
Google offers refunds after smart glasses stop working - AndrewDucker
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53581762
======
peterkelly
It's good they're providing refunds, but the decision to shut down whatever
service the glasses relied on in an excellent way to demonstrate "When you buy
a product from us, you can't trust that it's going for any given period of
time, and we'll just brick it when we get bored of it".

Google of course is famous for doing this with many of its products, but in
the long run this type of behavior can make it harder for startups to
introduce new products/services. Some customers will ask the question "So what
happens when you get acqui-hired in a year and your parent company decides to
shut down your service either immediately, or a year after they tell customers
that everything will continue unchanged?"

Of course the bigger lesson here is don't buy products which rely on a third-
party service to function.

~~~
dorkinspace
Stories like this are why I will never buy a product like Stadia from Google.
There is zero guarantee the product and games purchased on the platform will
be usable next month (exaggerating a bit) or next year.

This extends to all things Google. When building a new product, I push hard to
use any alternative to Google because the future of their products is so
uncertain. Sure, there are a few Google products that can be reasonably relied
upon, but that list is small.

~~~
abnry
I mean, do you ever doubt that Search, Gmail, or YouTube will ever get
shelved? Seems like only the niche things get binned.

~~~
dorkinspace
Those 3 along with maps, ads, and a handful of others make up the list of
"safe" Google products.

I agree with you though, it is the niche products that get shutdown. My point
is that being an early adopter of Google products is a very risky move. Until
a product is adopted by the masses and profitable, it should not be considered
safe.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Back in the day, I used to be all in on the Google bandwagon. I was in on
Wave, Buzz, Meebo and bunch of others. After a few years of cycling through
the standard phases:

1) Wow this is really cool

2) Wow I'm starting to use this everyday

3) Wow my friends should know about

4) Google is killing this

Once you get over the idea their killing something you started to rely on and
then you experience their "customer service" a few times you just wonder if
its actually about trying to make the world a better place, or just adding
revenue to their bottom line.

My conclusion a long time ago was not to use them for anything personal and
FFS nothing I would have my business rely on.

~~~
Izkata
Several years later, Wave was especially disappointing to me: It was Slack,
before Slack was a thing. They just didn't know how to market Wave, so no one
knew why it was useful.

If Wave was first released a couple years later, with identical functionality,
I think it would've done well.

------
adrianmonk
Odd use of the word "after" in the BBC News article's headline.

According to the official announcement ([https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360045128691-W...](https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360045128691-Winding-down-Focals)), the refunds started June 30th
and the glasses will stop working July 31st.

So in this case, "after" means "one month before".

\---

Incidentally, there is an issue of ambiguous/confusing phrasing in the
official announcement. It says "refunds will be given for all paid Focals
orders starting June 30th, 2020". This could be interpreted to mean (1) that
orders before June 30th will never be refunded or (2) that all orders will be
refunded and the process will start on June 30th.

However, the comments on a Reddit thread
([https://www.reddit.com/r/focals/comments/hjvgol/focals_refun...](https://www.reddit.com/r/focals/comments/hjvgol/focals_refund_info_page/))
show older orders were refunded and refunds started happening shortly after
June 30th, so interpretation #2 looks correct.

~~~
calcifer
> Odd use of the word "after" in the BBC News article's headline.

It's not odd, the word simply has multiple meanings. Here it means _in
accordance with_ , not subsequent.

[1] [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/after](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/after)

------
code4tee
At least they’re issuing the refunds. Have bought products from other startups
that went bust and they just send an email saying their product won’t work
after X date, have a nice day.

------
rootusrootus
Along with IoT devices, I think this is an area we need to see more clarity
and maybe regulation. When you buy a device that relies on a remote service,
then there should be a very upfront guarantee on how long it will work. Then
the customer can factor that information into how much they are willing to
pay.

~~~
lrnStats
You don't need to get the government involved. That destroys small business.
You can simply put a guaranteed to last/warranty timer on it.

