Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Spotify won't open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/spotify-wont-open-source-car-thing-but-starts-refund-process/
249 comments
Logitech seem to be crazy about user support somehow. I had one of their old Harmony IR remote controls, and when they discontinued the software used for programming the older generations of remotes, they sent me a brand new remote free of charge.
I put my Logitech MX keyboard in the bag with few other things and one of the keycap broke off. Completely my fault. Since the key mechanism was intact I have told their support what happened and asked if they sell replacement keycaps and got completely new keyboard for free.
Great support but I was left with mixed feelings since I still had almost completely working keyboard and I think the experience would be better if they would send me just the keycap.
Great support but I was left with mixed feelings since I still had almost completely working keyboard and I think the experience would be better if they would send me just the keycap.
It's probably not feasible to stock every piece part for every legacy product. Imagine how many parts that is just for one keyboard.
Maybe that could be subcontracted out but I can see why it's just simpler to replace the whole thing.
Maybe that could be subcontracted out but I can see why it's just simpler to replace the whole thing.
Although it happened in 2020 It's still their current flagship 140 usd keyboard, not legacy product.
But I understand that it could make support logistic harder to offer parts that shouldn't need to be replaced.
But I understand that it could make support logistic harder to offer parts that shouldn't need to be replaced.
[deleted]
Stories like this will make me more comfortable trying Logitech products in the future (I say as I look around the room at the 3 Logitech nice within 10ft of me).
I’ve been hesitant to buy things like smart remotes, or other things in similar categories, because so many companies have poor track records around support. Good support does more than advertising ever could for me.
I’ve been hesitant to buy things like smart remotes, or other things in similar categories, because so many companies have poor track records around support. Good support does more than advertising ever could for me.
A counter story: The battery in a Logitech wireless headset I had died under warranty. To send a replacement, Logitech would have had me "destroy" my existing headset and send pictures as proof. Given that interaction, and how quickly the wireless headset died, I am very wary of buying Logitech products, personally.
They do that because shipping things that have (potentially) faulty lithium-ion batteries is generally frowned upon, so in lieu of returning them some (potentially explosive) e-waste, they have you destroy it to ensure that you're not just trying to get a second headset for free.
This may be a thing they started doing after yours, but for the Logitech wireless headset I have they actually sell replacement parts for all the bits you could either wear out or lose.
Like they had replacement headbands, the side padding where it fits over your ears, and batteries, and even a replacement for the little USB receiver it uses.
Like they had replacement headbands, the side padding where it fits over your ears, and batteries, and even a replacement for the little USB receiver it uses.
I have a fleet of harmony remotes and they all still work great. I'll continue using them until an open source alternative arrives that fills this void
Every few months I go searching again to see if anything can beat the Harmony remote with hub (no screen on the remote) and nothing comes close. I mean there are a few products that are decent and what I'd buy if Harmony stopped working but they are not as good as Harmony. The battery life is measured in months (like 6-12) and not having to point the remote is huge QoL improvement. Pair that with being able to script actions for on/off and it was an amazing device.
For a while I hoped someone would buy their Harmony division and keep making them but alas, it was not meant to be.
For a while I hoped someone would buy their Harmony division and keep making them but alas, it was not meant to be.
They're expensive and generally fairly mid range in performance/fit/finish. I would hope the service is good, honestly.
They do deserve some praise, but I also don't want the bar on the floor. Things would be better if more were like Logitech.
They do deserve some praise, but I also don't want the bar on the floor. Things would be better if more were like Logitech.
I had a mouse go wonky on me like 20 years ago and Logitech sent me a new one even when it was out of warranty. And I have to say that the MX Keys Mini is the best keyboard I’ve used in years for my purposes. There are a couple things that could be refined, but it’s pretty great for Mac/iOS use.
Are they just banking on people not caring enough or knowing about the refund process? Clearly it can't be better off for them to refund hundreds of thousands maybe even 1m+ people.
We need laws that step in to make this impossible. Hardware should be designed so that it can be reused. Make it so that people can just reflash the memory at a minimum. There's no reason for something like this to become e-waste. And the excuse being Spotify wanting to protect their brand should not stand.
We need laws that step in to make this impossible. Hardware should be designed so that it can be reused. Make it so that people can just reflash the memory at a minimum. There's no reason for something like this to become e-waste. And the excuse being Spotify wanting to protect their brand should not stand.
The lack of care for e-waste produced makes me sick. Spotify should at least open the hardware or sponsor a contest for a smart re-use / open source firmware for the device, would probably cost them less at the end and make them look better.
The photos of landfills full of e-scooters make me physically ill.
The current U.S. economic system doesn't support or incentivize caring about those things. Would you advocate for a system or policies that does incentivize it?
Not the person you responded to, but I would totally be onboard taxing companies in a way that more accurately reflects their environmental impact. As it stands products are artificially cheap because we're not factoring in environmental sustainability.
Wireless earbuds are going to be filling landfills soon. They have become near unrepairable as of late and once the batteries inside barely last 15 min, people will just trash them and get new ones. At least wired headphones could be used for decades without issue.
How much use out of something is enough?
AirPods weigh 10.4 grams for the pair. Let's say two hours per charge, and 400 charges, before they're no good.
That's 1.3 milligrams of e-waste per hour. After 77 hours you have one aspirin pill's worth of e-waste on your conscience.
Filling a landfill? With the case, I get about 1.5 million per shipping container. How big are landfills where you live?
AirPods weigh 10.4 grams for the pair. Let's say two hours per charge, and 400 charges, before they're no good.
That's 1.3 milligrams of e-waste per hour. After 77 hours you have one aspirin pill's worth of e-waste on your conscience.
Filling a landfill? With the case, I get about 1.5 million per shipping container. How big are landfills where you live?
Don't you think comparing something degradable like aspirin to plastic and lithium batteries is a false equivalence?
Fair, let's compare like for like.
A pair of AirPods weighs the same as two ordinary plastic bags, the grocery store kind.
Lithium? About a gram of lithium in a disposable AA lithium battery. About 0.015 grams per AirPod proper, and another 0.16 grams in the case. So call it 0.2 grams, or when you toss five (5) AirPods with their cases, that's as much lithium as one (1) disposable AA battery.
A pair of AirPods weighs the same as two ordinary plastic bags, the grocery store kind.
Lithium? About a gram of lithium in a disposable AA lithium battery. About 0.015 grams per AirPod proper, and another 0.16 grams in the case. So call it 0.2 grams, or when you toss five (5) AirPods with their cases, that's as much lithium as one (1) disposable AA battery.
[deleted]
This is going to be a hot take here, but honestly I'm not that concerned about e-waste, in the grand scheme of things.
What about cars, air conditioners, dishwashers, fridges, furniture, clothing? What about when we throw all of those out?
The amount of e-waste I've gotten rid of over my life is miniscule both in terms of weight and volume in comparison to the things I've listed.
I think we confuse environmental impact with cost. Just because a phone and a fridge both cost $1,000 doesn't mean they're equivalently bad to throw out. A device like a Car Thing is nothing compared to, say, an air conditioner. Even if it was half the price.
It's like when people want to make sure Apple will take their AirPods back for recycling, but have no problem with tossing single-use AA batteries in the trash. They seem to be mistakenly measuring by purchase price rather than actual environmental impact.
I mean, I definitely think it's important to recycle e-waste. But I just don't understand when people don't seem to care when their old air conditioner gets taken away but care about old phones, when one AC probably contains more materials than all the cell phones they will ever buy in their lifetime.
What about cars, air conditioners, dishwashers, fridges, furniture, clothing? What about when we throw all of those out?
The amount of e-waste I've gotten rid of over my life is miniscule both in terms of weight and volume in comparison to the things I've listed.
I think we confuse environmental impact with cost. Just because a phone and a fridge both cost $1,000 doesn't mean they're equivalently bad to throw out. A device like a Car Thing is nothing compared to, say, an air conditioner. Even if it was half the price.
It's like when people want to make sure Apple will take their AirPods back for recycling, but have no problem with tossing single-use AA batteries in the trash. They seem to be mistakenly measuring by purchase price rather than actual environmental impact.
I mean, I definitely think it's important to recycle e-waste. But I just don't understand when people don't seem to care when their old air conditioner gets taken away but care about old phones, when one AC probably contains more materials than all the cell phones they will ever buy in their lifetime.
Over the past 10 years I've recycled all of my large appliances. My (texas) city comes and picks them up at no charge, and I don't feel that's an unusual situation.
I'm a bit skeptical about them actually being recycled though. How many of the appliances are recyclable? What parts of them are vs what ends up in the dump? Everything I've heard - and admittedly I haven't looked too deep - is that recycling is mostly a sham and mostly just ends up as waste either here or shipped overseas for someone else to deal with.
Plastic and glass recycling is often a sham, because both things are usually of little value -- sometimes, even of negative value.
A pile of plastic is mostly just a liability, with a strong likelihood of it ultimately being dumped or landfilled somewhere in the world.
But metal recycling is real. Unlike plastic and glass, metal has positive value. There is an entire profitable industry that exists to recycle metal -- including appliances. We've been recycling metals for as long as we have mined their ores from the Earth.
A pile of washing machines is an asset. It has real value. It doesn't get landfilled or dumped -- it gets sold.
A pile of plastic is mostly just a liability, with a strong likelihood of it ultimately being dumped or landfilled somewhere in the world.
But metal recycling is real. Unlike plastic and glass, metal has positive value. There is an entire profitable industry that exists to recycle metal -- including appliances. We've been recycling metals for as long as we have mined their ores from the Earth.
A pile of washing machines is an asset. It has real value. It doesn't get landfilled or dumped -- it gets sold.
Good to know, appreciate the context.
I would expect appliances to be fairly recyclable. They're mostly made of metal, which can be sold for scrap. Parts can be stripped out and sold to appliance repair shops.
Plus, appliances with refrigerants need special handling to prevent the release of the refrigerants to the atmosphere -- better to have one organization handling that than leaving citizens to their own devices.
Plus, appliances with refrigerants need special handling to prevent the release of the refrigerants to the atmosphere -- better to have one organization handling that than leaving citizens to their own devices.
>My (texas) city comes and picks them up at no charge, and I don't feel that's an unusual situation.
That IS pretty unusual, and in a positive way.
I live in one of EU's richest socialist countries (Austria) and here YOU have bare the cost of transporting your old fridge or washing machine to the city's recycling depot, which is a huge expense for your average joe as that means owning or renting a car plus renting a trailer plus having a gym-bro with a strong back and equipment to lift the damn thing from your place and carry it downstairs (many older buildings don't have elevators). And once you get to the recycling center on your own dime, you have to pay 6 Euros on top if you're a resident of the city, or 33 Euros if not.
Your only "free" workaround is buying a new fridge or washing machine from a retailer who also has a promo on picking up your old one for free with the delivery of the replacement.
So many people just dump them in the basement of the apartment building or on the side of the road. #environment #green But hey, at least we've banned nuclear energy in the constitution because it's bad for the environment.
Isn't it ironic where one of US's most conservative states with low taxes, does things better than one of EU's most socialist "green" states where taxes are through the roof?
I think it's similar in other EU countries like the Netherlands.
That IS pretty unusual, and in a positive way.
I live in one of EU's richest socialist countries (Austria) and here YOU have bare the cost of transporting your old fridge or washing machine to the city's recycling depot, which is a huge expense for your average joe as that means owning or renting a car plus renting a trailer plus having a gym-bro with a strong back and equipment to lift the damn thing from your place and carry it downstairs (many older buildings don't have elevators). And once you get to the recycling center on your own dime, you have to pay 6 Euros on top if you're a resident of the city, or 33 Euros if not.
Your only "free" workaround is buying a new fridge or washing machine from a retailer who also has a promo on picking up your old one for free with the delivery of the replacement.
So many people just dump them in the basement of the apartment building or on the side of the road. #environment #green But hey, at least we've banned nuclear energy in the constitution because it's bad for the environment.
Isn't it ironic where one of US's most conservative states with low taxes, does things better than one of EU's most socialist "green" states where taxes are through the roof?
I think it's similar in other EU countries like the Netherlands.
When you set anything metal outside on the curb with a free sign, it gets recycled. Either someone takes it to use or they scrap it to be melted down for repurposing.
I talked to an elderly man digging in my father's trash for metal recently. He's not doing it because he's poor but because he's retired and bored and gets cash for the scrap that doesn't affect his social security income.
He recycles everything with metal in it. Even pulling out individual wires when he has time. He says he gets paid more if he dismantles the appliance versus turning it in whole.
I talked to an elderly man digging in my father's trash for metal recently. He's not doing it because he's poor but because he's retired and bored and gets cash for the scrap that doesn't affect his social security income.
He recycles everything with metal in it. Even pulling out individual wires when he has time. He says he gets paid more if he dismantles the appliance versus turning it in whole.
>When you set anything metal outside on the curb with a free sign, it gets recycled.
That's not allowed in Europe if you just dump your e-waste in front of the building with a "free sign" on it. You get fiend for littering and the garbage company that picks it up fines the building where you live and it goes into your rent costs.
That's not allowed in Europe if you just dump your e-waste in front of the building with a "free sign" on it. You get fiend for littering and the garbage company that picks it up fines the building where you live and it goes into your rent costs.
Here in the Netherlands the 'ijzerboer' will pick up anything made with sufficient percentages of steel. Washing machines included. Soms places you need to call them, in some they just drive through once a week.
I'd have thought that most people getting rid of a an old fridge or washing machine are replacing it with a new fridge or washing machine.
The same vehicle and trailer and gym-bro that is bringing the new machine can then be used to haul away the old one.
That's how it typically works in the US. The appliance dealer offers delivery and for an extra charge will haul away the old unit.
The same vehicle and trailer and gym-bro that is bringing the new machine can then be used to haul away the old one.
That's how it typically works in the US. The appliance dealer offers delivery and for an extra charge will haul away the old unit.
Not all retailers here offer e-waste takeaway with their delivery though. Online ones like Amazon or small discounters do not AFAIk. Only the big brick and mortar ones do since they have their own delivery vehicles and employees.
Most appliance stores use an outsource provider for appliance deliveries. (A few local furniture stores have their own vehicles and employees, and Home Depot made the switch last-year to in-house appliance delivery, but most appliances are delivered/setup by a 3PL/4PL provider.)
In the Netherlands, when you buy a new appliance you pay a few euros extra "recycling fee"; the company delivering the new appliance will take the old one back for recycling, and / or the money goes into a fund for recycling the product you just bought. (I just read up on it, it used to be a separate charge, it's now baked into the price, probably because people were balking about it)
imo, the appliances breaking is also a choice and one that is a real shame. No one actually wants to buy new refrigerators or dishwashers, and the improvements in that space have all be pretty marginal.
Fast fashion is shame too - clothes ought to last a bit as well.
And cardboard/particle board furniture that services .5-1.5 moves is also basically bad.
Cars have been steadily increasing in durability and reliability for decades
Fast fashion is shame too - clothes ought to last a bit as well.
And cardboard/particle board furniture that services .5-1.5 moves is also basically bad.
Cars have been steadily increasing in durability and reliability for decades
If anything, newer refrigerators and dishwashers are worse than they used to be, because they have to conform to increasingly strict energy usage laws. The new dishwasher we have now is shit, reuses water between cycles, uses some weird system for drying, etc. Basically we use more energy to pre-wash or post-wash stuff now.
At least with dishwashers, part of the reason is actually that home dishwasher detergents are no longer allowed to have phosphates.
And for a lot of people the no-phosphates thing happened around the same time they got an energy-efficient dishwasher.
And then they blamed the bad dishwasher performance on the energy efficiency, when it's actually that home dishwasher detergent is far less effective now.
Except restaurants still get to use dishwasher detergent with phosphates, which is why their dishes continue to be sparkling clean.
(And I don't know about your dishwasher, but the last two I've had default to energy-efficient, but it's a single button press to put them on hi-temp mode.)
And for a lot of people the no-phosphates thing happened around the same time they got an energy-efficient dishwasher.
And then they blamed the bad dishwasher performance on the energy efficiency, when it's actually that home dishwasher detergent is far less effective now.
Except restaurants still get to use dishwasher detergent with phosphates, which is why their dishes continue to be sparkling clean.
(And I don't know about your dishwasher, but the last two I've had default to energy-efficient, but it's a single button press to put them on hi-temp mode.)
Fascinating. Time to go buy dishwashing liquid from my local restaurant supply store instead of the grocery store then.
It won't work -- putting aside the phosphates, it's a totally different formulation, because restaurant dishwashing machines run for 2-4 minutes, rather than 30-60.
On the other hand, if you searched online, I'm sure you would be able to find the exact type of phosphate that was removed from dishwasher detergent, where to order it independently, and in what proportion it could be mixed together with modern dishwasher detergent powder, to restore the sparkly clean dishes you might have grown up with. You would also want to research the legality of such, as well as whether it would actually have any environmental impact or not where you live.
On the other hand, if you searched online, I'm sure you would be able to find the exact type of phosphate that was removed from dishwasher detergent, where to order it independently, and in what proportion it could be mixed together with modern dishwasher detergent powder, to restore the sparkly clean dishes you might have grown up with. You would also want to research the legality of such, as well as whether it would actually have any environmental impact or not where you live.
A mix of about 5 parts domestic dishwasher detergent to 1 part commercial dishwasher detergent ought to work.
Counter point: my basic old crank and go Frigidaire is still a workhorse with modern soap. I use barely any of the powdered stuff probably a lot less than is in a pod, and it still works. I’m wondering now just how little soap I can get away with to be honest.
It's not an either/or though. Anyway, all / most of the ones you mentioned have good reuse, repair and recycling systems in place.
It wasn’t uncommon to buy second hand AC and sell them after use in the NYC. In fact, I barely heard anyone buy new ACs. I guess not everyone has no problem throw those appliances out.
Sure there's a good market for secondhand AC's but AC's also break at some point.
Also newer AC's can be vastly more energy-efficient, which is something to keep in mind when you can easily spend more on electricity over the course of a single summer than on the unit itself.
Also newer AC's can be vastly more energy-efficient, which is something to keep in mind when you can easily spend more on electricity over the course of a single summer than on the unit itself.
Buildings too. We should be building for repairability.
this makes me think of what’s in the waste itself. Is a big pile of steel worse than a few box’s of rare earth elements and toxins?
yes. it's been obvious for a long time that "but the e-waste" is almost universally deployed as an argumentary "get out of jail free" card that is intended to be impossible to argue against, even when there isn't actually an improvement in the energy/waste lifecycle or when the improvement is overall trivial. it's funny that the tech community of all places have embraced greenwashing so heavily, particularly when most of those same individuals constantly decry greenwashing themselves/think they're on the right side of the issue, but there also clearly is an intentionally bad-faith thing where it's used to shut down debate because "you don't hate the planet, do you!?".
you see it constantly in anything surrounding apple, for example. wireless charging is bad, because using 2.5w more for the 1 hour a day your phone is actively charging is literally killing the planet. meanwhile if you sit on the cord wrong once a year and have to have amazon send a truck out with an extra cable, you have undoubtedly exceeded the pollution by orders of magnitude.
same for batteries etc, if your crappy amazon battery needs one extra replacement over the life of the phone, you have undoubtedly vastly exceeded the e-waste and pollution savings of right to repair. Let alone the impact of the extremely short software lifecycles - those android phones are basically disposable and unsupported the day they launch, and apple devices actually have supremely good lifecycles given their long support, the thriving secondhand market (long life) vs disposable phones that get rapidly cycled through, the parts lifecycle/support, and the refurb/recycling lifecycle etc. But right-to-repair is a fashion statement and people will die on the hill that sending out five amazon trucks of parts for a phone that's unsupported in 6 months and in the trash after 3 years is saving the planet.
AI is bad because e-waste and energy, regardless of whatever value it delivers. Over the next century we will probably save GW of energy due to increased efficiency in basically everything (doubtlessly introducing another jevon's paradox of course, but that's not the fault of the tech, that's a generic complaint against any efficiency improvement). Introducing AI into end-user devices is bad because users might feel compelled to upgrade, which is bad. Training smaller models that don't use so much energy in the long-run is bad, because it uses energy now. Upgrading your graphics card is bad because e-waste - even though you sell it to someone else who continues to use it, and even though the guy with a mattress on the floor and a killer gaming rig that he upgrades yearly has way lower emissions than a family who takes one vacation a year to florida (even driving etc). On and on.
people just want a foolproof "your product is bad" that can't be argued against, and e-waste/pollution is a great card to play, especially when it's selectively applied and you refuse to admit any of the foibles of the products you prefer.
also, people still don't want to admit that rossman's right to repair isn't quite the same thing as the platonic right-to-repair. rossman's interests fundamentally lie with keeping rossman group turning a profit, which isn't quite the same thing as users being able to repair their own devices by themselves etc. people don't like apple selling parts straight to end-users because "repair shops can't turn a profit at those prices" and yeah, having a multinational conglomerate renowed for its supply chain deploying low-cost labor to perform factory-line repairs on a limited selection of devices is going to be cheaper than artisianal craftsman repair, that's just the economics of it etc. Nobody has accused them of having different prices internally/externally, repair shops just can't afford to compete at the same prices that apple charges itself.
Right to repair doesn't guarantee the right of repair shops to turn a profit in the face of a well-oiled OEM repair shop operation/pipeline, but actually it's a good thing to have that brick-and-mortar repair pipeline etc, that's what you want, if you want to keep devices running longer etc. Market competitiveness is not the same thing as e-waste lifecycle, and OEMs subsidizing the repairs/running them at-cost is actually a good thing for pollution/e-waste even if indies can't compete at fair market rates. You just can't actively charge yourself less than the fair market price for the item, but even if you did, keeping devices running is the goal, right? These are contradictory goals, market competitiveness is not the same thing as keeping e-waste out of landfills, and if you really care about the latter it probably will require subsidies on repairs, or taxes on new devices, to overcome the economics of mass-production vs individual-repair.
Same for component-level repair. Obviously that is a thing rossman would like to offer as a business service, but is it a necessary aspect of phone repair given the ready availability of assemblies? If you want to drive down costs, bringing boards (via B2B/wholesale trucking) to a central place and reworking them en-masse is going to be a very efficient way to do it, you’ll even recapture some of those economies of scale vs 1-off artisanal repair. And cost of repair is obviously a major factor in whether people decide to repair vs landfill a broken device. But that’s bad because rossman doesn’t get paid as much if you just swap a PCB - it probably should be an option but it realistically isn’t ever going to be the default, to have an artisan unsolder a bga and put on a new cpu or memory or whatever, and there are strong social arguments (cost) for doing it the other way. It certainly isn’t some showstopper to overall repairability (nobody is resoldering a BGA at home anyway), just not favorable to rossman’s bottom line.
also, right to use third-party parts is not really a right-to repair issue. that is personal preference, but there's also safety (muggings/theft) and resale considerations etc. Certainly there are good reasons to explore flexibility/solutions but again, this isn't a right-to-repair issue when there are reasonably at-cost repairs available and a ready supply of first-party parts etc... if phones aren't going into landfills that solves the problem, right? it's a personal preference about the market economics/principles of a device you own (one I generally agree with, with the caveat there's countervailing concerns too). but that gets wedged into an e-waste issue too!
hell even apple making the tools available is a conspiracy to some people - "apple renting you the OEM replacement tools (which are completely optional and in no way required or forced, you can use an amazon spudger if you want too, and which they will outright sell you if you want to keep them because you're an indie repair shop or whatever) for the cost of shipping is bad because the pelican cases are too big and heavy" is a serious topic of discussion for some people. and before you think that's a strawman... someone defended the idea a couple weeks ago on here lol. like there's just no winning with a bunch of these people lol.
the whole e-waste/right-to-repair has just turned into a massive greenwashing/circlejerk and again, it's these same people who are so concerned about airpods and apple self-service who are so adamantly opposed to "greenwashing" in principle, yet they're basically engaging in a contemporary greenwashing movement themselves backing leaders with fixation on greenwashing their own business requirements as being movement goals etc.
In practice minimizing e-waste/pollution lifecycle basically boils down to keeping devices in service longer and ensuring less unnecessary road-trips over the lifespan of the device. The easiest ways to get there are good parts lifetime, good software support lifetime, accessibility of brick-and-mortar/retail repair service, a thriving secondhand market/value retention to encourage resale, etc. Everything else is optional, and you actually don't need much beyond the apple store/self-service model to accomplish those actual needs.
like, taking my old trade-in iphone and refurbing it and selling it to someone in africa or india is what you want, right? how did that become a bad thing/complaint for the greenwashing movement? shouldn't that actually be required, if the phone has a reasonable degree of serviceability why shouldn't it be mandated that trade-ins be refurbed and get another lifecycle?
Also, the actual nuclear-hot take: even lightning was not really a big deal given how long it'd been in service. Having one specific, long-running cable that is deliberately aimed at being significantly cheaper than USB-C (which it was, until very recently) is really not a big deal and probably the phase-out of lightning pushed a large number of extra trucks on the road, extra cable sales to replace the old ones, new usb-c PD chargers sold, etc. I definitely feel the user-convenience argument, I am very happy to unify everything I can onto USB-C these days, but there was a very real additional pollution cost incurred from the changeover itself, that need not have been incurred. Cables wear and break, especially phone cables that get heavily used etc, and having 3 types of cables instead of 2 (usb-c and micro-b) was not the end of the world. Now micro-B really does need to die though, I am entirely tired of that shit to a degree that I didn't care about with lightning. Reversibility has been here for 15 years now, get with the program, and the durability of the sockets is still awful (although better than mini-B, which also refuses to die).
Like a lot of green movements it just sort of is a mishmash of contradictory and often self-defeating goals, pushed by lifestyle advocates and profiteers who stand to gain by selling associated services etc. I do support the overall goal it just doesn’t feel like the current discourse has anything to do with that, it’s just people attaching their lifestyle choices/political choices to a convenient/favorable wagon. And you can easily tell this by how hostile people get over it all. It was never about the e-waste, it was about “apple bad”. And that always is the first and most powerful beat in every single one of these “right to repair” discussions. Name a single rossman video that isn't at least 30% anti-apple screed by weight lol. Like are there really no other vendors with glued batteries or unrepairable mainboards or no service manuals given to third parties? I think there obviously are... but the Samsung stuff just goes in the trash instead of sending it to a Rossman type place, so you're seeing survival bias at best, outright personal bias at worst. It's an easy, popular, large target that drives massive amounts of clicks given the wild amount of apple-hate that still exists to this day etc. They aren't your friend more than any other corp... but they actually do have a pretty green lifecycle compared to a parade of disposable android phones or $300 craptops. And people just cannot possibly bring themselves to admit that apple stepped in the right direction for a change (see also: privacy). Doesn't make them perfect, but neither are any of the alternatives, and apple generally does better in these areas (e-waste/sustainability/lifecycle and privacy).
At the end of the day people are just so credulous about a pitch that inevitably concludes with the pitcher attempting to sell you something - not just rossman but framework, fairphone, etc. And people are just so sanctimonious about it all, like they just want to dump all over everyone because they bought into a youtube personality who needs to keep doing component-level repairs to stay in business or w/e. And again, I guess what else is new with the greenwashing movement, but these are people that think of themselves as ostensibly being virulently opposed to greenwashing etc. Again, I guess what else is new.
you see it constantly in anything surrounding apple, for example. wireless charging is bad, because using 2.5w more for the 1 hour a day your phone is actively charging is literally killing the planet. meanwhile if you sit on the cord wrong once a year and have to have amazon send a truck out with an extra cable, you have undoubtedly exceeded the pollution by orders of magnitude.
same for batteries etc, if your crappy amazon battery needs one extra replacement over the life of the phone, you have undoubtedly vastly exceeded the e-waste and pollution savings of right to repair. Let alone the impact of the extremely short software lifecycles - those android phones are basically disposable and unsupported the day they launch, and apple devices actually have supremely good lifecycles given their long support, the thriving secondhand market (long life) vs disposable phones that get rapidly cycled through, the parts lifecycle/support, and the refurb/recycling lifecycle etc. But right-to-repair is a fashion statement and people will die on the hill that sending out five amazon trucks of parts for a phone that's unsupported in 6 months and in the trash after 3 years is saving the planet.
AI is bad because e-waste and energy, regardless of whatever value it delivers. Over the next century we will probably save GW of energy due to increased efficiency in basically everything (doubtlessly introducing another jevon's paradox of course, but that's not the fault of the tech, that's a generic complaint against any efficiency improvement). Introducing AI into end-user devices is bad because users might feel compelled to upgrade, which is bad. Training smaller models that don't use so much energy in the long-run is bad, because it uses energy now. Upgrading your graphics card is bad because e-waste - even though you sell it to someone else who continues to use it, and even though the guy with a mattress on the floor and a killer gaming rig that he upgrades yearly has way lower emissions than a family who takes one vacation a year to florida (even driving etc). On and on.
people just want a foolproof "your product is bad" that can't be argued against, and e-waste/pollution is a great card to play, especially when it's selectively applied and you refuse to admit any of the foibles of the products you prefer.
also, people still don't want to admit that rossman's right to repair isn't quite the same thing as the platonic right-to-repair. rossman's interests fundamentally lie with keeping rossman group turning a profit, which isn't quite the same thing as users being able to repair their own devices by themselves etc. people don't like apple selling parts straight to end-users because "repair shops can't turn a profit at those prices" and yeah, having a multinational conglomerate renowed for its supply chain deploying low-cost labor to perform factory-line repairs on a limited selection of devices is going to be cheaper than artisianal craftsman repair, that's just the economics of it etc. Nobody has accused them of having different prices internally/externally, repair shops just can't afford to compete at the same prices that apple charges itself.
Right to repair doesn't guarantee the right of repair shops to turn a profit in the face of a well-oiled OEM repair shop operation/pipeline, but actually it's a good thing to have that brick-and-mortar repair pipeline etc, that's what you want, if you want to keep devices running longer etc. Market competitiveness is not the same thing as e-waste lifecycle, and OEMs subsidizing the repairs/running them at-cost is actually a good thing for pollution/e-waste even if indies can't compete at fair market rates. You just can't actively charge yourself less than the fair market price for the item, but even if you did, keeping devices running is the goal, right? These are contradictory goals, market competitiveness is not the same thing as keeping e-waste out of landfills, and if you really care about the latter it probably will require subsidies on repairs, or taxes on new devices, to overcome the economics of mass-production vs individual-repair.
Same for component-level repair. Obviously that is a thing rossman would like to offer as a business service, but is it a necessary aspect of phone repair given the ready availability of assemblies? If you want to drive down costs, bringing boards (via B2B/wholesale trucking) to a central place and reworking them en-masse is going to be a very efficient way to do it, you’ll even recapture some of those economies of scale vs 1-off artisanal repair. And cost of repair is obviously a major factor in whether people decide to repair vs landfill a broken device. But that’s bad because rossman doesn’t get paid as much if you just swap a PCB - it probably should be an option but it realistically isn’t ever going to be the default, to have an artisan unsolder a bga and put on a new cpu or memory or whatever, and there are strong social arguments (cost) for doing it the other way. It certainly isn’t some showstopper to overall repairability (nobody is resoldering a BGA at home anyway), just not favorable to rossman’s bottom line.
also, right to use third-party parts is not really a right-to repair issue. that is personal preference, but there's also safety (muggings/theft) and resale considerations etc. Certainly there are good reasons to explore flexibility/solutions but again, this isn't a right-to-repair issue when there are reasonably at-cost repairs available and a ready supply of first-party parts etc... if phones aren't going into landfills that solves the problem, right? it's a personal preference about the market economics/principles of a device you own (one I generally agree with, with the caveat there's countervailing concerns too). but that gets wedged into an e-waste issue too!
hell even apple making the tools available is a conspiracy to some people - "apple renting you the OEM replacement tools (which are completely optional and in no way required or forced, you can use an amazon spudger if you want too, and which they will outright sell you if you want to keep them because you're an indie repair shop or whatever) for the cost of shipping is bad because the pelican cases are too big and heavy" is a serious topic of discussion for some people. and before you think that's a strawman... someone defended the idea a couple weeks ago on here lol. like there's just no winning with a bunch of these people lol.
the whole e-waste/right-to-repair has just turned into a massive greenwashing/circlejerk and again, it's these same people who are so concerned about airpods and apple self-service who are so adamantly opposed to "greenwashing" in principle, yet they're basically engaging in a contemporary greenwashing movement themselves backing leaders with fixation on greenwashing their own business requirements as being movement goals etc.
In practice minimizing e-waste/pollution lifecycle basically boils down to keeping devices in service longer and ensuring less unnecessary road-trips over the lifespan of the device. The easiest ways to get there are good parts lifetime, good software support lifetime, accessibility of brick-and-mortar/retail repair service, a thriving secondhand market/value retention to encourage resale, etc. Everything else is optional, and you actually don't need much beyond the apple store/self-service model to accomplish those actual needs.
like, taking my old trade-in iphone and refurbing it and selling it to someone in africa or india is what you want, right? how did that become a bad thing/complaint for the greenwashing movement? shouldn't that actually be required, if the phone has a reasonable degree of serviceability why shouldn't it be mandated that trade-ins be refurbed and get another lifecycle?
Also, the actual nuclear-hot take: even lightning was not really a big deal given how long it'd been in service. Having one specific, long-running cable that is deliberately aimed at being significantly cheaper than USB-C (which it was, until very recently) is really not a big deal and probably the phase-out of lightning pushed a large number of extra trucks on the road, extra cable sales to replace the old ones, new usb-c PD chargers sold, etc. I definitely feel the user-convenience argument, I am very happy to unify everything I can onto USB-C these days, but there was a very real additional pollution cost incurred from the changeover itself, that need not have been incurred. Cables wear and break, especially phone cables that get heavily used etc, and having 3 types of cables instead of 2 (usb-c and micro-b) was not the end of the world. Now micro-B really does need to die though, I am entirely tired of that shit to a degree that I didn't care about with lightning. Reversibility has been here for 15 years now, get with the program, and the durability of the sockets is still awful (although better than mini-B, which also refuses to die).
Like a lot of green movements it just sort of is a mishmash of contradictory and often self-defeating goals, pushed by lifestyle advocates and profiteers who stand to gain by selling associated services etc. I do support the overall goal it just doesn’t feel like the current discourse has anything to do with that, it’s just people attaching their lifestyle choices/political choices to a convenient/favorable wagon. And you can easily tell this by how hostile people get over it all. It was never about the e-waste, it was about “apple bad”. And that always is the first and most powerful beat in every single one of these “right to repair” discussions. Name a single rossman video that isn't at least 30% anti-apple screed by weight lol. Like are there really no other vendors with glued batteries or unrepairable mainboards or no service manuals given to third parties? I think there obviously are... but the Samsung stuff just goes in the trash instead of sending it to a Rossman type place, so you're seeing survival bias at best, outright personal bias at worst. It's an easy, popular, large target that drives massive amounts of clicks given the wild amount of apple-hate that still exists to this day etc. They aren't your friend more than any other corp... but they actually do have a pretty green lifecycle compared to a parade of disposable android phones or $300 craptops. And people just cannot possibly bring themselves to admit that apple stepped in the right direction for a change (see also: privacy). Doesn't make them perfect, but neither are any of the alternatives, and apple generally does better in these areas (e-waste/sustainability/lifecycle and privacy).
At the end of the day people are just so credulous about a pitch that inevitably concludes with the pitcher attempting to sell you something - not just rossman but framework, fairphone, etc. And people are just so sanctimonious about it all, like they just want to dump all over everyone because they bought into a youtube personality who needs to keep doing component-level repairs to stay in business or w/e. And again, I guess what else is new with the greenwashing movement, but these are people that think of themselves as ostensibly being virulently opposed to greenwashing etc. Again, I guess what else is new.
> people just want a foolproof "your product is bad" that can't be argued against, and e-waste/pollution is a great card to play, especially when it's selectively applied and you refuse to admit any of the foibles of the products you prefer.
It's not selectively applied, though. We want legislative change that legitimately forces the worst actors, Apple, Samsung and Google included, to be forced to-heel since they won't respond naturally. This was the root of all contemporary right-to-repair action proposed in the United States.
