • Just don't (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @05:41PM (#64719186)

    Never buy a physical device that depends on the vendor to supply anything over the Internet. Just don't.

    • Never buy a physical device that depends on the vendor to supply anything over the Internet. Just don't.

      Of course, there was probably a time when people said something like that about electrical appliances.

      • You can get electricity from anyone. It is more like buying a device that requires a specialty fuel you can only get from the vendor.

        • Unless I move, of course. But your point is taken. I wonder if somebody would be willing to sniff the traffic on a working unit and reverse engineer their application protocol?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Calydor ( 739835 )

            Well, systems exist that would allow you to create your own electricity. A diesel generator, if it comes down to that.

            Meanwhile we have laws preventing you from jailbreaking this bassinet and running your own version of the software.

      • I had to replace a water heater, the replacement that checked all my boxes happened to have wifi; fortunately that part of it doesn't do anything until you press the wifi button to turn on the radio. So the manufacturer thinks I wanted wifi, but really I wanted the longer warranty and the digital temp controls. Turns out all the longer warranty models have internet connectivity, yay.

    • Hasn't this been a case historically? If a device has to rely on a vendor provided network, cloud, or service, it either is going to be put on a subscription program, or just shut down entirely. There are a lot of orphan IoT devices which are e-waste, not because the device is bad, but because the vendor stopped supporting them.

    • like a TV?
      • The name stuck, but today's sleek, technically advanced display devices are not "TV"s - they're monitors with a digital tuner and an embedded application as well as multiple I/O connections. My generation grew up watching teevee, and those were prevented from obsolescence by law (until we went to digital/HDTV). The FCC specified the technical specifications for broadcast bandwidth and format (NTSC - Never The Same Color). New abilities had to be backward compatible to the original NTSC spec - that is, ol

        • That also led to the inefficiencies of NTSC which came all the way through to VHS and even DVD which both had the capabilities and extant technology to push higher definitions. We would never have needed proprietary BluRay with its built in obsolescence, replaced tons of DVD hardware and had Java for copy-protection runtimes.

    • Never buy a physical device that depends on the vendor to supply anything over the Internet. Just don't.

      Connected devices always depend on the vendor. Why? Because of us : Slashdotters, IT nerds, and network gurus who have spent decades saying IPv6 is pointless and the world doesn't need end-to-end connectivity.

      The result? A server in the middle existing to bridge the network divide.

    • If it needs an app, send it back. If it needs wifi, wave bye bye...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Never buy a physical device that depends on the vendor to supply anything over the Internet. Just don't.

      Yep, you do not own anything that requires an internet connection to work.

  • Snoo Job (Score:3)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @05:50PM (#64719224) Journal

    Mail the dirty diapers to HQ

  • Dr. Vito "Knuckles" Corleone, Pediatrician (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @06:07PM (#64719276)
    Rock-a-bye, Baby,
    on the tree-top.
    Be an awful shame,
    if that were to stop.

  • Everything is going to be a subscription. You'll have to subscribe to sit on your ass.

  • the Snoo retails for $1,700, though enterprising parents can score one secondhand from friends, neighbors or relatives whose own children have outgrown it.

    Yes, the company is being greedy and I'm almost positive what they're charging falls under the TOS people signed up when they bought the bassinet, but if you're twat enough to pay $1,700 for a bassinet (or bought a used one for $1,000), you can afford to pay 6 months of $20/month. It's not like you'll perpetually need to pay the monthly fee. When your infant is 6 months old, a bassinet is a dangerous thing anyway, because by 6 months they're able to grab things and start to crawl anyway.

    • The part where they contemplate "collective action" amused me. That would be something like, hmm, not buying the shit in the first place? I would have turned it down when I learned it required an app, if not for the price alone.

      I'm willing to bet the action they collectively took was to purchase the subscription.

    • Unless the market is over 50% saturated, they should have just grandfathered the old ones and sold the new ones with subscription.

      If the market is nearing saturation, they don't really have a choice ... it's this or bankruptcy.

  • If it's connected in any way to the Internet, some day they will try to charge a monthly fee for it.

  • Companies that pull this shit should have their senior execs dragged out into the street and have their heads cut off.
    • Parents should own parenting. Fatigue is part of it. Enjoy the experience instead of renting/automating your future into automatons.

  • So what you're saying is (Score:3)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Monday August 19, 2024 @07:02PM (#64719422)

    Parents are raging against the machine. YEEAAAAHHHH!!!! [tenor.com]

  • Snoo is way overpriced, I forget but like $1200 or $1400. They last forever the one in our family has been used with at least 4 kids, plus I think 2 others.
     
    That said, the patent expires in 2038 - patent # 20190247611 so I would expect their market share to plummet after that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      That said, the patent expires in 2038

      So, your 14 year-old will be comfy in his/her IoT rocker.

  • Hand me down bassinets were fine, until new executives took over and need higher quarterlies.

    • How 'bout built-in pulse, respiration and body temperature monitoring for the infant? It doesn't need to be medical-grade accurate, just enough to reassure a parent that their child is safely sleeping. Use a small, built-in display, charge extra for the BT/WiFi attached versions, spell out the subscription nature of the premium functions to cut down the consumer complaints and smile all the way to the bank. Oh, and use something like a 24-point font for the part that says "This is not a medical monitorin

      • Good luck getting that past regulators. I think that would be a great feature, but the legal liabilities and regulations means it will never happen unless it is medical grade.

  • offers an irresistible promise to sleep-strapped parents: another hour or two of shut-eye.

    ... to a shot of Jack Daniels in their formula?

  • Another stupid fucking post that links to a paywall.

    When Slashdot was a good website the editors would have struck this story out straight away.

  • Sleep Training is free and is easy to do. It just takes a small amount of discipline on behalf of the parents.

  • Or how about self-tying shoes with subscriptions. Oh wait, they already have those. https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]

  • Sleeping as a service.

    Subscribe for more!

    How Sassy their business model is!

  • Not providing the service you paid for is grounds for them.

    this will not only cost them in the initial loss of funds, but also- the payment processors will have some questions and potentially bar them from doing transactions over their network with enough charge backs being triggered.

  • of everyone who did not see this coming. Anyone? No takers?
    Come one people. You KNOW this is going to happen to every "free" connected service. If it's not, you're lucky.

  • So the cost of this thing should be less to buy if you have to pay to rent it for years. How about $500 to buy and then $20/month to use it?

    That should mean about the same lifetime cost, assuming it gets used for several children as it should (maybe being sold between several parents as well).

    The rage is from parents being double dipped - quite justifiably.

  • Gee wizz, who would've thunk?

  • Rage against the dying of the bassinet's light?

  • My older son - now 14 - often slept in a rocking infant swing as an infant. Of course the swing had a harness to keep him from rolling out. It took him quite a while to get used to sleeping in a crib on his own. His younger brother (5 years younger) took to a crib much more quickly.

    In other words different kids need different things.

    Yes our parents raised us by putting us on a pile of rocks that was guarded by the old family dog, and most of us made it to walking. Many of our parents also rememb
    • Parent here. We are very down to earth people. Went shopping for our first baby gear. Made an appointment at a baby stuff store. It is a tradition here. You put a list there and people can buy you gifts from the list. You then get messages like "Mark bought one fifth of your new baby carriage." But I degress.
      They really try to talk you into buying the most expensive useless stuff. Baby monitor with only sound? Are you sure? You need temperature monitoring! This unit also monitors breathing. This is needed
      • You're not wrong. Some items are ridiculous and purely driven by profit. I will say though, more than a couple times I wished I had a wireless pulse oximeter to put on my sons' finger to make sure they were doing OK. Regardless they survived past the point where I wanted it, so I can't say the outcome would have been any better if I'd have had it (aside from a couple nights where I would have slept a little better).

        However if a device is charging a subscription to the owners, it's probably more drive

  • In preparation to become a new parent decades ago, I bought and assembled a motorized rocking swing. When I got ready to start it for the first time, though, I found a slot on the side with the label "Insert Coin." I nearly exploded in anger at the notion until I realized it was just telling me how to open the battery compartment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.

Close