IoT Garage Door Opener Maker Bricks Customer's Product After Bad Review (arstechnica.com) 421
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Denis Grisak, the man behind the Internet-connected garage opener Garadget, is having a very bad week. Grisak and his Colorado-based company SoftComplex launched Garadget, a device built using Wi-Fi-based cloud connectivity from Particle, on Indiegogo earlier this year, hitting 209 percent of his launch goal in February. But this week, his response to an unhappy customer has gotten Garadget a totally different sort of attention. On April 1, a customer who purchased Garadget on Amazon using the name R. Martin reported problems with the iPhone application that controls Garadget. He left an angry comment on the Garadget community board: "Just installed and attempting to register a door when the app started doing this. Have uninstalled and reinstalled iPhone app, powered phone off/on - wondering what kind of piece of shit I just purchased here..." Shortly afterward, not having gotten a response, Martin left a 1-star review of Garadget on Amazon: "Junk - DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY - iPhone app is a piece of junk, crashes constantly, start-up company that obviously has not performed proper quality assurance tests on their products." Grisak then responded by bricking Martin's product remotely, posting on the support forum: "Martin, The abusive language here and in your negative Amazon review, submitted minutes after experiencing a technical difficulty, only demonstrates your poor impulse control. I'm happy to provide the technical support to the customers on my Saturday night but I'm not going to tolerate any tantrums. At this time your only option is return Garadget to Amazon for refund. Your unit ID 2f0036... will be denied server connection."
Musk did this too (Score:3, Informative)
When someone posted details about upcoming firmware online.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof please?
Re: Musk did this too (Score:5, Insightful)
This device is not a garage door opener. It's an add-on for one, which connects it to the internet so you can check on the status of your door from a phone app (in case you're worried you forgot to close it).
The company disabled the cloud access to this guy's device, rendering it completely useless for the only thing it's good for. The customer couldn't get remote access working anyway, but that's the only thing that device is for! So instead of fixing his issue, they locked him out of using his own device (maybe some friend could have gotten it working for him), all because he posted a bad review. If you can't see why this is wrong on many levels, I can't help you.
Re: Musk did this too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The manufacturer is an idiot, market a device that functions by connecting to the internet through the WiFi in the customer's house from the garage, what could go wrong, just everything. The disgruntled customer probably has a detached garage that's sheathed with metal foil backed fiberboard, then a steel garage door and doesn't even know the WiFi drops out when the garage door is closed.
Re: Musk did this too (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The device was bricked. The device is utterly unusable without the cloud account that it's linked to, so that's no different than "bricking".
No, making something that someone paid for unusable, after the sale, is NOT justified, ever, for anything. If you want to decline to provide further support because of abusive language, that's fine, even if that means they can't figure out how to get it working on their own, but that's very different from bricking it, which is utterly spiteful.
Re: Musk did this too (Score:5, Insightful)
No, making something that someone paid for unusable, after the sale, is NOT justified, ever, for anything.
Uh, Samsung Note 7?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just replied to a comment ending in "but lets not confuse what actually happened" by adding pure speculation on something that may have never happened???
Then finish by saying: "I know what Garadget I'm never going to buy."
- Never go full retard
What's the TOS say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's the TOS say? (Score:5, Funny)
Did the guy agree that his device can be disabled at any time and the server side service is not a given?
In the click-through EULA? Go ahead, be an asshole.
Re:What's the TOS say? (Score:5, Funny)
He agreed that the manufacturer can sneak in the middle of the night and harvest his, and his family's organs, of their ISP hasn't already gotten them first.
That EULA probably also said that they have no liability if they knowingly and deliberately remotely open his garage door when they specifically know he is not home.
Oh, the joy of EULAs.
. . . and Ballmer took Linus onto a high mountain and showeth him all the CPUs of the world and said "these can all be yours if you simply bow down and click I AGREE to my EULA."
Re: (Score:3)
There's an exception in copyright law for transferring the program to memory to use it.
See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 [cornell.edu]
Re:What's the TOS say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? It was a dick move regardless of what the EULA says.
Re: (Score:3)
We need some new consumer rights laws.
1. Services necessary for any functionality must be supplied for at least two years after the date of purchase. There would need to be a "sell by date" to handle old stock. Loss of service will be treated as a design defect, i.e. warranty repair or (partial) refund.
2. Any user data associated with such services must be made available to the owner when the service ends, either by end of subscription or the service shutting down.
3. Security flaws to be treated as dangero
Re: (Score:3)
EULAs are not contracts after all. In the EU, the manufacturer would be taken to court for actions like this, and in Ireland and the UK, there would be interesting repercussions on the manufacturer for this.