Since you seem to be locked-in on the pugilism of Apple versus Android, let's abstract things a bit. Look at John-Deere, a company hell-bent on destroying Malthusian agriculture by exploiting farmers that need tractor repairs. Their first-party exclusive repair scheme has cost people entire harvests, fields of food that could have fed hundreds of households. The reason they can't recalibrate their drivetrain? The computer that does that (over USB by the way) is in a technicians truck, and they're two states over. And John-Deere would rather blow up your tractor than give lowly old you the ability to do that. And put their licensed technicians out of work, that pay a pretty penny to be certified officially? And destroy the aftermarket repair business that they have artificially created? It's madness, unless you look at it from any perspective but the business'.
This is why Apple gets perennially dragged by right-to-repair pundits; whether you want to admit it or not, they create this problem for themselves and then scream Bloody Mary when someone suggests their status-quo is exploitative.
> Also, the actual nuclear-hot take: even lightning was not really a big deal
Then why are you still talking about it? Lightning is dead because Apple charged people a license fee to use USB, like a fucking moron. Of course they were going to be legislated into compliance once their lobbyists can't convince the EU that a serial cable is some magical proprietary technology that must be protected by their patents. They played stupid-ball and lost, the last vestiges of Lightning's influence is that I'm forced to buy new cables (that I don't need btw) to charge my Apple peripherals when they break. And why don't those use USB-C? Definitely not because Apple was trying to artificially enforce ecosystem lock-in by demanding the purchase of licensed USB cables. Definitely not... it was because, uhh... the connector is wear-resistant! People don't want it! They made a promise 10 years ago! Definitely. Wait, what was their excuse with the Mac again...?
You could explain this away with 10 more paragraphs of philosophizing on the state of electronic garbage, but the simplest conclusion is that our societal goals are not in alignment with our businesses and it is our moral imperative to democratically legislate a new standard. The alternative is letting the broken tractors pile up while sitting on our asses like we're idiots that don't understand what's happening.
It's not selectively applied, though. We want legislative change that legitimately forces the worst actors, Apple, Samsung and Google included, to be forced to-heel since they won't respond naturally. This was the root of all contemporary right-to-repair action proposed in the United States.
Since you seem to be locked-in on the pugilism of Apple versus Android, let's abstract things a bit. Look at John-Deere, a company hell-bent on destroying Malthusian agriculture by exploiting farmers that need tractor repairs. Their first-party exclusive repair scheme has cost people entire harvests, fields of food that could have fed hundreds of households. The reason they can't recalibrate their drivetrain? The computer that does that (over USB by the way) is in a technicians truck, and they're two states over. And John-Deere would rather blow up your tractor than give lowly old you the ability to do that. And put their licensed technicians out of work, that pay a pretty penny to be certified officially? And destroy the aftermarket repair business that they have artificially created? It's madness, unless you look at it from any perspective but the business'.
This is why Apple gets perennially dragged by right-to-repair pundits; whether you want to admit it or not, they create this problem for themselves and then scream Bloody Mary when someone suggests their status-quo is exploitative.
> Also, the actual nuclear-hot take: even lightning was not really a big deal
Then why are you still talking about it? Lightning is dead because Apple charged people a license fee to use USB, like a fucking moron. Of course they were going to be legislated into compliance once their lobbyists can't convince the EU that a serial cable is some magical proprietary technology that must be protected by their patents. They played stupid-ball and lost, the last vestiges of Lightning's influence is that I'm forced to buy new cables (that I don't need btw) to charge my Apple peripherals when they break. And why don't those use USB-C? Definitely not because Apple was trying to artificially enforce ecosystem lock-in by demanding the purchase of licensed USB cables. Definitely not... it was because, uhh... the connector is wear-resistant! People don't want it! They made a promise 10 years ago! Definitely. Wait, what was their excuse with the Mac again...?
You could explain this away with 10 more paragraphs of philosophizing on the state of electronic garbage, but the simplest conclusion is that our societal goals are not in alignment with our businesses and it is our moral imperative to democratically legislate a new standard. The alternative is letting the broken tractors pile up while sitting on our asses like we're idiots that don't understand what's happening.
Write your elected representatives, preferably by snail mail (they take it more seriously that way). With Right to Repair being talked about so much right now, the time could be right to get this into the public mind. Car Thing could be what nucleates anti bricking legislation.
Just a note, from having worked in a Congressional office that phones are usually answered by interns and a staff assistant, mail is opened almost exclusively by the staff assistant, but this is still the lowest level position in an office so the marginal difference is pretty minimal. And for any issue that's time sensitive, don't bother physically mailing because it has to go through extensive security checks before it gets delivered to us. I'd say the ideal way to maximize impact with an elected official here is to ask them the question publicly (FB, at a town hall) and try to garner as much support as you can so they feel like they have to answer you positively.
Yeah I heard that about letters like 20 years ago from a staffer so maybe I'm a bit out of touch, lol.
You're correct in phone calls and letters counting way more than e-mails or online comments. Especially if the comment is thoughtful. If the issue is hot button, it won't do anything. But for marginal issues like these, a couple calls can easily swing votes.
My elected representative is presently busy trying to rig the presidential ballot for my state, I'm not sure he cares -at all- about e-waste
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure - there's some element of trust. But I can only trust politicians judgement on tech issues so far.
I agree. I'm not advocating to not vote or engage. Quite the contrary. It's between the lines.
I'm not sure we have that feedback loop. Last I looked, non-voters beat voters consistently.
A vote of no confidence in the false dichotomy is better than non-participation. Break the eggs/make the omelette.
I'm not sure we have that feedback loop. Last I looked, non-voters beat voters consistently.
A vote of no confidence in the false dichotomy is better than non-participation. Break the eggs/make the omelette.
How does the not-vote-thing help?
The result is calculated on the basis of the votes cast.
So if you have 10 votes of 20 possible you get 50%, if 5 don't vote it's 10 out of 15 = 66.6%
The result is calculated on the basis of the votes cast.
So if you have 10 votes of 20 possible you get 50%, if 5 don't vote it's 10 out of 15 = 66.6%
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.
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.
The impact on the outcome is identical to not voting in the US. The total number of votes doesn't matter, just how many votes other candidates got.
Even voting for someone who isn't from the two major parties is effectively equivalent to not voting in the current election. At it best may communicate a preference for certain policies that the major parties take into account in the next election cycle.
Even voting for someone who isn't from the two major parties is effectively equivalent to not voting in the current election. At it best may communicate a preference for certain policies that the major parties take into account in the next election cycle.
One can write in a candidate in the US so just pick your favorite fictional character.
Hah, indeed. I'm sure there are... attention/traction is difficult though.
I'm more and more disenfranchised. Opportunists steal the show.
I still pay attention/go to the booth, yet I'm sour because the larger group confuses public servants for celebrity.
I'm more and more disenfranchised. Opportunists steal the show.
I still pay attention/go to the booth, yet I'm sour because the larger group confuses public servants for celebrity.
That's a good idea in theory but most people have dozens of issues that are important to them and there's rarely a candidate for office who is aligned with them on everything, so they have to pick which issues are their most important. And of course their position on every possible issue isn't know when evaluating candidates. Some change their position after being elected. Sometimes issues come up that weren't really considered to be an issue at the time of the election.
I dare say we've collectively done that math/valuation very poorly. That's not a judgement. It's actively weaponized against us.
So you say a small number of key issues aren't a good indicator, right? I agree. Stop. Wargames comes to mind - don't play.
Vote, but not on things you think are important. Things that actually are important. Achievements, not tales.
Someone who has a career of making decisions that benefit the public will get my vote.
Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies. I don't want the convincing story rep, I want the one shaping our society for the better - even if it costs me.
We're somewhat poorly served by 'the system', as a peer mentions too. There's only so much we can do.
We've made a fun false dichotomy for ourselves with two parties and FPTP
So you say a small number of key issues aren't a good indicator, right? I agree. Stop. Wargames comes to mind - don't play.
Vote, but not on things you think are important. Things that actually are important. Achievements, not tales.
Someone who has a career of making decisions that benefit the public will get my vote.
Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies. I don't want the convincing story rep, I want the one shaping our society for the better - even if it costs me.
We're somewhat poorly served by 'the system', as a peer mentions too. There's only so much we can do.
We've made a fun false dichotomy for ourselves with two parties and FPTP
That's the problem with FPTP systems. In true multi-party proportional systems, people can align with the candidate on much more than few extremely polarizing points. Also gets rid of most effect of gerrymandering.
On the other hand, later coalition building often results in significant compromises too.
On the other hand, later coalition building often results in significant compromises too.
This reminds me of a funny book title: "Don't Vote - It Just Encourages the Bastards" [0]
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Vote-Just-Encourages-Bastards/dp...
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Vote-Just-Encourages-Bastards/dp...
I haven't read it, but judging by the title, I think it's in the same absurd spirit. I say all of this in jest to get reflection and a response.
Behind my post is a very slight elbow at the person suggesting more people write their representative. As if they'll just hop-to. Or succeed.
We skipped a lot of steps/pieces. Most don't even care or know who their rep is. More voting, less buying trash.
'Identity politics' in concert with the internet, dopamine, and rage have won.
The government serving the people doesn't seem to be a significant function. Otherwise we wouldn't have to hear about how well it does. We'd live it.
We probably won't claw back what we've lost - of it or ourselves. The incentive structure is ruined
There's more to this than I could ever write about, I'll stop there
Behind my post is a very slight elbow at the person suggesting more people write their representative. As if they'll just hop-to. Or succeed.
We skipped a lot of steps/pieces. Most don't even care or know who their rep is. More voting, less buying trash.
'Identity politics' in concert with the internet, dopamine, and rage have won.
The government serving the people doesn't seem to be a significant function. Otherwise we wouldn't have to hear about how well it does. We'd live it.
We probably won't claw back what we've lost - of it or ourselves. The incentive structure is ruined
There's more to this than I could ever write about, I'll stop there
Why not go even farther than that? Admit political knowledge is virtually impossible, and just stop engaging in the political process at all. Save your time and energy for something easier, like cutting edge theoretical physics or becoming a billionaire.
Such is the point argued by Dr. Mike Huemer in his essay In Praise of Passivity [1], and to this date I've never found a clearer piece of writing on the matter.
[1]: https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Studia_Humana/Studia_Hum...
Such is the point argued by Dr. Mike Huemer in his essay In Praise of Passivity [1], and to this date I've never found a clearer piece of writing on the matter.
[1]: https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Studia_Humana/Studia_Hum...
What passivity ignores is non voters get screwed over by politicians.
In California in 2022 voting by age breaks down:
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu...
Slice up the population is a few ways and there’s many categories best ignored.
In California in 2022 voting by age breaks down:
29% or 900,000 18-24 year olds
43% or 1,970,000 25-34 year olds
51% or 2,132,000 35-44 year olds
56% or 4,343,000 45-54 year olds
66% or 3,699,000 65+ year olds
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu...
Slice up the population is a few ways and there’s many categories best ignored.
This is very interesting data. I believe that it is generally considered common knowledge that it's very difficult to increase youth turnout so most campaigns don't even really try. But given how entrenched polarization is, increasing youth turnout in a few key states could be enough to sway the election. Of course decreasing retiree turnout is another (not mutually exclusive) approach. The nice thing about trying to increase turnout though is that it is a positive and inclusive approach rather than a negative and exclusive approach (though the implementation could still be negative: come out and vote for our guy to get rid of that other guy we don't like).
I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature.
This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.
This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.
It’s easy to make the opposite argument around declining mental facilities and less education for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to vote yet have increased insurance costs despite driving less.
Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well?
In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well?
In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
I can ramble a little about it, I don't know how much water it'll hold.
First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something.
The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All.
With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade.
Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades.
Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something.
The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All.
With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade.
Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades.
Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
[deleted]
[deleted]
If I wanted to cede control to unelected CEOs and unaccountable corporations I'd go around telling people not to exercise the power they have to influence politics too, because I'd know damn well that powerful corporations and industry groups aren't going to "stop engaging in the political process". They'll stay very busy spending huge amounts of time and money bribing politicians, writing legislation for them, and manipulating the public's perception to further their own interests and profits at the expense of everyone else. How frustrating it must be when the serfs interfere by exercising their rights to self-govern when they should just let their corporate masters run the show instead of insisting on a government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people"
Yea - I'm not advocating to stop participation entirely; just with the hacks/opportunists.
