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

[–] androogee@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pathief@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] androogee@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The vest doesn't have a remote kill switch.

There are actual criticisms of this product. This comment section seems dedicated to repeating imaginary ones.

At this point you just gotta assume that headlines that inspire outrage are lies and read the article before you engage. It's irresponsible to do otherwise.

[–] pathief@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So how so you update the license? They come to your house? ;P

[–] androogee@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Why would I bother to write out an explanation when one is already available that clearly you can't be bothered to read?

[–] pathief@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Why bother answering at all if you have nothing to say or a comment to link?

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Draugnoss@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

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