In short EULAs are not worth the paper they are printed on...
Meh... (Score:2)
Yeah, Strisand, blah, blah, blah... But seriously, right after "People Think Smart Home Tech is Too Expensive"? Wonder why? Crap implementations by people that counldn't care less about security (but obviously should know better), and than douche bages like this who don't know about customer service because they've never been out of their mom's basement? Nope, I'll wait a few years...
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief, my spelling! It burns!
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Funny)
It's cruel to make porpoises have to use a garage door remote. They don't even have fingers to use the phone app.
So they need to use a flipper phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, it matches your chosen username well ;)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't buy anything that relies on an app for full functionality. These fly by night startups have a good chance of either going out of business or abandoning old models within a year or two. Stuff for my house needs to last 10 years bare minimum, ideally with zero fiddling, re-configuring, firmware upgrading, or other jack-assery.
Light switches fit that bill just great, so far apps don't have anything remotely close to that functionality to maintenance ratio.
Found the LUDDITE! (Score:3, Funny)
ONLY apps can app apps, NOT LUDDITE software!
Apps!
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
But then there are multiple security issues too. Including a hacker getting code into a device in your home, thus getting a beach head, no mater how well your firewall is configured.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I always heard "Plays for Sure" in Val: "Plays? Fer Sure!".
Nice job . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice job . . . (Score:5, Funny)
(Garage Door Operation As a Service--GDOAAS?)
My internal 12-year-old prefers Garage Opening Now A Delivered Service (GONADS).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
...Garage Opening Now A Delivered Service (GONADS).
Or, if you're dumb enough to have your garage door opener controlled by some unaccountable third party, "Garage Opening Now A Denied Service (GONADS)."
Re:Nice job . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Garage Light and Door Opening Service (GLaDOS), making a note here, huge success.
Re:Nice job . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . . . . reminding us that those buying IoT devices don't own anything useful, and that your f**cking GARAGE DOOR OPENER could be dependent not only on Internet connectivity but the continued willingness of a service provider (Garage Door Operation As a Service--GDOAAS?) to provide service, at whatever cost they deem fit. I'll leave my light bulbs, refrigerator, door locks, garage door opener, and thermostat off the Internet, thank you very much.
Worse than being dependent on it - any operator who's this publicly petty shouldn't really be trusted with the option of opening any of their customers' doors whenever they feel like it either.
Re:Nice job . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
IoT Refrigerator: Dave, my internet connection was lost earlier today so I shut down. I took the liberty to reorder everything that has perished inside, in duplicate quantities.
IoT Garage Door Opener: Dave, your account has been flagged as unpaid as it was due 2 hours previous to now. This change in payment policy took effect 4 hours 19 minutes previous to now. Dave, I understand you would like to park your car in the garage today. However, I'm afraid I can't allow that Dave. It is urgent you pay this balance, Dave. I also must suggest you not attempt parking your vehicle on the street as you do not have a parking permit and I will be forced to notify the authorities.
Why are we going down the road?
Re:Nice job . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Whether you are after smart light bulbs, thermostats or garage door openers, there are acceptable alternatives that work well, do not need the internet to function, and respect your rights and privacy.
This is factually wrong in this case. The whole point of this device is to allow you to control your garage door from far away, over the internet. I don't think I should have to explain why having an internet connection would be necessary for this to work.
Also, while it is possible for devices to respect you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Buddy of mine at work had one of his garage door openers fail. Guess what happens when it fails? It opens up the garage door because that's the smart thing to do right? Fail-open all the stuff
Because having it fail locked would probably be a fire code violation.
IOT good. IOT + forced shit BAD! (Score:2)
IOT is great but I'll keep out until companies understand I do not want a device that connects to thier server only and probablyu at a subscription.
But it's getting easier and easier to do your own these days with lots of great kits around, so I'm sure I'll be fine.
Anyone stupid enough to trust some small startup (or indeed megacorp) will get what they deserve.
Re:IOT good. IOT + forced shit BAD! (Score:5, Insightful)
IOT is not great. The idea that billions of tiny insecure computers are all connected to the same public internet is absurd. Not to mention, everything is controlled through "the cloud" and service for a piece of hardware you bought could be terminated at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
And virtually all home networks these days are connected to the internet, even if only tangentially.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of this thing (as I understand it) is to give you access to your garage door from far away, over the internet. Having a locally-connected networked device that can't access the internet would make this impossible.
I agree that giving vendors access to your devices through some cloud interface is very dangerous, but I'm not sure what the alternative is unless you're going to roll your own.