We are so incredibly beyond the government serving the people. They don't reside in the same plane of existence.
The average DC rep would be shocked to live like I did, the average person.
We are so incredibly beyond the government serving the people. They don't reside in the same plane of existence.
The average DC rep would be shocked to live like I did, the average person.
There’s no meaningfully “average” lifestyle.
Most Americans get some form of healthcare subsidy be that directly or through their parents. However rural hospital subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, low income subsidies on the market, or pretax from your employer are all very different and none of them really impact VA benefits.
Living on 30k/ year is meaningfully different than 50k or 500k etc. A 20 year old and a 60 year old don’t just average to a 40 year old. 0 kids is different than 1 kid which is different than 3 kids.
Most Americans get some form of healthcare subsidy be that directly or through their parents. However rural hospital subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, low income subsidies on the market, or pretax from your employer are all very different and none of them really impact VA benefits.
Living on 30k/ year is meaningfully different than 50k or 500k etc. A 20 year old and a 60 year old don’t just average to a 40 year old. 0 kids is different than 1 kid which is different than 3 kids.
Sure, but let's not ignore that a certain 'class' of people make up our representatives - and it's not representative. Despite their pandering.
It's ridiculously uniform by comparison to the populace
I don't mean to overstate it; reasonable arguments can be made for, against, or as - some of that's implicit. Power/election makes a class. That's not what I'm talking about.
I was grandstanding when I got to talking about average. The class is 'crook', or hack/opportunist if we want something more modern.
To close, back to my hypothetical: the shock they feel implies that a representative person should be able to adjust.
The ones we have couldn't. They'd literally have a coronary - they manage to be several deviations off in terms of age and fitness in addition to moral sensibility.
I know every experience is different. Christ. Tree, meet forest. The problem is a lack of representative difference in the counterpart.
I harp on that word because it's important.
It's ridiculously uniform by comparison to the populace
I don't mean to overstate it; reasonable arguments can be made for, against, or as - some of that's implicit. Power/election makes a class. That's not what I'm talking about.
I was grandstanding when I got to talking about average. The class is 'crook', or hack/opportunist if we want something more modern.
To close, back to my hypothetical: the shock they feel implies that a representative person should be able to adjust.
The ones we have couldn't. They'd literally have a coronary - they manage to be several deviations off in terms of age and fitness in addition to moral sensibility.
I know every experience is different. Christ. Tree, meet forest. The problem is a lack of representative difference in the counterpart.
I harp on that word because it's important.
Interesting read.
Exactly this. They probably know the number using it down to single digits, and know exactly how much it will cost.
Full refunds no questions asked will still only get some small percentage, most people don't take the time and just toss it.
Full refunds no questions asked will still only get some small percentage, most people don't take the time and just toss it.
Did they actually sell 1m+ of these things? I think the reason they’re killing it is they hardly sold any.
> Make it so that people can just reflash the memory at a minimum
Letting the 0.1% of geeks who know how to and are interested in spending time on it reflash their hardware doesn't actually solve the problem in any meaningful way.
Letting the 0.1% of geeks who know how to and are interested in spending time on it reflash their hardware doesn't actually solve the problem in any meaningful way.
> Are they just banking on people not caring enough or knowing about the refund process?
This seems to be the official policy for many retailers, insurance companies, etc. Hide the process, make it difficult, so you don't have to pay out as much.
This seems to be the official policy for many retailers, insurance companies, etc. Hide the process, make it difficult, so you don't have to pay out as much.
Imagine, using a hacked and leaked customer database, to auto-start a refund process? Like, the victims do not even know they started one, but some chat-gpt generated letter is send in there name, making that road to curtail damages suddenly economically nonviable. And suddenly, data security and hacks, are no longer a "problem for the user" but a valid method, to sniper a careless competitor and buy the carcass.
____________________________________________________________
Is your product dangerous, addictive and stuck in a lawsuits-quagmire, even social engineering cant redirect away from you? We can help you- and create a healthy-alternative, that sits on the shelves like stones calming the public spirits feng-shui with a choice. Nothing sedates like responsibility distributed and societal agency diluted. The consumers are returning, the free market is healing. AliBuy products. We make it in red, so you don't have to.
____________________________________________________________
Is your product dangerous, addictive and stuck in a lawsuits-quagmire, even social engineering cant redirect away from you? We can help you- and create a healthy-alternative, that sits on the shelves like stones calming the public spirits feng-shui with a choice. Nothing sedates like responsibility distributed and societal agency diluted. The consumers are returning, the free market is healing. AliBuy products. We make it in red, so you don't have to.
It's a face saving move. They decided to just kill the thing less than 2 years after the launching. But people got angry, and having regulators look at them is way more expensive than refunding their customers.
That said, yes, they will probably also make the process as hard as they can get away with it. Anyway, have some popcorn, this one got quite interesting.
That said, yes, they will probably also make the process as hard as they can get away with it. Anyway, have some popcorn, this one got quite interesting.
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 input from constituents?
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 input from constituents?
At least in the U.S., I (like most people) trust unelected judges much more than the (quasi-democratically at best) elected legislature.
I suspect that the more you looked into what specific judges do the less you would trust them. It's rare that a judge gets much media attention outside of major scandals ('cash for kids' for example) and most people would struggle to even name one who wasn't a supreme court justice. We're far more familiar with the shortcomings of our representatives so we're less trusting of them. That doesn't make judges more worthy of trust though.
Differences of interpretation effectively are making up precedent. Circuit splits exist because of this.
That's what I said -- "whenever laws are vague". And it's not "effectively" -- that's a major part of what precedent is.
Most (good) laws did not originate from statute. Laws against murder originated in the courts (in the common law tradition). Torts originated in the courts. The claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress was invented / discovered within the past 50-or-so years. You’re fundamentally backwards on the assumption that laws generally originate from statutes. The most important, cornerstone laws of western society were merely “codified” in recent years as an attempt to undermine the judiciary… which under prevailing jurisprudence means they are mostly nullities.
It doesn't matter where our laws against murder were invented originally, historically.
Today in the US they are codified into actual statute.
I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance.
I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it?
I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)
Today in the US they are codified into actual statute.
I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance.
I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it?
I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)
It’s a process I’ve seen play out many times in my state. The legislature will pass a bad law. The courts will explain the situation, fix it, and move on.
The legislature then won’t have the votes to pass a contradictory amendment, so they “codify” in a way that leaves something out of context or creates an ambiguity.
Litigants then cite the statute instead of the precedent… even though they legislature never actually changed the law.
The legislature then won’t have the votes to pass a contradictory amendment, so they “codify” in a way that leaves something out of context or creates an ambiguity.
Litigants then cite the statute instead of the precedent… even though they legislature never actually changed the law.
[deleted]
Every law is vague if you're a lawyer.
[deleted]
Do you have any reason to believe that "open unsupported hardware" would be a bad law? Resolving this in court every time a company decides to drop support seems worse.
Courts are pretty good at not stirring up unnecessary trouble. So they are currently “resolving” all the many cases where a company dropped support and the customer doesn’t really mind because the device is old. They’re doing a great job resolving this Spotify case where Spotify is offering refunds and people are getting their money back. The vast majority of the time, there’s no need for a lawsuit and everyone works it out… that’s better than statutes which often stir up unnecessary disputes.
“Open” “unsupported” hardware would be hard because frankly I don’t know what that means. People who have the Spotify thing are pretty much free to do what they want with it. There are some DRM and anti-circumvention laws… but those are bad laws regardless of whether the device is supported or not. Again, just repeal those statutes as well.
“Open” “unsupported” hardware would be hard because frankly I don’t know what that means. People who have the Spotify thing are pretty much free to do what they want with it. There are some DRM and anti-circumvention laws… but those are bad laws regardless of whether the device is supported or not. Again, just repeal those statutes as well.
While we're at it let's get rid of the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA as well.
Arbitration costs Spotify more than the refund. What's wrong with mass arbitration?
Arbitration doesn’t really create precedent. When one person wins a lawsuit, it reduces the cost for all who follow (on the same facts). The evidence gathered in one case can be re-used in another.
A million arbitrations means a million arbitrary results, where one claimant doesn’t know what evidence was uncovered in the other cases.
Most importantly punitive damages. Arbitrators almost never impose real punishments, which means more companies commit fraud / act maliciously towards customers.
A million arbitrations means a million arbitrary results, where one claimant doesn’t know what evidence was uncovered in the other cases.
Most importantly punitive damages. Arbitrators almost never impose real punishments, which means more companies commit fraud / act maliciously towards customers.
https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit... has some details.
I also need to some detail about how companies are trying to enforce MDL-like bellwether and mass-arbitration rules in order to further reduce costs and chance of success.
I also need to some detail about how companies are trying to enforce MDL-like bellwether and mass-arbitration rules in order to further reduce costs and chance of success.
Yeah, but it is so much work to litigate and it takes so much time, even for small claims. We can’t really expect a reasonable fraction of the owners of these devices to sue Spotify, then maintain the wherewithal to bring that suit to a judgement, then actually collect on it. The other legal mechanism, class actions, often just enrich the lawyers litigating them.
I would tend to disagree about civil litigation being that much work, because it takes far less effort than other approaches when measured by effectiveness. I’ve had situations where I’ve reported crimes to the authorities. Most of the time these reports go ignored. In one major instance they refused to even take a police report. I’ve put cases together will all the evidence needed for a conviction, and only once did they actually arrest the person (and even then adjudication was withheld). So yeah, leaving it up to the government is less work, but there’s a good chance nothing will happen (particularly if they’re not politically aligned on the issue / it would offend donors / etc.). Then when there is a “major” enforcement, it’s usually a slap on the wrist and no the victims get less than they would have from a class action.
I used the support link provided. They tried to give me 3 months of premium instead of a refund. I declined. They replied:
>Thank you for waiting! As I can only suggest you for free Premium in your account. The actual Car Thing refund is done by the specialty advisors, so I'll create a case related to your issue and transfer it and the right team will get back to you through email. Sounds good?
So I am now waiting for an email.
>Thank you for waiting! As I can only suggest you for free Premium in your account. The actual Car Thing refund is done by the specialty advisors, so I'll create a case related to your issue and transfer it and the right team will get back to you through email. Sounds good?
So I am now waiting for an email.
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.
Why is it okay for a company worth tens of billions of dollars to drag their feet issuing a refund that can be done promptly?
Interesting, I also just used the support link, talked to an agent via text chat, asked for a refund, they asked for a screenshot, I shared a screenshot, and they immediately refunded me. They did not suggest an alternate approach (the 3 months of premium you mentioned). I didn't actually want a full refund because I got some use out of my Car Thing while I had it, I was banking on the 3 months of premium. Oh well. :)
Wow, they end the chat by insulting you.
This sounds like you're using a support chatbot. Of course they're not going to allow the chatbot to authorize refunds.
The slightly clumsy wording would indicate to me that it's a real person rather than a chatbot.
That slightly clumsy wording is what made me think it was a chatbot
We live in a time where AI chatbots speak way better english than outsourced support workers in 3rd world countries.
We live in a time where AI chatbots speak way better English than most native English speakers.
I'm wondering whether soon we'll see the outsourced CS chats run through a 'small' efficient LLM to 'clean up' (or in some cases, just re-localize) the English of such workers to match the locale of the caller.
Have we passed the turing test?
I reached out to them to get a refund for my Car Thing - and they actually sent me an email asking for my checking account number and routing number to be sent to them VIA EMAIL. And presumably into their ticket system where future hackers will find a nice collection of financial info.
I wonder if their CISO or security team is aware of this, I reached out to address found in https://www.spotify.com/.well-known/security.txt
Here is response I received:
Hello there,
Thanks for reaching out to us via messaging. Your case has been escalated to the highest tier of Customer Support here in Spotify. All communication within this email thread will be from the Escalation team from now on.
We can see that you've already sent a proof of purchase via chat. About refunding, please share the following details with us:
- Bank name - Bank Location - Account Holder Name - Routing & Account no - SWIFT - A screenshot of the required bank details on your online banking or bank letter (if it's possible).
Make sure to hide any sensitive payment information like your full card number for your security.
We'll keep an eye out for your response so we could sort this out.
