Smart Home Company Wink Gives Users an Extra Week Before Surprise Subscription Fees Are Required

[oneMadRssn]

This should be illegal, and it’s not the end user‘s problem that the business isn’t profitable.

I agree, but think about I have concerns about how such laws would play out logistically. I'd rather we as consumers just become more weary of businesses that rely heavily on cloud data. Nothing Wink does couldn't have been done using a home-hub such Zigbee, which can leverage cloud systems but doesn't necessarily have to. I think this fairly falls under a modern "buyer beware" type of situation.

 

[spunkybart]

A sudden change like that would definitely piss me off!

A similar situation which was handled much better: I have a few older home security cameras that still provide cloud service for free. But I think all of the newer devices that the company offers require a subscription. I'm okay with that -- the devices I previously purchased still work, and if I want to upgrade, then I'll have to subscribe. But I have a choice.

 

[B4U]

If you're talking about a boxed copy of MS Office that you can pay for once and use forever... sure. But remember that it's only for one machine.

With Microsoft 365 you're getting all the Office apps that you can legally install on up to five machines. You also get 1TB of OneDrive storage. (for comparison Dropbox charges $99/year for just storage)

And you can "share" your Microsoft subscription with a total of six different people if you wanted to. Friends, family, etc. And each one of them gets 1TB of storage and all the Office apps.

I know some people hate the idea of subscriptions... but Microsoft actually provides a lot of value for that $99/year.

The less of the evil does not really make them not evil though...

 

[imola.zhp]

The email they sent yesterday was a kind reminder for me to delete everything in the app and then delete the app itself.

 

[Smearbrick]

Why not just limit the functions of the current devices for new purchases instead taking away everything? At-home functions should remain intact, but remote could change to a subscription model. Grandfather in the current customers for a period of time, and then transition them over to the pay model, and offer something unique from other vendors to drive customers to your upgraded subscription service.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The less of the evil does not really make them not evil though...

Geez... I never knew Microsoft was considered "evil" for offering a $99/year subscription to their office suite and cloud storage for up to six people and five machines each.

Tough crowd around here!

The good news is that you can still purchase a "forever" license of MS Office for a single machine for $150 if you so desire.

I recall the dozens of threads about Adobe... how dare they charge $600/year for their professional suite of programs!

But Microsoft? Are they "evil" too?

 

[compwiz1202]

They should have allowed current customers to continue as is, even stopped them from future feature updates that are new but allowed them continued use. To lock them out of hardware because of this change is not right.

Exactly! At least let them use basic features from maybe just one interface for free.
[automerge]1589386953[/automerge]

Damnnnnn these companies just keep getting bolder and more shameless. You would think the potential cost of the lawsuit that I'm sure has already been filed would have dissuaded them from even trying this.

Gonna have a class action and come out with like 63 cents Even better it will be in the form of their gift card. That crap always annoys me. If we sued you why would we want to still use your stuff?!

 

[icanhazmac]

The good news is that you can still purchase a "forever" license of MS Office for a single machine for $150 if you so desire.

Enter the "evil" part, by offering a standalone license, which is missing several pieces of the whole, at an artificially inflated price Microsoft is "forcing" people into their more profitable subscription model with perceived value adds.

As I stated in my last post the standalone Office 2019 with just Word, Excel and PP at $149 is grossly inflated, why, because they want to "force" you into the more profitable subscription model. Furthermore at any time they can make any standalone version "obsolete" by saying: no more security updates for our buggy/vulnerable software, buy another copy for that. If the standalone Office 2019 were priced commensurate with the pieces offered it might be around $49 which would make the case for buying the standalone much more attractive, something Microsoft does not want.

I hold any developer of similar software packages to this standard, not just Microsoft.

 

[827538]

Yet another example of why I will never purchase a smart home device that isn't Homekit compatible.

This company is clearly close to bankruptcy, no doubt this will accelerate that. Difficult to believe a company could be so stupid, I'm pretty sure this behavior would be illegal under EU consumer law.
[automerge]1589390332[/automerge]

Enter the "evil" part, by offering a standalone license, which is missing several pieces of the whole, at an artificially inflated price Microsoft is "forcing" people into their more profitable subscription model with perceived value adds.

As I stated in my last post the standalone Office 2019 with just Word, Excel and PP at $149 is grossly inflated, why, because they want to "force" you into the more profitable subscription model. Furthermore at any time they can make any standalone version "obsolete" by saying: no more security updates for our buggy/vulnerable software, buy another copy for that. If the standalone Office 2019 were priced commensurate with the pieces offered it might be around $49 which would make the case for buying the standalone much more attractive, something Microsoft does not want.

I hold any developer of similar software packages to this standard, not just Microsoft.

You can pick Microsoft Office 2019 with Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Outlook for far less than that legally. I've seen legitimate keys going for $60 which is totally reasonable. Plus it should last a long time. Considering Microsoft Office 2007 still works fine with the latest 'x' file versions I see no reason Office 2019 shouldn't suffice for atleast a decade as it's a fully up to date Office application with 64bit support and designed for Windows 10 that will be the OS going forward. As cynical as I am about tech companies I don't think Microsoft will break support for it, the uproar would be massive.

 

[icanhazmac]

You can pick Microsoft Office 2019 with Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Outlook for far less than that legally. I've seen legitimate keys going for $60 which is totally reasonable.

Interesting, where have you seen offers like that? I have seen several things like this on eBay but have always been skeptical as to if they are legit keys.

My Office 2007 chugs right along but as it is no longer supported from a security standpoint since 2017 upgrading is something to consider and while $60 is slightly higher than what I feel is appropriate for what you are getting it is not nearly as outrageous as $149.

 

[ChrisA]

I see a class-action lawsuit from all existing customers. Some lawyers will get rich.

What they REALLY need to do is drop their cloud service. Why do I need a cloud service to turn on a lightbulb on my own house? There is simply no need for it. The timmer and controller should all run locally on the local hub.

I kind of hope this backfires and drives Wink out of business. It would teache others not to have such a stupid design.

 

[ipedro]

Somewhat related, Petnet, the maker of a smart feeder for dogs and cats has sent out a “survey” asking whether users would be ok with either a monthly or annual subscription. No option of neither. I don’t need my dog feeder to be in the cloud. It just needs to work with the app to set the schedule.

Sounds like another company that was already doing poorly before all of this and has found an excuse to move their hardware business model to a subscription model.

 

[DoctorTech]

Wouldn't any camera require some form of cloud service if you want notifications on your phone and the ability to view it remotely? To me that's a big feature of cameras where you get a notification on your phone about detected movement.

I use Eufy cameras which are all local storage (memory card in the camera itself) and they are wirelessly connected to a base station in my house which is connected to my Wi-Fi. I can check my cameras from anywhere as long as my home Wi-Fi is working (and with my Eero mesh network, my Wi-Fi is rock solid).
[automerge]1589393865[/automerge]

Somewhat related, Petnet, the maker of a smart feeder for dogs and cats has sent out a “survey” asking whether users would be ok with either a monthly or annual subscription. No option of neither. I don’t need my dog feeder to be in the cloud. It just needs to work with the app to set the schedule.

Sounds like another company that was already doing poorly before all of this and has found an excuse to move their hardware business model to a subscription model.

I think you nailed it about people using COVID-19 as an excuse. My local UPS Store just announced that "effective immediately" they are nearly TRIPLING the price they charge for mail boxes (from $13/month to $35/ month) due to COVID-19. Somebody please explain to me how COVID-19 is connected to having to nearly TRIPLE the price of a mailbox. I think UPS stores are franchises and the manager of my local UPS store is just exploiting an opportunity to dramatically raise prices.

 

[ruka.snow]

Enter the "evil" part, by offering a standalone license, which is missing several pieces of the whole, at an artificially inflated price Microsoft is "forcing" people into their more profitable subscription model with perceived value adds.

As I stated in my last post the standalone Office 2019 with just Word, Excel and PP at $149 is grossly inflated, why, because they want to "force" you into the more profitable subscription model. Furthermore at any time they can make any standalone version "obsolete" by saying: no more security updates for our buggy/vulnerable software, buy another copy for that. If the standalone Office 2019 were priced commensurate with the pieces offered it might be around $49 which would make the case for buying the standalone much more attractive, something Microsoft does not want.

I hold any developer of similar software packages to this standard, not just Microsoft.

Office used to be multiple hundreds per licence. Now you can pay a small subscription or you can buy it for less than half what it used to cost. Would you rather still pay $449 for Office, $880 for Photoshop, and $5000 for 3D Studio Max? Instead of $5/month, $8/month and $40/month. It amazes me that people are opposed to software becoming much more accessible than it used to be.


And not onto the topic of the thread. I am all for subscriptions, developers need to be paid and we want as many people to use our software as possible and to be able to continue to make it even better. I however can not get behind a company bricking their product behind a subscription when it was sold as a one time purchase. Pick one model and stick to it or change for new customers only, your existing customers are not going to like being fleeced.

 

[Analog Kid]

I’m guessing people were going to lose access to their devices either way. If the company closes, then the server goes away. This sounds like a Hail Mary move.

This is the problem with anything cloud— you aren’t buying a product, you’re buying into a business model.

I still want to live in the world where my Mac is my digital hub. Put a mini in a closet somewhere and let it run everything. I’m slowly moving away from that toward Homekit, which seems more a loose coalition of other people’s cloud apps, and I sense it’s just a house of cards, but there’s more selection this way, it’s less of a hobbyist rig, and HomeKit provides some glue that holds stuff together as different parts of the system fail and need to be replaced.

 

[827538]

Interesting, where have you seen offers like that? I have seen several things like this on eBay but have always been skeptical as to if they are legit keys.

My Office 2007 chugs right along but as it is no longer supported from a security standpoint since 2017 upgrading is something to consider and while $60 is slightly higher than what I feel is appropriate for what you are getting it is not nearly as outrageous as $149.

The EU allows keys to be resold by law. Hence you can pickup legit W10 keys for $10.
I can't think of any off the top of my head, Guru3d usually posts links when they find good sales of them. I've never had an issue with them not working.

Windows10 PRO + Office2016 Professional Plus CD Keys Pack, Buy Windows10 PRO + Office2016 Professional Plus CD Keys Pack in Urcdkeys

Buy Windows10 PRO + Office2016 Professional Plus CD Keys Pack at Urcdkeys with immediately delivery now. Full of stock, Fantastic Prices.

www.urcdkeys.com

I take no responsibility if this doesn't work, but I've used sites like this in the past (not this particular one though).
Personally I think if you are someone who uses Office a lot $149 is completely reasonable. At $60 it is a bargain.

 

[icanhazmac]

And not onto the topic of the thread. I am all for subscriptions, developers need to be paid and we want as many people to use our software as possible and to be able to continue to make it even better.

Legit question, why in threads like this do I always see comments like "developers need to be paid" as an excuse for subscriptions? Were they not being paid in the purchase model or is it that they failed to properly price their software and innovate new versions creating upgrade revenue?

Seems to me that if you price your software appropriately people will buy it! Truly innovate or offer in demand new features and people will upgrade it! Sit around and just patch your own problems and offer little or nothing new and people will not pay or upgrade.

Subscriptions seem the lazy way to combat what I and many others have done with software which is: buy a copy and sit on it for 10 years because developers didn't create anything worth upgrading to.

 

[1144557]

Office used to be multiple hundreds per licence. Now you can pay a small subscription or you can buy it for less than half what it used to cost. Would you rather still pay $449 for Office, $880 for Photoshop, and $5000 for 3D Studio Max? Instead of $5/month, $8/month and $40/month. It amazes me that people are opposed to software becoming much more accessible than it used to be.


And not onto the topic of the thread. I am all for subscriptions, developers need to be paid and we want as many people to use our software as possible and to be able to continue to make it even better. I however can not get behind a company bricking their product behind a subscription when it was sold as a one time purchase. Pick one model and stick to it or change for new customers only, your existing customers are not going to like being fleeced.

That depends. $8/month instead of $800. Sure. It would take 100 months to equal out; or like roughly 9 years.

Charging for stuff like an iOS app $5-8/monthly then no if full $800 photshop is only $8. Arguing server cost isnt $5-8/month per user. Charge the few bucks for the app and then the actual cost of cloud. Paying $100/year for an iOS app is nuts.

Like Fantastical- why the **** is a calendar app a subscription for $4/month or $40/year? Its abusive to customers to just call everything subscription for more long term profits.

You really think that iOS calendar app is worth $360 over those same roughly 9 years it would take to pay off Photoshop? When they charged maybe $6-8 flat rate for the app before somehow ad stayed in business. it's extortion.

 

[Azzin]

It would be if it were in the UK. The change would only be lawful if it applied only to sales from the date of the change.
[automerge]1589357338[/automerge]

Isn't the EU great.

Hasn’t 3D Touch gone, in favour of Haptic Touch?

 

[zorinlynx]

I agree, but think about I have concerns about how such laws would play out logistically. I'd rather we as consumers just become more weary of businesses that rely heavily on cloud data. Nothing Wink does couldn't have been done using a home-hub such Zigbee, which can leverage cloud systems but doesn't necessarily have to. I think this fairly falls under a modern "buyer beware" type of situation.

One of my requirements for buying any kind of "smart" anything is that it be able to function locally without access to the Internet. A good example of a great ecosystem that works locally is Philips Hue. Hue has cloud functionality, but it's not required for basic operation. Hell, once you program your lights and dimmer switches they will continue to work even without a local network since they use their own protocol to communicate.

So much of the newer "smart" home stuff has 100% of the "smarts" on the company's cloud servers. As a result, not only can they eventually hold you hostage like this if they want, but if your Internet connection is down you suddenly can't do basic things like turn on your lights or adjust your thermostat from a phone on your own local WiFi network.

Sadly it's become very much a "buyer beware" like you said. You need to do your research before investing in an ecosystem, and companies can be really good at hiding the true requirements from you.

HomeKit support is a good sign, as it operates over the local network and you only need the Internet to control things from outside your network (using an Apple TV or always-home iPad as the relay).

 

[coolfactor]

I remember when Apples .Mac started charging for email... its's the reason my Apple ID isn't a valid email address...

Apple doesn't charge for email. I've had a mac.com address for 20 years and it works fine without payment. The other iCloud features require payment, though. Or if you need more storage space.

 

[Jakexb]

This really goes to show how important on-device local homekit support is. Everything that bounces back to someone's cloud for device control is always at risk of this kind of nonsense and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[iDento]

Anything that is accessed over the internet is a service and may change its fees if there is no contract to the end users.

For example, if Google Calendar wanted to charge users or you couldn't access your calendars anymore, that would be 100% legal. Would it help Google as a company? Probably not.

Offering me a service for free then decide to charge for it is not the same as selling me a hardware product then decide to kill it unless I pay monthly.

 

[freedomlinux]

Reminds me of Lowes discontinuing their smart plug products. At least they gave me some money back.

Oh? I had a bunch of Insignia (Best Buy) smart plugs - they were cheap but NEED to be controlled via the Insignia app.

After a while Best Buy shut down the app's servers, but gave me a refund that was more than I paid so *shrug*

 

[B4U]

Geez... I never knew Microsoft was considered "evil" for offering a $99/year subscription to their office suite and cloud storage for up to six people and five machines each.

Tough crowd around here!

The good news is that you can still purchase a "forever" license of MS Office for a single machine for $150 if you so desire.

I recall the dozens of threads about Adobe... how dare they charge $600/year for their professional suite of programs!

But Microsoft? Are they "evil" too?

Some of us do not have large families and are very anti-social. So multiple machine is useless. Kind of like getting charged for the garnish along with the salt & pepper shaker in a steak dinner.
Cloud storage in fact makes it less attractive to me.
And good luck finding Office 2019 on Microsoft's webpage. It is buried 6 feet under the ground.
So, $99/year vs $150, the subscription model sounds like robbery to me.
Oh, by the way, I got my Office 2019 at $14.99 when they still offered that in the Home Use program. So, I did not spend $149 for that and was a way better deal than the subscription crap.