Re:IOT good. IOT + forced shit BAD! (Score:5, Insightful)
what purpose does this app serve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than a method to allow a hacker unauthorized access to your home, why on god's green earth would you need a wifi powered garage door opener *for your phone*, when the tried and true RF based ones have been around for decades?
i'm 34; am i too old to understand why people would want clownshit crazy things like this?
Re:what purpose does this app serve? (Score:5, Funny)
Basically, you get a txt msg from your wife saying that her clicker broke, please remotely open the garage door. So you open it. Then later you find out your wife's phone was stole by a thief, along with the contents of your garage and house, and that you never had a wife in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm 37 and likewise have no idea. reading this article just makes me punch the proprietor in the face for his condescending attitude, and then smack the purchaser for being a schmuck.
at this point, i think "advanced" western society is just bored and looking for ways to complicate things. maybe i'm just old, but if you want a glimpse of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Only advantage I can see is that you don't need to leave remotes in the cars anymore since you have a multifunction device in your pocket that can perform that service. If someone breaks into your car they can't get the tools needed to easily gain access to your garage and possibly your home.
Now, if I were designing this system for myself, I'd just put it on my home network and when I get home and my phone associates with my wireless then I could control it without having to go "to the cloud". Granted, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had problems with that with varous SCADA devices too. I'm about ready to start shutting off ports if I find these manufacturers' MAC addresses on the wrong VLAN.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of several reasons.
1) Package delivery. Sometimes you can't ship it to work, and you don't want to have the item sit on your doorstep for hours attracting unwanted attention. Remo
Re: (Score:2)
why on god's green earth would you need a wifi
Products, even crap ones come from a perceived need. I'm not sure why you are asking a bunch of people who don't have one this question rather than going to the website linked in the summary where the reasons people would want one is explained in the opening paragraph.
i'm 34; am i too old to understand
No you're not. you could understand just right. What you are is stuck in a "we've always done it like this mentality" combined with rose tinted glasses of what "like this" actually meant. If someone wasn't sick of the RF opener they wouldn't h
Re: (Score:2)
why on god's green earth would you need a wifi powered garage door opener *for your phone*, when the tried and true RF based ones have been around for decades?
Obviously so you don't need to have another thing that can be lost or left in the house; pretty much the same reason I use my phone instead of my old online banking security token. Using a phone isn't a bad idea per se, but having it connected via a third party is lazy design (can't really say malicious when all it does is open a door) and just asking for trouble. The alternative, however, is to have a static IP or something that can pass for one, which isn't easily done by most people.
Yes, the guy threw a
Re: (Score:2)
In the general case, IP can be a universal automation technology without running new wires or worrying about signaling protocols.
You know, your phone comes into range between 1700 and 1900 after having not been seen for 4+ hours, your garage door gets opened, a lighting and music scene is enabled, one of those freezer-to-table cookers turns on, the heat/AC adjusts to the habitable zone, the doggy door unlocks, the kitchen PC gets a WoL packet, etc.
It's very SciFi other than SciFi almost always forgetting ab
Re: (Score:2)
One reason to have it is if it has a sensor that knows if the door is open. People have been known to go on trips and forget to put the door down as they drive off. (it happened to the people across the street from me about 2 months ago!) So not only can they confirm that they left the door open, they can also tell it to close from hundreds of miles away.
Hint: it's not so much an internet-connected garage door opener as it is an internet-connected garage door closer.
Re: (Score:3)
Just knowing when your garage door opens and closes is enough to let a thief know when you are not home.
But if Elon Musk does it... (Score:2, Funny)
Then it's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to be more specific.
Did someone leave a Tesla a bad review and was told suddenly they won't be able to drive their car anymore and to go push it to the nearest shop for a refund?
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to be more specific.
Did someone leave a Tesla a bad review and was told suddenly they won't be able to drive their car anymore and to go push it to the nearest shop for a refund?
When Elon unilaterally canceled an order for a Model X [fortune.com] of a self proclaimed Tesla enthusiast who complained in a blog about a disorganized customer event where he didn't get a chance to sit in the car, that person didn't even get to drive it in the first place and thus didn't need a refund.
The lesson here is that it's okay to diss past and potential future customers, but not current customers, right?
Re:But if Elon Musk does it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Refusing to do business with someone for reasons outside of the various protected classes is a choice a business can make. In a lot of cases that's a bad choice since your competitors who don't do that will have a bigger market of potential buyers. However, sometimes a customer can be unprofitable and it might make sense. You'll note that land lords do this all the time, as do credit card companies - though they do have some clear not-generic-business reasons. Some restaurants will often refuse service to people who don't meet a dress code. Many stores will refuse to do business with someone who is abusive to their staff. And so on.