Kind regards,
XXXX Escalations Team - Spotify Customer Support
I wonder if their CISO or security team is aware of this, I reached out to address found in https://www.spotify.com/.well-known/security.txt
Here is response I received:
Hello there,
Thanks for reaching out to us via messaging. Your case has been escalated to the highest tier of Customer Support here in Spotify. All communication within this email thread will be from the Escalation team from now on.
We can see that you've already sent a proof of purchase via chat. About refunding, please share the following details with us:
- Bank name - Bank Location - Account Holder Name - Routing & Account no - SWIFT - A screenshot of the required bank details on your online banking or bank letter (if it's possible).
Make sure to hide any sensitive payment information like your full card number for your security.
We'll keep an eye out for your response so we could sort this out.
Kind regards,
XXXX Escalations Team - Spotify Customer Support
> they actually sent me an email asking for my checking account number and routing number to be sent to them VIA EMAIL
Is that an actual issue with US accounts? Over in EU it's common to publish your account number (IBAN) and routing code (BIC) on your website, letterhead, and obviously on bills you send to customers so they can pay you.
They should only be able to send you money, not use it to request money, right?
Is that an actual issue with US accounts? Over in EU it's common to publish your account number (IBAN) and routing code (BIC) on your website, letterhead, and obviously on bills you send to customers so they can pay you.
They should only be able to send you money, not use it to request money, right?
In the US, it goes both ways with just a routing and account number.
It's a terribly outdated system.
It's a terribly outdated system.
Since Spotify is a Swedish company, I'm sure this is why they didn't think it would be an issue.
This isn't the reason why. Spotify has been a major player in the U.S. music streaming market for a long time. They have their own offices here, and these kinds of decisions are surely made domestically.
The reason for this is simply incompetence. They were given the order from leadership to discontinue Car Thing to cut costs, and they are given a short deadline with no options for extending or unlocking the hardware. Spotify's Lawyers don't see any way out of that issue, and also see liability for having discontinued a product so quickly and with such short notice, so they recommend to the Accounts team that Car Thing customers can opt-in to a refund, and that should indemnify Spotify from any disputes.
So the Accounts team gets this new recommendation from Legal, with an even tighter deadline than sunsetting Car Thing, where customers are entitled to refunds on-demand if they bought one. Requests come in immediately, and there is absolutely zero process in place for actually issuing refunds for this, so the Accounts team works directly with the Finance team and figures they can just wire refunds directly to customers, which the Finance team is happy to do if they are provided a spreadsheet of account/routing numbers.
Nobody in the process of making these decision has any understanding of the risks, they just move to actualize what leadership asked them to, doing as little work as possible to meet the deadline. The result is refund requests arriving before any refund process has been established, and so the process is invented on-the-fly without any regard to best practice.
Tl;Dr: Discontinuing Car Thing was a hastily made decision that was announced before the company had done due-diligence, and now they are dealing with a disorganized response.
The reason for this is simply incompetence. They were given the order from leadership to discontinue Car Thing to cut costs, and they are given a short deadline with no options for extending or unlocking the hardware. Spotify's Lawyers don't see any way out of that issue, and also see liability for having discontinued a product so quickly and with such short notice, so they recommend to the Accounts team that Car Thing customers can opt-in to a refund, and that should indemnify Spotify from any disputes.
So the Accounts team gets this new recommendation from Legal, with an even tighter deadline than sunsetting Car Thing, where customers are entitled to refunds on-demand if they bought one. Requests come in immediately, and there is absolutely zero process in place for actually issuing refunds for this, so the Accounts team works directly with the Finance team and figures they can just wire refunds directly to customers, which the Finance team is happy to do if they are provided a spreadsheet of account/routing numbers.
Nobody in the process of making these decision has any understanding of the risks, they just move to actualize what leadership asked them to, doing as little work as possible to meet the deadline. The result is refund requests arriving before any refund process has been established, and so the process is invented on-the-fly without any regard to best practice.
Tl;Dr: Discontinuing Car Thing was a hastily made decision that was announced before the company had done due-diligence, and now they are dealing with a disorganized response.
Are you a spotify insider? You seem to know a lot about how they operate, thanks for the insight.
SEPA Direct Debit is a thing here in Europe as well, this is why we could live just fine without credit cards for so long. We instead had our local variants of what y'all call ACH and a few cooperation networks, that got unified as part of the EU-wide SEPA rollout (must have been something like 10 years ago). Now you can do money transfers to and from the entirety of the EU between all banks, if you pay a bit extra most banks can actually do real-time nowadays. If someone does direct debit fraud with your account number, you can claw back the money just as easy as you can do with a credit card.
The only problem remains card-based POS transactions... unfortunately, MasterCard and VISA spent shit tons of money into lobbying to make sure people would finally all converge on their standard instead of an established domestic one, their closed network where these fuckers could finally get a chance at getting their cut from the 448 million EU citizens.
Fuck MC and VISA.
The only problem remains card-based POS transactions... unfortunately, MasterCard and VISA spent shit tons of money into lobbying to make sure people would finally all converge on their standard instead of an established domestic one, their closed network where these fuckers could finally get a chance at getting their cut from the 448 million EU citizens.
Fuck MC and VISA.
Spelling nit: though the logo is all-caps, the company is called “Visa”.
Oh man this would fix the most annoying and terrifying part of bank transactions in the US (IMO). Instead, we have a million third parties that help ease the situation, but all take a cut, so some services make you use the original method.
Nope. My utility company and also Verizon withdraw from my checking account, and all they needed was the account number, routing number, and my name. No further verification.
For that reason, I have two checking accounts, and don't keep large sums of money in the account I use for payments.
For that reason, I have two checking accounts, and don't keep large sums of money in the account I use for payments.
That's seems terribly unsafe.
Nope, your IBAN alone can be used to set up withdrawals. That has to be approved by the bank, so it's not as easy as stealing the IBAN, but still...
Only businesses can create SEPA Direct Debit mandates, and they can be blocked easily and refunded at the initiative of the account holder no-questions-asked within two months.
That's insane. If anybody told me to send them my bank account number and routing number, I'd assume they're a scammer.
Spotify is an European company. Here it's normal to send people your bank account number, you put it on invoices, on your company website, etc. I assume someone who invented this process assumed this is normal everywhere (I learned today that in USA it isn't).
Spotify Technology S.A. may be headquartered in Sweden, but all business in the USA is conducted via Spotify USA Inc, which is a US company headquartered in the World Trade Center in New York City.
It is completely understandable that someone like you who doesn't live or work in the USA wouldn't know how sensitive a Bank Account/Routing number is here. If you exist in a modern banking system with proper security, it is easy to assume that the rest of the world works the same way.
However, there is absolutely no excuse for the decision makers at Spotify here in the USA not to understand this.
It is completely understandable that someone like you who doesn't live or work in the USA wouldn't know how sensitive a Bank Account/Routing number is here. If you exist in a modern banking system with proper security, it is easy to assume that the rest of the world works the same way.
However, there is absolutely no excuse for the decision makers at Spotify here in the USA not to understand this.
It's printed on the bottom of every check you've ever written to someone. It's not particularly secret information.
If every customer is entitled to a refund then why isn't it automatic and automated?
There needs to be a term for this kind of malicious refund policy that does everything possible to prevent you from claiming it.
The account in another comments makes it clear why it's done like that: To get a refund you not only have to talk to support (i.e. spending quite some time in some chat interface), then escalate the issue (talking to another support agent once more) and THEN you might get your money.
I guess only a very small fraction of people will do this, making it a very cheap way for Spotify to stop any negative press regarding this issue.
I guess only a very small fraction of people will do this, making it a very cheap way for Spotify to stop any negative press regarding this issue.
Obviously they're doing it for PR without having to follow through, thus the maliciousness.
What we need is a law that obliges them to issue automated refunds in cases where 100% of customers are entitled to a refund.
What we need is a law that obliges them to issue automated refunds in cases where 100% of customers are entitled to a refund.
Why isn't there an app business that automatically goes through the corporate time wasting obstacles to burn the corpo's money on support calls?
Some people have been working on using LLM's for scam baiting. I've also seen LLM's used to interact with the chat support windows. It's just a matter of time now.
I didn't have to escalate anything, just provided my receipt
Small anecdote:
I've had Spotify premium for 12 years now. Back in 2020 I got a rather large prepaid debit card. I put a couple low dollar subscriptions on there. Spotify being one of them. Card ran out of money.
So Spotify instantly shifts me down to the free plan, after 1 failed payment, and deletes all the songs I synced to my phone until I update my card on file. Which was supremely obnoxious on mobile (but that's because I signed up for Spotify with Facebook, and 8 years after breaking FB SSO OTP code generation on mobile they still haven't fixed it)
No grace period, no warning that my payment failed and I was being downgraded. Just a big old full screen pop-up warning me that if I continue into the free version, it would immediately delete all my playlists.
Paying customer for 12+ years, with 12+ years of playlists. Had I not read the small print and just clicked "continue" it would've deleted ALL of that. Even after updating my payment method, and not having pressed "continue" (to the free plan) I had to re-sync all the songs I'd already downloaded.
They're a very user hostile company, and I've never had the slightest bit of sympathy in their fight with Apple, and this is a pretty good reinforcement.
I've had Spotify premium for 12 years now. Back in 2020 I got a rather large prepaid debit card. I put a couple low dollar subscriptions on there. Spotify being one of them. Card ran out of money.
So Spotify instantly shifts me down to the free plan, after 1 failed payment, and deletes all the songs I synced to my phone until I update my card on file. Which was supremely obnoxious on mobile (but that's because I signed up for Spotify with Facebook, and 8 years after breaking FB SSO OTP code generation on mobile they still haven't fixed it)
No grace period, no warning that my payment failed and I was being downgraded. Just a big old full screen pop-up warning me that if I continue into the free version, it would immediately delete all my playlists.
Paying customer for 12+ years, with 12+ years of playlists. Had I not read the small print and just clicked "continue" it would've deleted ALL of that. Even after updating my payment method, and not having pressed "continue" (to the free plan) I had to re-sync all the songs I'd already downloaded.
They're a very user hostile company, and I've never had the slightest bit of sympathy in their fight with Apple, and this is a pretty good reinforcement.
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.
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.
Stadia controllers got to be reflashed as standard Bluetooth controllers. I still use mine.
Refreshed before typing this because I realised someone might have beaten me to it! - But that's a big difference here - even though the service is gone, you got the refund and still a usable device as a controller out of it...
Spotify has taken something that could be used generically too, and just decided to brick it.
Insert something about product and consumers and how its all just some big money game or something somewhere :D
Spotify has taken something that could be used generically too, and just decided to brick it.
Insert something about product and consumers and how its all just some big money game or something somewhere :D
Spotify should have the ewaste generated by this decision accounted for when considering any ESG benefits or grants.
It's worth noting that for some reason there's a deadline for flashing the generic Bluetooth firmware onto a Stadia controller though, you have to get it done before the end of this year if you have one gathering dust.
https://stadia.google.com/controller/index_en_GB.html
https://stadia.google.com/controller/index_en_GB.html
Yes, but that's just when Google will stop hosting the tool that lets you reflash it. The tool works without Google's servers, and is already hosted elsewhere: https://github.com/luigimannoni/stadia-controller-flasher?ta...
Well, a community effort to reverse engineer the process and deobfuscate the javascript is keeping the tool alive. If they didn't step in to archive it, seemingly the cutoff would have been real.
It would have been a better testament to their commitment to prevent these controllers from becoming e-waste if Google just hosted an open source version of the flashing tool on their github from the start.
It would have been a better testament to their commitment to prevent these controllers from becoming e-waste if Google just hosted an open source version of the flashing tool on their github from the start.
As far as I know, the reverse engineering/deobfuscation is only for the purpose of allowing third-party firmware to be flashed instead of the Google firmware for Bluetooth. If all you want to do is archive the tool for the latter, you merely have to copy the files from Google's site.
Oh right, I assumed it required Googles servers to sign the firmware for your specific unit or something.
To be fair, they've extended that deadline a few times already (and it's mirrored elsewhere, as another pointed out).
I know Google graveyards a lot of things, but in the Stadia case, they truly went above and beyond to make customers whole again. They refunded every software & hardware purchase automatically, in full, no matter when you bought it, and also provided save game exports. That means people got to play those games on Stadia for those few years, then got all their money back AND some free hardware (Bluetooth controllers). It was a failed Google experiment, but all us guinea pigs got some free entertainment and swag out of it. Kudos.
