I’m still not sure what it was supposed to do that a watch linked to a phone wouldn’t be able to once the tech caught up.
Why would anyone need such a device.
Why would anyone need such a device.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Humane's $700 Ai Pin Discontinued and Defunct After Less Than 1 Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually saw a dude wearing this at an event for one of my daughter’s activities. I was surprised that anyone fell for it. This thing was obviously DOA. The worst bit is companies that launch like this, don’t deliver and basically scam people, have no repercussions, no refunds, and then just fail upward. Patent law needs an overhaul because whatever Humane had shouldn’t be worth ten bucks.
Not sure about the US, you guys have no protection of anyone or anything, but if they sold the pin in the EU, they warranty of 2 years applies to any IT product, making them liable.
I’m sure the developer behind this will be made Minister Of Fancy Lapel Pins in the current administration.
Not surprised of course. Maybe for their next project (you know it’s coming…) they could try to do the complete opposite of every decision they made. I liked their original goal.
Humane deserve some praise for at least trying to break the smartphone mould. Clearly the market was not yet ready for a TNG comm badge just yet. The battery tech alone wasn’t up to scratch. It had some good ideas, notably the dot matrix projector display.
It’s just that the smartwatch format is so much better placed to be the device they were hoping.
It’s just that the smartwatch format is so much better placed to be the device they were hoping.
This illustrates again all companies need exit strategies when they discontinue operations.
If they build production plants, flood the market with products that become obsolete or do something that harm the environment, then that company needs to be held accountable indefinitely.
At the least, Humane AI should have the obligation and budgets to recall these devices and dispose of them.
If they build production plants, flood the market with products that become obsolete or do something that harm the environment, then that company needs to be held accountable indefinitely.
At the least, Humane AI should have the obligation and budgets to recall these devices and dispose of them.
HP definitely let their product portfolio get far tooooooo broad. Definitely a company that cares more about wide product selection than laser-focused product quality. I hope Apple doesn't turn into that lost soul one day (again).
Agreed, but electronics recycling has become a fairly mature industry in many markets. Here in Canada, at least in BC, every bottle depot also accepts electronics. No questions asked. There's zero zero zero excuse for anybody to throw electronics in the garbage, ever!
Humane made the wrong call in trying to bet against wearable screens. It’s not about the market being ready or not. Their fate was sealed even before a single device was shipped.
In California, any product sold by a company has to provide repair or replacement services for 7 years.
Its reasons like this that I wish the law was extended to require all backend servers and APIs required for a hardware device’s functionality to continue to function properly for 7 years after the discontinuation date, or otherwise be forced to open source and release, and unlock the entire service, firmware.
Also, products with SOCs should have JTAG/UART connectivity upon disassembly.
Its reasons like this that I wish the law was extended to require all backend servers and APIs required for a hardware device’s functionality to continue to function properly for 7 years after the discontinuation date, or otherwise be forced to open source and release, and unlock the entire service, firmware.
Also, products with SOCs should have JTAG/UART connectivity upon disassembly.
We ve moved from owning durable objects to being permanently tied to manufacturers through subscriptions, proprietary software, and mandatory connectivity.
In the past, when you bought something, it was yours fully functional and independent. Today, even physical products are often sold as services: you dont truly own them, you just have a temporary right to use them under conditions set by the manufacturer. If a company decides to shut down a server, stop updates, or increase prices, there is nothing you can do.
My car from 1971 still runs without needing permission from its maker. My 40-year-old computer still turns on and works exactly as it did decades ago. Old remote-controlled cars from childhood can still be given to the next generation with just fresh AAA standard batteries. But modern technology is designed for obsolescence.
Products are no longer built to last. An Apple Watch, for example, wont function after a decades, the battery will be non-replaceable, the software outdated and insecure, and it wont be compatible with new iPhones. Even traditional items like bicycles have changed. A classic bike could be passed down and repaired indefinitely, while today’s e-bikes are full of proprietary components that are difficult or impossible to fix; modern toys uses proprietary batteries that will not exist next 40 years, unlike AAA.
We have moved from an era of durable goods to one of disposable products, and now to a world where we dont even own what we buy. Instead, we are merely paying for access, that can be revoked, altered, or made more expensive at any time. This shift is frustrating because it eliminates true ownership. Instead of buying something once and using it freely, we are trapped in a system of dependency where everything is controlled by the companies that produce it.
Maybe I am just old, because I see that younger generations actually seem to appreciate this shift. They tell me, But today you get updates! A product can improve over time.Maybe so, but beyond the fact that its usable lifespan is still far shorter than before, I think: the price of updates is eternal captivity.
