Comment by cmeacham98 3 days ago
> Events outside our control, such as Apple updating the firmware in the future to prevent the device from working, will not qualify for a refund.
I fully understand why you would want to do this, but as a consumer I would never buy this product with this clause.
sure but you've acknowledged that your product is something that Apple considers bad and could shut it down. that can usually be overlooked for things like emulation, but you've developed a product that does something Apple specifically added protections against after they learned of its dangerous misuse
> sure but you've acknowledged that your product is something that Apple considers bad
No. Everyone that builds projects inside someone else's ecosystem is subject to this. Even companies that like what your are doing might break it if they aren't specifically testing against your product.
That does not read as "something that Apple considers bad" but rather "something that Apple COULD consider bad"
A reasonable solution would be to get to buy the newer model half-off if this happens. Obviously the maker can’t just have his entire biz nuked with refunds if Apple happens to update firmware.
I think you have your priorities wrong. Why should an unsustainable business be prioritized over consumer benefit?
Nobody has a right to a successful business but when consumers can trust their purchases they are more likely to make additional purchases.
I felt like adding that disclaimer was a nice thing to do, informing the customer and letting them make their own decision. It makes almost no difference to remove that disclaimer (well, it would increase sales). it is not to protect myself. The price is very low and margin is very thin, what happens if Apple bricks the device? There would be very little money left to refund the customers, and most of the refunds would be eaten by transaction fees. Is it worth it for the customers to receive a few cents back? And that's assuming I keep all the money in the company and don't pay myself.
No. The product in this case relies on unintended functionality in a specific firmware version of an Apple device that is specifically designed to not be suitable for this application. In this case it is the add-on device that is not offering refunds if it stops working.
I understand your point. In this case the price point makes this a bearable risk, especially to protect much more valuable items. A refund is only useful if only a certain % of people have issue or the company is big. Since this is my only product, an Airtag update that bricks the devices would just bankrupt the company and make me unable to refund most people as my margin is very low anyway.