I know Google graveyards a lot of things, but in the Stadia case, they truly went above and beyond to make customers whole again. They refunded every software & hardware purchase automatically, in full, no matter when you bought it, and also provided save game exports. That means people got to play those games on Stadia for those few years, then got all their money back AND some free hardware (Bluetooth controllers). It was a failed Google experiment, but all us guinea pigs got some free entertainment and swag out of it. Kudos.
Probably just a deadline to kill the subdomain and resources.
My bad, that's pretty legit on Google's part!
> 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.
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.
I wonder if there's licensing issues with them doing so? Like I assume they didn't make all the hardware and firmware involved.
Kind of a shame when companies do this.
I also wonder how long till the hacker community starts hacking these things any way? Seems like a worthy device to hack, though I can't imagine there's millions of these out there. I'd love to buy a 2nd hand one and install custom software on it if someone builds said firmware.
Hell, if Spotify had open sourced this and still sold them, I might have bought a first hand one. I would just be streaming my Apple music to it instead. ;)
Kind of a shame when companies do this.
I also wonder how long till the hacker community starts hacking these things any way? Seems like a worthy device to hack, though I can't imagine there's millions of these out there. I'd love to buy a 2nd hand one and install custom software on it if someone builds said firmware.
Hell, if Spotify had open sourced this and still sold them, I might have bought a first hand one. I would just be streaming my Apple music to it instead. ;)
Spotify almost certainly developed Car Thing using license encumbered software, and this illustrates how encumbered licenses are anti-freedom and are causes of unnecessary e-waste.
Thankfully folks have started organizing to reverse engineer the device:
- https://github.com/err4o4/spotify-car-thing-reverse-engineer...
- https://hackaday.com/2024/05/30/old-spotify-car-thing-hacks-...
Thankfully folks have started organizing to reverse engineer the device:
- https://github.com/err4o4/spotify-car-thing-reverse-engineer...
- https://hackaday.com/2024/05/30/old-spotify-car-thing-hacks-...
cqqxo4zV46cp(2)
Even if there isn’t third party licensed software in this Thing, it still can take significant work to open-source an internal project that wasn’t intended to be public from the start.
And given the price of tech labor, most businesses are going to want to put their engineers on active projects.
And given the price of tech labor, most businesses are going to want to put their engineers on active projects.
The count down to an HN post of Car Thing runs Doom has now started
Someone already did that https://x.com/justmaku/status/1584442208203087872
There must be a rule of that. If you think someone will probably make it run DOOM someday, someone already has.
...and of course they did! I didn't actually expect it to be playable with the knob control like that, so I'm actually even more impressed. I was just expecting it to compile and run, but not necessarily play.
> Seems like a worthy device to hack
I haven't opened mine up yet but there's not a lot there that an ESP32, a screen, and an encoder couldn't replace. I'll probably disassemble mine for the encoder knob and see if I can't repurpose the screen. The actual hardware isn't particularly compelling otherwise.
I haven't opened mine up yet but there's not a lot there that an ESP32, a screen, and an encoder couldn't replace. I'll probably disassemble mine for the encoder knob and see if I can't repurpose the screen. The actual hardware isn't particularly compelling otherwise.
fairly certain they used this: https://w.dspconcepts.com/, they used to have Spotify listed a a client. I'm guessing they cannot open source for this reason (it's not their code to open source)
I'm out of luck. I bought the car thing via a third party as I'm in the UK where it was never sold. I get that is the risk of such things, i.e if the device malfunctioned I wouldn't be able to do anything, but it's still Spotify's decision that has hurt me, what's worse is this was a gift.
This is really a clear place for robust regulation. No company has a genuine incentive to ever give up proprietary designs in the current environment, even for devices they no longer sell or support. Places that do are going against the grain of investment capital, and their commitments are often broken when they are acquired
I think a simple rule could easily suffice here:
All firmware and schematics must be made available to regulatory agencies to put a device containing a digital computer on the market at all. That info can be sealed until a device is no longer sold, except for devices that need to meet higher safety standards (cars, medical devices, some kinds of home automation, definitely anything operating heavy machinery or infrastructure), in which case this is made publicly available as soon as the device goes to market
Also, repeal DMCA 1201 in its entirety. The government has no obligation to protect business models with the force of the state
We already enforce safety and environmental standards on manufactured products. This is a no-brainer
I think a simple rule could easily suffice here:
All firmware and schematics must be made available to regulatory agencies to put a device containing a digital computer on the market at all. That info can be sealed until a device is no longer sold, except for devices that need to meet higher safety standards (cars, medical devices, some kinds of home automation, definitely anything operating heavy machinery or infrastructure), in which case this is made publicly available as soon as the device goes to market
Also, repeal DMCA 1201 in its entirety. The government has no obligation to protect business models with the force of the state
We already enforce safety and environmental standards on manufactured products. This is a no-brainer
Doesn't Spotify already know which Car Thing devices have been used, by which people, and the contact/billing info of most of those people?
If so, then why making people contact them?
And also bumping people away from normal customer support, to "specialty advisors"?
This isn't looking like good faith.
Is Spotify's market position now strong enough that they don't have to care what people think of them?
If so, then why making people contact them?
And also bumping people away from normal customer support, to "specialty advisors"?
This isn't looking like good faith.
Is Spotify's market position now strong enough that they don't have to care what people think of them?
[deleted]
"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 users that had cars during the recent 3 years that had cars with radios that were incompatible with bluetooth or aux inputs that made this device desirable?
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 users that had cars during the recent 3 years that had cars with radios that were incompatible with bluetooth or aux inputs that made this device desirable?
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.
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.
Seriously. I don't know anything about mobile development, but once it's working in the first place, how hard is it to just NOT delete its API hooks from the codebase. As a developer, I can only guess that maybe the code which supports it, or the code where it has to poke its fingers into into in order to be able to draw its UI, is poorly-architected and removing the Car Thing code across the board will allow them to more easily refactor or something.
My guess was that it was sending back analytics which was developed in such a way that if the servers are not responsive, the thing won't work. So if they unplugged the servers, then no more working Car Things. However, I wouldn't not consider that being bricked. So maybe they plan on pushing on OTA firmware update to brick them???
What would happen if you just stored the unit so that it was not able to receive OTA updates? How long would they keep the OTA update server up and running before assuming all units were bricked and could retire that server? Does part of the bricking process collect the serial number to add to a completed list that your rogue unit would not show updated?
Just curious how far one needs to go to avoid it getting bricked if it would be possible to avoid at all
What would happen if you just stored the unit so that it was not able to receive OTA updates? How long would they keep the OTA update server up and running before assuming all units were bricked and could retire that server? Does part of the bricking process collect the serial number to add to a completed list that your rogue unit would not show updated?
Just curious how far one needs to go to avoid it getting bricked if it would be possible to avoid at all
(as a continuation of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=troupo)
> how hard is it to just NOT delete its API hooks from the codebase.
Someone has to maintain that API. Not only on mobile, but also potentially on the server as well. Those "hooks" become a nuisance and a hindrance when services change or get deprecated. When data schemas get updated. When new data types get introduced etc.
And that's before we get into discussion about architecture, code quality etc.
> how hard is it to just NOT delete its API hooks from the codebase.
Someone has to maintain that API. Not only on mobile, but also potentially on the server as well. Those "hooks" become a nuisance and a hindrance when services change or get deprecated. When data schemas get updated. When new data types get introduced etc.
And that's before we get into discussion about architecture, code quality etc.
Most of the things in Spotify are done through the server. There are two major reasons why:
- customer-facing reason: Spotify Connect https://support.spotify.com/us/article/spotify-connect/ We have to be able to know which device you're playing on, show it in device pickers and even let you play stuff on devices not in the same network
- second major reason: most of the decisions of what to play cannot be made on the client. This has to do with licensing and related analytics. Even different types of devices will have different licensing applied to them. So to even simply say "play next song" you have to tell the server you're going to listen to a track. And that track might not be available for the specific combination of account/device/country/phase of moon which client has no way of knowing about.
Source: I work at Spotify, but I can't answer any questions about CarThing (didn't work on it, and it would be NDA anyway)
- customer-facing reason: Spotify Connect https://support.spotify.com/us/article/spotify-connect/ We have to be able to know which device you're playing on, show it in device pickers and even let you play stuff on devices not in the same network
- second major reason: most of the decisions of what to play cannot be made on the client. This has to do with licensing and related analytics. Even different types of devices will have different licensing applied to them. So to even simply say "play next song" you have to tell the server you're going to listen to a track. And that track might not be available for the specific combination of account/device/country/phase of moon which client has no way of knowing about.
Source: I work at Spotify, but I can't answer any questions about CarThing (didn't work on it, and it would be NDA anyway)
If it’s a remote for Spotify on your iPhone, I don’t see why they are bricking it. It shouldn’t be that much effort to keep it working.
I'd have to say they did a crappy job of marketing this because I'd love one of these in my old truck.
You'll be better off getting something like a bluetooth to FM/aux transmitter and pair your phone to it.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004704739971.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006422066598.htmlI don't have Android Auto but I can at least control my phone media playback through the head unit and the steering wheel controls over bluetooth.
I suspect this was mainly for people who only have the ability to send audio to their head unit without actual controls in some older cars.
I suspect this was mainly for people who only have the ability to send audio to their head unit without actual controls in some older cars.
That's one use case. The other use case is people who want a dedicated Spotify display in their car. It's especially nice in a new car because you can have your Nav or something else on your car screen and have a second display for your music. Yes, you can also use your phone for that, this is just another option.
I think it was more so for people who want a dedicated spotify app - as in they want to go through their likes, playlists and radios without using their phone.
I used it side by side with Android Auto, before split screen was released. I'd have the map full screen on my head unit, and the car thing on the dashboard controlling spotify playback.
I haven't checked for this - does anybody know whether the car thing has the "safety pause" that the spotify app has on Android Auto? If not, that would be enough reason to use it by itself.
I haven't checked for this - does anybody know whether the car thing has the "safety pause" that the spotify app has on Android Auto? If not, that would be enough reason to use it by itself.
I am pretty bummed that they are discontinuing it and not open sourcing the hardware. I use mine at my desk every day to control my desktop Spotify and it is pretty nice having hardware controls for my music.
Shame on Spotify.
Shame on Spotify.
I’ve been trying to buy one for months. Glad I didn’t. I was going to use it for the same purpose as you. I just love that knob. Wonder if I there’s something open source out there.
I missed buying one for $30 when they were clearing them out a while ago and recently decided I wanted one for my car so started looking on eBay - they're going for at or more than the full, original price! Maybe with this EOL announcement, the prices will drop and I can pick one up cheap to repurpose for something else.
well I was going to use it for Spotify, but without official support it's going to be a pain. Unless someone's already hacked it.
It’s already rooted. Here’s the GitHub repo if you’re interested in rooting yours: “frederic/superbird-bulkcmd”
It looks like it might be difficult to write custom applications for it though based on this info in the GitHub readme:
“At this point we had full u-boot access, as well as persistent ADB (root) access, we initially wanted to try to bring-up Android Automotive on the device, but 500 MB of RAM made Android near-impossible to port.
We also tried to get other GUI applications cough maybe doom cough running, but this device utilizes a QT feature called EGLFS, which doesn't have a window management system like X11 or Wayland, so it is hard to get additional applications running on the device, but hey, maybe someone in the community can get it working using the access we're providing!”
It looks like it might be difficult to write custom applications for it though based on this info in the GitHub readme:
“At this point we had full u-boot access, as well as persistent ADB (root) access, we initially wanted to try to bring-up Android Automotive on the device, but 500 MB of RAM made Android near-impossible to port.
We also tried to get other GUI applications cough maybe doom cough running, but this device utilizes a QT feature called EGLFS, which doesn't have a window management system like X11 or Wayland, so it is hard to get additional applications running on the device, but hey, maybe someone in the community can get it working using the access we're providing!”
The title seems a little misleading… the article is largely about how unclear the refund process is to customers.
Clearly Spotify sees Car Thing as a mistake. That’s ok, mistakes happen. But they should really be working to make sure customers aren’t paying the price for their mistake (as much as is feasible, anyway). It sure doesn’t sound like they are doing that.