Heck when we were doing our IOT device we left an offline mode.

~~~
plorntus
Forgive my ignorance on the subject but if it's not government mandated then
what's stopping them from going bankrupt and not respecting the guarantee?

If they set aside no money to keep the promise then they physically cannot do
anything about it when they run out of cash to keep the external services
running.

~~~
lrnStats
Sure bankruptcy exists, but that doesn't apply to big companies. Not sure a
regulation can even fix that.

~~~
plorntus
True, big companies would be able to continue the guarantee but if all
companies are not forced to set aside some 'contingency' money in the event of
failure to keep the services running would you trust them to keep their end of
the bargain?

Would that not hurt the smaller companies more since you'd be less likely to
purchase from them as theres nothing in place to say they must keep their
promises?

Edit: Not saying it shouldn't be an option not to provide the guarantee, just
maybe there should be something saying if they do provide it then they must
keep their end of the deal in the event of bankruptcy

~~~
paledot
Even (especially?) oil companies can't be persuaded to set aside money to
clean up their own damn wells, or at least their governments can't be
persuaded to make them pay. We have zero chance here.

------
Apocryphon
Yet another incredible journey ends in the Google graveyard.

~~~
hu3
That's quite unfortunate. At least Google Glasses are still going strong in
the enterprise sector and it's great!

[https://youtu.be/habz0xdysoM?t=126](https://youtu.be/habz0xdysoM?t=126)

~~~
myko
That's Google Glass, an entirely different product.

The glasses that are being discontinued / refunded are from a startup "North"
which Google recently purchased.

~~~
AmericanChopper
To be fair, North was going down the drain whether Google purchased them or
not. Goog clearly just saw some assets that they thought were worth acquiring.

------
cargo8
It's really odd that this is making the media rounds now, granted this is the
most fair headline I've seen on it to date.

The fact that Focals v2 were being cancelled, and that all customers would
receive refunds for their existing purchase was announced with the acquisition
months ago...

------
neallindsay
This is a very misleading title.

~~~
arprocter
Yeah, "stop working" implies the glasses broke due to a glitch

They are pulling the plug

------
nikanj
Sucks for people who bought second-hand glasses

~~~
oh_sigh
Is there any legal obligation Google has to 2nd hand owners of these glasses,
or is it just a kind gesture that they're refunding everyone?

I have to wonder what kind of secret sauce north had if they refund 100% of
the revenue from the company after acquiring....unless they only sold a few
units and this was just an acquihire

~~~
jsnell
The HN discussion from when the sale was announced [0] might be of interest.
It definitely didn't sound like a company being bought for the product, and
might not even have been an acquihire.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690967)

~~~
908B64B197
It was a patent acquisition. North had originally purchased patents from Intel
when they abandoned their Vaunt project. [0]. From what I've been told the
reason they are shutting down the existing glasses is because they won't be
hiring from the company. The founders were also not hired as part of the deal.

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/19/intel-abandons-vaunt-
smart...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/19/intel-abandons-vaunt-smart-
glasses-project/)

------
mips_avatar
With the cloud as the middleware for smart-device syncing, there should be
more user control and ownership of the service.

~~~
hedora
The AGPL is designed to guarantee that end users can stand up their own cloud
services.

Maybe after enough nerds get bitten by IoT, some will band together and build
compelling AGPL infrastructure to support future products.

Most of these things are just a standard dumb device with a standard SoC wired
in. I imagine there are plenty of smaller product integrators that just want
to sell a widget and don’t care about software differentiation.

This is what happened in the 80’s and 90’s with PC clones. It only takes a
slip up (like the PC BIOS and DOS) from one incumbent player, and then the
consumers will win.

------
aspenmayer
Wow, this seems extreme... not in keeping with the First Sale Doctrine.

> At the end of June, North announced it was being acquired by Google, and
> would not release a planned second-generation device. It also said it would
> "wind down" its first generation smart glasses, released last year.

> Customers found out that meant the smart glasses would be rendered "dumb"
> through a statement published on the company's website[1] and by email.