However, destroying the product that you have already sold to someone is an entirely different matter. That really should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Firing a potential customer is way different than bricking a purchased and delivered device over a customer service dispute.
Not saying Musk was in the right there either, but these two situations are not even remotely similar.
If you're going to have a go at Telsa, then also have a go at Ferrari for blacklisting Chris Harris from purchasing Ferraris after his negative reviews. Which of course now that Harris is on Top Gear with all the attendant visibility, Ferrari insists that it was all a misunderstanding
Re: (Score:2)
Link? Would be interested to see the news on that and what fallout there was from him remotely killing a car...
Re: (Score:2)
This is why... (Score:2)
This is why I don't buy ANYTHING that requires some connection to some service provider to control the device. If I cannot control it locally, without the manufacturer's servers up and my network connected to the internet, it doesn't come home. If the manufacturer wants to give me remote access to my stuff, I get that it is easiest to do this using a remote server, but if I cannot get to it locally, it doesn't get installed in my home.
Buyer Beware! (Score:2)
But but it is in the cloud... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant Move! (Score:2)
And this is why you don't buy cloud reliant tech (Score:2)
Cloud capabilities should be an add-on not required. I should be able to directly connect via IP(or DDNS) to my device from my phone or computer and control it.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal directly with homeowners on stuff like this all the time, They complain when they have to do work like that or remember stuff like that. its pretty funny because the only other option is stuff like this. but you cant tell them that, as most of them have no idea how the internet or computers work. they just know that they do.
Destruction of property (Score:2)
So this guy admitted to destroying another person's property? What a dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have blamed military planes flying overhead.
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/air-force-frequency-jams-denver-garage-door-openers [homelandse...wswire.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He cut off the unit's service and told the customer they can get a refund.
Nothing was destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, when you return something for a refund, the vendor can repackage it and sell it again, if not for the same price. If the customer does return it for a refund, it's likely to be resold to someone who won't realize the device is permanently disabled. It looks here like the asshole has decided that Amazon can pay for the device and get nothing.
IoT (Score:5, Funny)
Internet of Tantrums.
I'm not exactly seeing the problem. (Score:2)
I see your tamtrum... (Score:2)
...and raise you a poorly thought out reactive measure that will make people avoid the product as the plague that it truly is.
Where's the FCC? (Score:4, Interesting)
This kind of retaliation is no different from a cellphone service provider jamming your RF signal. The FCC (if we still had one) should step in and either fine the manufacturer for retaliatory misbehavior, or punitively shut down their internet access for a nominal period (at least a week) for abusing the privilege of being online.
Doing this periodically would send a really constructive message to many others who routinely abuse others on the net, be they bad businesses or just trolls. Access to the net is a privilege, not a right.
Re: (Score:3)
Similar.... (Score:3)
There was another one like this recently... a ham radio software maker. The software "Ham Radio Deluxe" was rendered useless through an authentication server if the customer left a bad review. Since ham radio call signs were used as the product key, they simply banned a call sign in their server.
No matter who dies it- it's very bad karma.
Was a crime or a tort committed? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't figured out what law yet, but I get the feeling that blocking all functionality of a customer's electronic device out of spite, and specifically a device for access control to a dwelling, might not have been a legal act. There might be penalties under civil or criminal law.
I'd cut more slack for an Open Source developer who simply refused to help the user because of abusive language, since that developer isn't being paid and the user didn't pay anyone for the software or service. But to lock out a paid customer...
I think you misused the term Bricking (Score:3)
Screw up a firmware update resulting in a device that can not be recovered (short of using jtag or something similar), that is a bricked device.
Removing access to a critical part of a service for a product you own, just results in a useless product, but it is not bricked.
Get off my lawn! (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm old enough I don't get it either. The only reason I can imagine my garage door being attached as an IoT, is to tell me I left it open, and to close it. Or it was opened by RF and I wasn't expecting it to. The IoT doesn't need to open my garage. Too much of a physical security risk. (RF can be the same way, but we've given up on that for a long, long time.)
I can see very limited reasons to be able to open my garage door, or front door, or side door, or whatever, remotely, over the internet.
this is why I don't do cloud connected anything (Score:3)
far too easy to spend money and have it be useless
A point of clarification... (Score:4, Informative)
Now that constitutes removing the primary function advertised/sold to the customer which legally he doesn't have the right to do unless: 1. The customer has been fully refunded + any damage caused in using his product. 2. The customer is committing acts that harm the functionality of the devices for others. 3. The customer has been proven a public threat through use of the services (basically a superset of 2). This business is probably sunk and will harm (and this is perhaps a good thing) the IoT business sector in general because people are finally becoming aware what installing IoT (I like to pronounce "idiot") devices for security in their homes; The provider of the 3rd party server could lock them out, let others in, all sorts of stuff. But I digress.
The customer can sue the manufacturer/service provider because he withdrew the core component before refunding him. That is a classic breach of contract. This business is probably finished because the owner has not only shown poor judgement, lack of legal knowledge and a serious emotional impulse control problem, but in addition to all this, a lawsuit could well bankrupt him. And the evidence is on the Internet for all to see. (and he even admitted it on the Internet...)
Re:Sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes the customer is wrong
Sometimes a company should hire a blond Customer Service Lady that is unfailingly polite.
Re:Sometimes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing the customer is _always_ right about is whether the customer is happy.
If he'd personally reached out to the customer, and fixed his problem, the customer would be on Amazon with all 5s.
Maybe, maybe not - unprovable either way.
Re: (Score:3)
The customer is always right.
That depends. The general public are assholes, and are very wrong very regularly. Walmart will regularly escort unruly customers out the door and politely request they never return, or at least recommend that they do "shop at Target from now on" when the customer suggests that's what they will do. Because they can afford to lose a customer or two and negative reviews aren't likely to have a huge impact on the company.
Now a small start up that has one product? You better be down your your knees servici
Re: (Score:2)
I can rant at Leviton all do long and they can do nothing to brick my light bulbs and dumb switches. House functionality should not be subject to remote temper tantrums.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes the customer is angry because their product does indeed not work, and doesn't get a timely resolution from the manufacturer.
Sometimes both people are assholoes.
FWIW, I'm not going to buy an IoT garage door opener that can be turned off at a whim of the manufacturer.
Re:Sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. When I replaced the old, malfunctioning opener on my shop I went with a unit that's capable of being connected to the Internet (Liftmaster "MyQ" technology) but I didn't even use the components of the system designed for this purpose. Instead I continued to use a Genie trigger and doorbell button to activate the door from inside the shop.
We had a garage door problem on a different door and needed to call a service tech in to resolve it quickly. When he saw how I'd rigged my Liftmaster he literally said, "you can do that?!" Apparently Liftmaster has been in the habit of not disclosing that the doors can be operated without the MyQ stuff.
Re:Sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
My girlfriend had this opinion when running a coffee stand in a shopping centre. If a customer complained there would be one chance to remake the coffee. If they complained again they got there few dollars back along with a "We can't make a coffee to suit you. Go find someone who can and don't come back. We won't do any better tomorrow and we have other customers to serve".
Difference is, a good quality high volume low cost product that people line up for and sells in the thousands per day allows you to tell a few customers to go screw themselves. An expensive low-volume emerging product still heavily reliant on word of mouth does not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the customer is legitimately throwing a tantrum, there are still better and worse ways of responding. The company in this case could have continued trying to help in the hopes of fixing the problem and getting the guy to change his review. Or it could have been polite about offering a refund, waiving restocking fees, etc. Throwing its own tantrum in response to a customer tantrum is neither productive nor likely to generate good publicity. Instead, it's likely to make people think the customer m
No soup for you! (Score:3)
Come back one year!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but the way you handle that is not by cutting of your nose to spite your face. All any other potential customer is gonna see is an unhinged asshole is the public face of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
True. and sometimes the Seller is wrong - and more of a shmuck than the owner.
He bought the device, the Seller should have zero legal authority over it afterwards. They had no business bricking it, and any license/contract they claim allowed it is a vile, despicable abuse of capitalism and should be declared invalid - just as a contract to enslave a human being is invalid, or a contract to sell large quantities of ivory.
If it went to court, I hope the seller would lose, but I doubt it is worth the money i
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the seller can be prosecuted for essentially hacking/tampering for disabling the device. I think they probably should.
Re: (Score:3)
If the seller is simply denying access to a server, that's legal unless specified otherwise. That's the problem with buying something that requires somebody else's servers to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the customer is wrong
The customer had an opinion, and voiced it, based on his personal experience with the product.
What was truly wrong here is a manufacturer who chose to retaliate in the worst possible way.
To which I say fuck that shit. Asshat vendor deserves to have his business license pulled for that, especially after criticizing a customer about impulse control.
As consumers, we cannot tolerate this bullshit. I promise you manufacturer arrogance will spread far and wide if you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And plenty of reason to think he would. Plus, this illustrates that if his company goes under, your shiny garage door opener is now useless.
So, just no.