BTW, there could be code in there they don’t have the right to open source, so I don’t know whether to judge them on that aspect of it or not.
Clearly Spotify sees Car Thing as a mistake. That’s ok, mistakes happen. But they should really be working to make sure customers aren’t paying the price for their mistake (as much as is feasible, anyway). It sure doesn’t sound like they are doing that.
BTW, there could be code in there they don’t have the right to open source, so I don’t know whether to judge them on that aspect of it or not.
[edited to add] it seems to me from other posts seen here that (A) the firmware is floating around already and (B) at 500MB of RAM, underpowered CPU, and considering the other serious limitations of the device, I don't even know if it is likely to be worth somebody's time to put in the work to make a CFW. Personally it seems much more fun to use an off-the-shelf SBC to build a cool project than to try to shoehorn something into this awful little computer. But maybe that's just me.
-- Following is my original comment written before I knew much --
It seems to me like the bare minimum would be enough to take the heat off: Publish a quick and dirty flashing tool, and leave the binary of the firmware available. If people want to disassemble the firmware they have plausible deniability to the patent holders involved, and if nerds want to devote time to reverse engineer it and make a custom firmware image, they can figure it out themselves. After all, part of the fun of such a project is the challenge.
-- Following is my original comment written before I knew much --
It seems to me like the bare minimum would be enough to take the heat off: Publish a quick and dirty flashing tool, and leave the binary of the firmware available. If people want to disassemble the firmware they have plausible deniability to the patent holders involved, and if nerds want to devote time to reverse engineer it and make a custom firmware image, they can figure it out themselves. After all, part of the fun of such a project is the challenge.
As someone that doesn't own, but rents cars for errands, the Car Thing made perfect sense. Instead of spending several minutes trying to find a good station or pair my phone, which wasn't always an option, I could pop that in a vent and start jamming.
I wonder if this is connected to the layoffs they've had. Cancelling marginal product lines and focusing on core competencies sounds great in theory, but the actual process can be messy and generate ill will. An "overstaffed" company is surely more likely to "go the extra mile" in a way that customers will often remember (e.g. by assigning a skeleton crew to maintain this thing or open source it).
Imagining some parallel to the adage, "the only people who will remember how late you worked are your family". Something like, "the only people who will remember the products you cut are your customers"?
The title should be updated to say they may refund, it's not official, as stated in the article. A bit misleading.
> A Spotify spokesperson declined to confirm to Ars if Spotify would offer full refunds to everyone who showed proof of purchase or if there were further requirements. The representative said that owners should contact Spotify via the above link about refunds.
> The email doesn't explicitly guarantee refunds, though...
> A Spotify spokesperson declined to confirm to Ars if Spotify would offer full refunds to everyone who showed proof of purchase or if there were further requirements. The representative said that owners should contact Spotify via the above link about refunds.
> The email doesn't explicitly guarantee refunds, though...
Wasting perfectly good hardware like that is a shame.
I hate that companies are allowed to use just ever so slightly different designs of their products every generation.
We are over regulating SW companies, because it feels free, it's just a software.
Why can not we force the biggest HW developers to make sure that devices can share spare parts across generations AND preventing them from bricking perfectly good devices?
I hate that companies are allowed to use just ever so slightly different designs of their products every generation.
We are over regulating SW companies, because it feels free, it's just a software.
Why can not we force the biggest HW developers to make sure that devices can share spare parts across generations AND preventing them from bricking perfectly good devices?
If you sign up for the ad free tier, you’ll still get spammed by ads injected during podcasts, much more than if you use a free podcast app
Also, there are privacy issues:
https://mashable.com/article/spotify-user-privacy-settings
Also, there are privacy issues:
https://mashable.com/article/spotify-user-privacy-settings
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.
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.
https://oddsolutions.github.io/Spotify-Car-Thing-Root/
https://github.com/err4o4/spotify-car-thing-reverse-engineer...
https://github.com/err4o4/spotify-car-thing-reverse-engineer...
This would be great if it were easier to do as it would make for quite a nifty, if not very weird Android device by the looks of things!
spotify is a garbage software, for android it auto-plays in the car and there is nothing you can do to stop it except uninstalling the app
I asked for a refund and they offered 7 months of Spotify. I said no I need a replacement for the screen then they said the refund will be sent to the card I pay for premium in the next 14 days.
Okay, so they won't open-source their software. Big whoop. Nobody needs that.
The Car Thing has already been rooted. It runs Linux. There's a clear path towards a custom firmware: https://oddsolutions.github.io/Spotify-Car-Thing-Root/
The Car Thing has already been rooted. It runs Linux. There's a clear path towards a custom firmware: https://oddsolutions.github.io/Spotify-Car-Thing-Root/
They're taking a loss, and a reputational damage from this. This seems irrational. They could have just left the old software to languish.
Could there be more to this? Maybe the Car Thing's DRM has been completely broken? Record companies want to license cars/things differently?
Could there be more to this? Maybe the Car Thing's DRM has been completely broken? Record companies want to license cars/things differently?
Looks a nice gadget to have jailbroken - I would rather try this rather than refund.
Recent and related:
Spotify Car Thing will be discontinued - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456644 - May 2024 (229 comments)
Spotify Car Thing will be discontinued - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456644 - May 2024 (229 comments)
Thought here:
They're bricking rather than simply discontinuing support. Does that perhaps mean there's a problem with the device? Unpatchable security flaw perhaps?
They're bricking rather than simply discontinuing support. Does that perhaps mean there's a problem with the device? Unpatchable security flaw perhaps?
Tried requesting a refund, after an hour of chatting with different reps I got told they would email me at a later date.
They put a Spotify logo on the thing, and they don't trust any of us to improve the brand image
This is why I refuse to buy hardware from software companies.
Facebook Portal, I’m looking at you.
Facebook Portal, I’m looking at you.
I propose that owners of the Car Thing mail it to Spotify headquarters for “recycling.”
Premium customer since 2013. Spotify would only give a refund in the form of Spotify Premium credits. And ironically canceled my subscription in the process of giving me the credit. SMH. Likely will GitHub Actions export my playlists and let the subscription expire.
I feel Spotify is really losing sight of its core competencies and its actual value proposition at this point. Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Spotify was amazing in recent years for 3 reasons: 1. Early pioneers in good ML based music taste making aided by teams of people who knew the various genres.
2. Spotify’s ability to do this well came from its strong investment in metadata which gave them a corpus of insight into what people listen to and why. Somewhat analogous to the rich tagging TikTok does to its videos on support of FYP.
3. The ubiquitous and continuous client support made it so easy to bring Spotify everywhere, that any alternative was going to mean more friction. In a way Spotify Connect is their iMessage blue bubbles moat. The ubiquitous and branded clients available on tons of hardware and every OS was their social contract. It was cool to use Spotify and not cool to be an Apple Music or Tidal user. The slow but continued atrophy of client support only builds distrust in this narrative. And that gap is closing when compared to other services.
I feel Spotify is really losing sight of its core competencies and its actual value proposition at this point. Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Spotify was amazing in recent years for 3 reasons: 1. Early pioneers in good ML based music taste making aided by teams of people who knew the various genres.
2. Spotify’s ability to do this well came from its strong investment in metadata which gave them a corpus of insight into what people listen to and why. Somewhat analogous to the rich tagging TikTok does to its videos on support of FYP.
3. The ubiquitous and continuous client support made it so easy to bring Spotify everywhere, that any alternative was going to mean more friction. In a way Spotify Connect is their iMessage blue bubbles moat. The ubiquitous and branded clients available on tons of hardware and every OS was their social contract. It was cool to use Spotify and not cool to be an Apple Music or Tidal user. The slow but continued atrophy of client support only builds distrust in this narrative. And that gap is closing when compared to other services.
3.1 - Car Thing was likely never going to be profitable but it was continued investment in that social contract. You can bring a Spotify UI everywhere. Even places where maybe it wasn’t needed or already served. But kept the mind share of its customer base. I used mine on my desk for example and was asked about it constantly.
A slightly different take:
https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/30/spotify-begins-offering-ca...
Context:
https://fortune.com/europe/2023/12/04/daniel-ek-to-slash-blo...
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4444678-joe-rogan-deal-sp...
https://fortune.com/europe/2024/04/29/daniel-ek-salary-spoti...
https://musictech.com/news/industry/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-co...
Spotify is under constant fire due to its low royalty payout rates. Ditto reports that an artist receives $0.003 – $0.005 per stream on average, with 30 per cent of those royalties going to Spotify.
Spotify paid out $48 billion to the music industry, paid out $250 million to Joe Rogan and Spotify CEO Daniel Ek cashed out $118.9 million in shares - which combined with the rest of the Spotify executives totaled $250 million in stock sales.
Whereas:
https://www.wired.com/story/what-soundcloud-created-can-neve...
If Spotify is happy to brick hardware that customers paid good money for, then is it valid to ask if Spotify should be bricked?
Is Spotify doing good by its streamers?
Is Spotify a positive force for new music discovery and promoting promising talent, or is it embracing long tail effects to maximize its own profits and those of its cronies in the music industry?
How does the situation change if everyone cancels their Spotify membership in protest, or sells short the SPOT stock?
How does the situation change if the majority of shareholders and paying customers demand that the entire Spotify board is thrown out so that Spotify can be restructured in favor of streamers, employees and listeners?
Could a few hackers and makers, perhaps with the help of some benefactors who won the internet lottery, throw together a p2p app that negates the need for Spotify's existence?
Are any of these questions unreasonable, given the recent behavior of Spotify?
The predictable nature of all of this makes me wonder why the disruption model stops at a handful of people getting morbidly rich at everyone else's expense.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/30/spotify-begins-offering-ca...
Context:
https://fortune.com/europe/2023/12/04/daniel-ek-to-slash-blo...
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4444678-joe-rogan-deal-sp...
https://fortune.com/europe/2024/04/29/daniel-ek-salary-spoti...
https://musictech.com/news/industry/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-co...
Spotify is under constant fire due to its low royalty payout rates. Ditto reports that an artist receives $0.003 – $0.005 per stream on average, with 30 per cent of those royalties going to Spotify.
Spotify paid out $48 billion to the music industry, paid out $250 million to Joe Rogan and Spotify CEO Daniel Ek cashed out $118.9 million in shares - which combined with the rest of the Spotify executives totaled $250 million in stock sales.
Whereas:
https://www.wired.com/story/what-soundcloud-created-can-neve...
If Spotify is happy to brick hardware that customers paid good money for, then is it valid to ask if Spotify should be bricked?
Is Spotify doing good by its streamers?
Is Spotify a positive force for new music discovery and promoting promising talent, or is it embracing long tail effects to maximize its own profits and those of its cronies in the music industry?
How does the situation change if everyone cancels their Spotify membership in protest, or sells short the SPOT stock?
How does the situation change if the majority of shareholders and paying customers demand that the entire Spotify board is thrown out so that Spotify can be restructured in favor of streamers, employees and listeners?
Could a few hackers and makers, perhaps with the help of some benefactors who won the internet lottery, throw together a p2p app that negates the need for Spotify's existence?
Are any of these questions unreasonable, given the recent behavior of Spotify?
The predictable nature of all of this makes me wonder why the disruption model stops at a handful of people getting morbidly rich at everyone else's expense.
Just messaged their support team and was able to get a full refund.
"Bricking" should be a crime.-
@Spotify open source this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
n3xus_(2)
internet2000(3)
As a counter-point, back around 2008, I purchased two Squeezebox music players from Logitech (digital music players that Logitech had acquired from Slim Devices: high quality DACs that supported every audio format, gap-less playback, synchronised playing on multiple devices, and were very configurable).
They discontinued these products four years later (2012) but kept their mysqueezebox.com online service running up until the start of this year (2024). They kept the user forums running and archived the knowledge-base wiki. Most importantly, they open-sourced the stand-alone server software for running a local Squeezebox server and continued to pay the main developer to maintain the project for more than a decade after they discontinued the products. He’s still the lead developer and project maintainer of the server software, now called Lyrion Music Server: https://lyrion.org/
Correction: the stand-alone server software was always open source, specifically GPLv2. In addition to the audio quality and features, that was one of the selling points for me. It being written in Perl, meant that it was both cross-platform and easy to run on a GNU/Linux system.