40 points

What annoys me about this is that it implicitly says that if you have more money you deserve to be safer.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

I mean, more expensive cars have more safety features. You pay to be safer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Is that a good thing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Sometimes, we must face reality. Newly developed safety features are a selling point and people do pay more for safer cars. If law dictated (and enforced) that all cars must have the exact same safety features, there would be no financial incentive to develop better safety, or much less incentive at least. In reality, car safety features are one of the few examples of things actually trickling down: today’s cheapest cars have safety features that at some point only existed in the most expensive luxury cars. This is fine.

None of this applies to whatever the fuck the original post is about though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

What will be interesting is how a false negative plays out. A vest fails, someone dies yet the subscription is current: how does the lawsuit play out?

See, when a life-saving device can fail due to software bugs, our brains point to malicious negligence when it does fail. It’s no longer a badly packed parachute but a company whose billing department wants to kill poor people.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

It’s a subscription service for an airbag vest. They’d rather have you die than not pay for a product you already purchased. I’d say that whether or not there’s a mechanical failure, the billing department does want to kill poor people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Limited liability. Negotiate with the family of the victim, ideally don’t pay at all if you can get away with it, and move on. Product management and marketing had a great idea to increase user retention, more in the meeting at 11.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Y’all trust the activation system?

Source

It - meaning the activator, no comment on subscription - seems par for the course.

Hard to argue it couldn’t be at least marginally safer if remote disabling were impossible, though wonder if that’d be implemented for recall purposes as perhaps it is on modern vehicles? (Anybody know?)

permalink
report
reply
10 points

So if I’m reading this right, you buy the air vest, and then either buy or rent a gizmo that tells it when to inflate

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I thought buy air vest + buy or pay [in]finite installments (lease, rent, subscribe) for the right & ability to use the vest. Perhaps same as what you said, just semantics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Uh, or just don’t get one? This is a stand-alone product with an unconventional business model. It’s not like they’re forcing it on anyone.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Uh, that’s not really the point? If you’re making a product that aims to promote safety and save lives, then you shouldn’t be able to cancel it at the will of the company. It would be like waking up in the middle of a surgery and the doctor telling you “Hey, looks like your anesthesia subscription expired, so unless you’ve got an extra $20 in your pocket right now, then we’re just going in raw.” If you absolutely NEED the extra money as part of your business model or whatever, then just charge them AFTER the service is used. Don’t just fucking turn the airbag off with no warning because they’re behind on a payment

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nobody really likes the implementation of the insurance model of healthcare, but… You do at least asunderstand the idea behind it, right?

Insurance charges a much lower rate than the actual price, but everyone pays even when they don’t need it. That way the people who aren’t using it cover the people who are. It doesn’t work if you only get charged when you use it.

That’s all this is. You pay a subscription that is much lower than the price of the product. If it gets used, they send you another one.

The cost is fixed, and you don’t have to worry about going without an important piece of safety equipment or incurring further costs after needing to use it.

If you have enough money to buy one directly, nobody is stopping you. This is actually aimed at people who can’t afford that and would not have access to this technology at all otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I do wonder if the product you paid full price for also has a remote kill switch… Just morbid curiosity, I have no take in this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Marketing safety equipment subscriptions specifically to people who can’t afford to buy that equipment outright, and then disabling it when they fail to make a payment (because you’re specifically targeting the demographic most likely to miss payments) is a great way to kill poor people, and this individual business should absolutely get the shit they get for doing it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So it’s better to not have an option for poor people at all I guess?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Poor people do have options. Better options, in fact. There are mechanical airbag vests that cost about $700, and don’t use proprietary CO2 carts. If you can afford this subscription for 2 years, you can afford a better vest. Helite has no way of disabling the vests you get from them.

Hot take: if you can afford $400 plus $12 a month, you can afford to save up another $300 for a device that doesn’t use a battery and that the company can’t ever disable

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

How about a smoke alarm subscription? Or even better, handbrake subscription!

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Scuba diving equipment! Sorry you used your allocated oxygen, swipe your credit card to renew the subscription.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Dave Lister And his son would like to have a talk with you. :-D

permalink
report
parent
reply