For some time now, technology innovators have been developing products that harness the web. The “Internet of Things,” as it’s now called, refers to the ever-growing network of devices that are made with built-in internet connections, allowing them to collect and transmit data. Almost any product with an on/off switch can be redesigned to be part of the IoT.
As you can imagine, one of the burgeoning areas of IoT growth is in smart home devices. Anything, from thermostats and color-changing light bulbs to home security and even programmable shower heads, now can be connected to the internet and controlled by an app.
But just because you can, does it mean you should? The brave new world of IoT has experienced significant backlash over issues around security, privacy, and who “owns” an IoT product. This last issue is of particular importance because most people don’t realize that when a device gets connected to the internet, it’s no longer really theirs. That’s because continual use of these devices relies on manufacturer support. Will the maker continue to offer software updates? What if the product is discontinued, or the manufacturer is sold or goes out of business?
Here’s a new one: What if the manufacturer doesn’t like you?
If that seems like an absurd and irrelevant question, you’d normally be right. But one customer found his device remotely disabled, or “bricked,” by a manufacturer in retaliation for leaving an unfavorable online review.
R. Martin purchased Garadget, a “smart” garage door opener, through Amazon and posted that he was having trouble with it to the online Garadget forum. “Just installed and attempting to register a door when the app started doing this. Have uninstalled and reinstalled iPhone app, powered phone off/on — wondering what kind of piece of sh** I just purchased here …”
He then left a negative, one-star review on Amazon.
This infuriated Denis Grisak, Garadget’s founder: “The abusive language here and in your negative Amazon review, submitted minutes after experiencing a technical difficulty, only demonstrates your poor impulse control. I’m happy to provide the technical support to the customers on my Saturday night but I’m not going to tolerate any tantrums. At this time your only option is return Garadget to Amazon for refund. Your unit ID 2foo36… will be denied server connection.”
His response drew ire from other community members. One user suggested that “bricking” the device was unlawful, which Grisak denied, saying there were no changes made to the hardware or software, he was simply denying access to company servers. Others accused Garadget of responding to the customer’s “tantrum” with one of his own.
Grisak’s reaction was to weakly backpedal. “OK, calm down everybody. Save your pitchforks and torches for your elected representatives. This only lacks death threats now. The firing of the customer was never about the Amazon review, just wanted to distance from the toxic individual ASAP. Admittedly not a slickest PR move on my part. Access restored, note taken.”
Note taken, indeed. The subsequent media firestorm carved Grisak into the most penitent of figures, but the damage to his business was done. Only time will tell if his company can survive the fallout.
You can bet his remaining customers are anxiously hoping for the best. After all, if Garadget fails, they’ll all be bricked, through no fault of their own.
And there ain’t no app for that.