In the past, when you bought something, it was yours fully functional and independent. Today, even physical products are often sold as services: you dont truly own them, you just have a temporary right to use them under conditions set by the manufacturer. If a company decides to shut down a server, stop updates, or increase prices, there is nothing you can do.
My car from 1971 still runs without needing permission from its maker. My 40-year-old computer still turns on and works exactly as it did decades ago. Old remote-controlled cars from childhood can still be given to the next generation with just fresh AAA standard batteries. But modern technology is designed for obsolescence.
Products are no longer built to last. An Apple Watch, for example, wont function after a decades, the battery will be non-replaceable, the software outdated and insecure, and it wont be compatible with new iPhones. Even traditional items like bicycles have changed. A classic bike could be passed down and repaired indefinitely, while today’s e-bikes are full of proprietary components that are difficult or impossible to fix; modern toys uses proprietary batteries that will not exist next 40 years, unlike AAA.
We have moved from an era of durable goods to one of disposable products, and now to a world where we dont even own what we buy. Instead, we are merely paying for access, that can be revoked, altered, or made more expensive at any time. This shift is frustrating because it eliminates true ownership. Instead of buying something once and using it freely, we are trapped in a system of dependency where everything is controlled by the companies that produce it.
Maybe I am just old, because I see that younger generations actually seem to appreciate this shift. They tell me, But today you get updates! A product can improve over time.Maybe so, but beyond the fact that its usable lifespan is still far shorter than before, I think: the price of updates is eternal captivity.
Consumer law. There's 100% a class action lawsuit in this.
I'm also not sure whether Humane ever meant for the device to be successful, or whether their end goal was to get noticed and get bought out.
Wait, you call them customers but... were they customers or donors who got a prototype?
If they're donors, they probably qualify for no customer protection at all.
Edit: sorry, initial search made me think they were more like kickstarter donors, they were actually buyers.
If they're donors, they probably qualify for no customer protection at all.
Edit: sorry, initial search made me think they were more like kickstarter donors, they were actually buyers.
The point is, an AI Pin is not a bad idea, it’s just not possible to execute on the ideal product with the current state of technology. HP’s patents may actually be worth something.
Frankly, if you (i.e. customer(s)) handed over money for this thing, then you lack a serious amount of forsight. A fool and their money, etc..
The fact it is being bought out by HP and that there could even be potential for a refund is more luck than judgement.
im not sure why anyone looking at this alone would think it's anything other than a god awful idea. its design is not attractive, it's going to be the absolute weirdest thing to wear, and stick out horribly.
then when people inevitably ask, you have to tell them you're wearing a $700 AI device...for what?
feel like anyone who actually bought this were quietly a part of an alpha test they were never aware of, just to see what people try to do with it, and how the world reacts to it in real time.
the fact the company sold for anything substantial tells you that the data they acquired during this was very helpful in some way. so how is HP going to use the info farmed from the real world?
then when people inevitably ask, you have to tell them you're wearing a $700 AI device...for what?
feel like anyone who actually bought this were quietly a part of an alpha test they were never aware of, just to see what people try to do with it, and how the world reacts to it in real time.
the fact the company sold for anything substantial tells you that the data they acquired during this was very helpful in some way. so how is HP going to use the info farmed from the real world?
HP is where stuff goes to die or be weaponised.
“Hi I’m talkie inkjet. Would you like to buy some ink? I’ve got a good deal on blue which ran out even though you didn’t print anything blue!”
Couldn't agree more. I had an inkjet printer which when one of the colours was low, it would point blank refuse to print anything. Even if it was Cyan and I wanted to print B&W, it would refuse. It was infuriating and caused me big issues on multiple occasions. Their support desk had the audacity to claim it as a feature there to benefit customers!
I have never bought an HP device since, which has cost them a lot more than they might think.
If WebOS is any indication, HP is where things go to die. The difference, of course, that WebOS was actually good.
It still shows the downside of buying a product that is entirely dependent on a server by the manufacturer. Not that it always can be avoided, but I'm definitely starting to rethink which services and products I really want to rely on. There's even times when I feel a bit more retro would be good for me, but that might just be middle age.
It still shows the downside of buying a product that is entirely dependent on a server by the manufacturer. Not that it always can be avoided, but I'm definitely starting to rethink which services and products I really want to rely on. There's even times when I feel a bit more retro would be good for me, but that might just be middle age.
I reckon it's not for the product per se, but for the patents and intellectual property. The founder is a serial inventor, so he knows his stuff. Here's his portfolio btw http://imranchaudhri.com/