[1] [https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360045128691-W...](https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360045128691-Winding-down-Focals)

~~~
oh_sigh
I doubt it is being rendered dumb by, say, putting a different firmware on it.
It probably just absolutely needs occasional or constant internet connectivity
to their servers to work, and Google is shutting them down.

~~~
aspenmayer
Do you know of alternate firmware for smart glasses? I’ve done some firmware
patching before, but in the very much tool assisted way. I’m kind of bristling
with anticipation with what could be possible with access to the firmware. Do
you know much about these particular AR glasses, what software they could run,
and how firmware could help? Other than keeping them from being bricked, I
mean.

------
monksy
It looks like there were alternatives that were being created, which is pretty
awesome.

[https://www.slant.co/options/5650/alternatives/~google-
glass...](https://www.slant.co/options/5650/alternatives/~google-glass-
alternatives)

Shame we'll never see specialized apps that show off it's uniqueness. (Most
applications are built towards phones and watches, tablets, and other
equipment is considered to be a much more limited interface)

------
musingsole
I've followed North since they were Thalmic Labs manufacturing the Myo
armband. They seemed to have good ideas but no real way to create the
ecosystem a new device needs to actually be useful. The myo was super fun and
I dreamt about what I could do with it...but never got around to making
anything. It seems the rest of the ecosystem didn't either. So, now Myo and
North glasses go down the drain...

At least I can still play with my Myo's whenever the mood takes me.

------
X6S1x6Okd1st
"But not all people who invest in startups will be that lucky."

Purchasing a widget from a company is not investing. Cut the bullshit.

Customers don't have the commensurate upside.

It's kind of wild that Google is pulling this kind of shit when they are
getting grilled about whether the us should take a more expansive view of
antitrust.

They ruined an independent product because they wanted the people that made it
to work on their shit instead.

------
traverseda
Anyone got a pair they want to sell cheap? There's some interesting hardware
and it would be fun to do a teardown.

------
aarpmcgee
What about the waste in natural resources to nonchalantly brick a bunch of
devices? Google is responsible for this.

~~~
smabie
In your opinion, how long should Google run the cloud infra for these glasses
to work?

~~~
aarpmcgee
I have no opinion on that. My larger concern is this ecosystem that continues
to produce tech garbage. At some point, we'll all have to reckon with it.

------
kraig911
Only fools trust google at this point. It's just not worth it to ever at all
invest in anything esp GCP. I look at my past investments of time and energy
and tell literally EVERYONE I KNOW to look elsewhere.

~~~
gerash
what are you talking about? how is gcp even relevant here? Apple acquired a
weather app (DarkSky) and promptly killed their Android app. Do you, based on
your logic, think someone who was planning to buy an ipad is now going to
think twice?

------
sm4rk0
I don't share Mr Wood's point of view:

"But not all people who invest in startups will be that lucky."

He's downplaying the bad news. I'd still be mad if this happened to me, even
with full refund.

------
dghughes
It would be like buying a TV and your cable subscription runs our making the
TV useless. Even though the hardware is OK it's the back end that failed not
the hardware.

------
mensetmanusman
Electronic goods disappearing and turning into money piles. Wish this happened
to everything after a couple years.

------
Tepix
So, has anyone tried to get the glasses to use servers other than Google's?

------
dyingkneepad
So they managed to kill Google Reader twice?

------
Animats
"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

Perhaps this will be brought up in the current antitrust hearings. Buying a
competitor and shutting them down is often viewed as restraint of trade.

------
lrnStats
I've been BamboGoogled Enough to be done with this company.

On one hand Google is the lesser evil between M$ and Apple. But they are not
reliable.

Not sure if anything in tech is really good long term unless you DIY. Not sure
how I can DIY a phone in any reliable or secure way.

~~~
badRNG
> On one hand Google is the lesser evil between M$ and Apple.

While I acknowledge this is certainly a highly subjective perspective, it is
rare that I hear of Google being "less evil" than Apple. What either redeems
Google or condemns Apple in your point of view?

