Hacker News new | comments | apply | show | ask | jobs | submit login

He forgot to explain why they won't be refunding customers who were defrauded.



Because they weren't victims of fraud.

-----


I think you're right, and defraud is the wrong word, because fraud implies malicious intent. However, that's almost beside the point - many customers paid for the product that was advertised/documented and received something completely different. Whether or not it was intentional, it should be remediated rather than painted over.

Let's completely ignore the random vs. intelligent routing question for the moment and just talk about the New Relic analytics add-on. Heroku customers were paying ~$40 per month PER DYNO for this service. One of the most compelling things about New Relic is that it not only tracks average request time, but also breaks down this data into its components so developers can see which systems are slowing down their requests. Not only did it fail to report the queueing component, it failed to account for it in the total request time, meaning both values were wrong and basically useless.

I don't understand how Heroku can admit that the tools for which their customers paid obscene amounts of money were completely broken for two years straight and yet do nothing about it besides apologize. The fact that most customers did not realize it was broken does not mean it didn't cause real, tangible harm to their businesses.

It's hard to draw an analogy here since it's rare to use a product for so long without noticing it's not what you paid for, but I'll try - imagine you lease a car for two years. You can pay $500/month for the standard model with n tons of CO2 emissions/mile, or $800/month for a hybrid model with n/5 tons of emissions. You opt for the more expensive hybrid, but after driving the car around happily for two years, you pop the hood only to find that the company gave you the standard model. After complaining to the company, they apologize and give you the standard model. Wouldn't you expect them to also retroactively refund you $300/month for every month you paid for a product that you didn't receive? Does the fact that this was a genuine mistake, rather than an attempt to defraud, change your expectation for receiving a refund? It certainly wouldn't for me.

-----


Fair enough, and good analogy. As you said it's hard to make comparisons between physical goods and a metered software service.

The New Relic question is tricky. The free version of NR includes queue time, so that implies that the incremental value you're getting from the paid service does not include this. I'm also not sure how "this product you've gotten for free has a bug" fits into this equation. But overall, yes, NR is a product that is designed to give you visibility, and due to incorrect data being reported, some of that visibility wasn't there.

Therefore, we've given credits to people who have had substantial financial impact of the sort you describe. There aren't very many in this category and I believe we've already covered them all, but if you believe you're in this category please email me: adam at heroku dot com

-----


Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adam. FWIW, I think you guys provide a very valuable service & I wish you the best as you work through these issues.

-----


Is promising one service but delivering another not fraud?

Promises from the Heroku website pre-Rap Genius posts:

    "Incoming web traffic is automatically routed to web dynos, with intelligent distribution of load instantly"

    "Intelligent routing: The routing mesh tracks the availability of each dyno and balances load accordingly. Requests are routed to a dyno only once it becomes available. If a dyno is tied up due to a long-running request, the request is routed to another dyno instead of piling up on the unavailable dyno’s backlog."

    "Intelligent routing: The routing mesh tracks the location of all dynos running web processes (web dynos) and routes HTTP traffic to them accordingly."

    "the routing mesh will never serve more than a single request to a dyno at a time"
Actual service provided: requests are routed randomly to dynos regardless of how many requests they are currently handling or their current load.

-----


Your definition of fraud differs from most: "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

They weren't intentionally and purposefully misleading people. Not having docs up to date on your website, or you not knowing how the underlying backend works is not fraud.

As I've mentioned before if every AWS customer could sue Amazon for not understanding how all of the underlying tech worked, or could sue when some of the docs were out of date, there would be more lawyers working there than engineers.

-----


Also the misleading performance metrics which hid the fraud.

-----


Seems like false advertising at least.

-----


Even if that's true, you're just distracting from the main point. If I buy X from a company and they don't provide it, I expect a refund.

Like if I order a laptop from Dell and, oops, it gets lost in the mail, it's not okay to just say "oh, we changed our shipping company, so that should happen less in the future."

-----


Your example is extremely clear-cut, but doesn't match the situation with Heroku very closely. If Heroku promised an intelligent router, but then it was always down and never served you any requests, that would make your Dell example a good analogue.

A closer comparison might be: What if Dell shipped you a laptop that they advertised as having an SSD with really good performance (and they thought that was true, or at least they did when they wrote the ad for the laptop), and it turns out that for your workload the performance isn't so great? Would you expect a refund then?

-----


I think most people would expect a refund in that situation. However, wouldn't a better analogy be like if they advertised an SSD and shipped an HDD (allegedly without knowing the performance difference), and also the diagnostic tools that they shipped just happened to not report the additional latency (allegedly without knowing that it would be a problem)? Then customers had to figure out on their own that it actually was an HDD despite their documentation and diagnostic tools saying otherwise, after wasting tons of time trying to figure out why performance sucked?

-----


The same way Apple doesn't refund the buyers of iPhone 4, at the launch of an iPhone 5?

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: