Home automation company Wink under fire for surprise subscription mandate [u]

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2020
Wink customers will soon have to pay a monthly subscription fee to access any of the smart home hardware that they have purchased.

Wink's Smart Hub
Wink's Smart Hub


Wink claims that the move is necessary, as the one-time cost of buying a Wink product is incapable of sustaining their business. The company will require all users to pay a $5 a month subscription fee by May 13, which gives users less than one week of notice.

Wink primarily makes smart home lighting and home security devices but also allows users to connect other brands' devices to their Wink Hub. Wink has partnered with Amazon, Google Nest, Honeywell, Ring, Philips Hue, GE, Sonos, iHome, Sylvania and many others.

They cite recent economic events -- likely the ongoing coronavirus pandemic -- and long-term costs as the reason for the transition.

"Wink has taken many steps in an effort to keep your Hub's blue light on, however, long term costs and recent economic events have caused additional strain on our business," the blog post reads. "In order to provide for development and continued growth, we are transitioning to a $4.99 monthly subscription, starting on May 13, 2020."

The company tells customers that should they not pay the fee, they'll lose access to all Wink devices in the app, including voice controls and all automations.

The transition will not allow users to be grandfathered in on a legacy plan. If a customer has spent a significant amount of money outfitting their home with Wink lightbulbs or a Wink security system, they'll be expected to begin paying a monthly fee on May 13.

Understandably, Wink customers were outraged. After Wink posted the update to their Twitter page, customers began airing grievances in the reply section.

Bye bye @TheWinkApp. It's bad enough you trying to come back and get more money from loyal customers (your products aren't exactly cheap) but to only give us 1 week is ridiculous.

-- Chris Bentz (@cbentz83)


Less then a week's notice for long term customers of yours? No real incentive to keep it. I love my Wink but this is not the way on such short notice. You just dug your own grave on this one.

-- Adam (@Frayne182)


This isn't the first time Wink has disappointed its customers, either. In 2019, many users discovered that second-hand Google Nest Cam Indoor models connected to Wink hub would send images of their home to the device's previous owner. Google quickly rolled out a fix, but users were understandably upset.

Update May 12, 2020: Wink in an email to customers on Tuesday said it has extended the subscription deadline to May 20, 2020, giving users an additional week to sign up for the service.
BolshoiBob
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 68
    seanjseanj Posts: 318member
    This would be illegal in some jurisdictions.
    elijahgrazorpitjbdragondysamoriaStrangeDayschasmkurai_kageols
  • Reply 2 of 68
    amar99amar99 Posts: 181member
    How is this not considered extortion?


    elijahgrazorpitjbdragondysamoriachasmkurai_kageols
  • Reply 3 of 68
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,036member
    The worst things that ever happened to computers were the in-app purchase and subscription software.
    razorpitGG1zroger73mazda 3sdiz_geekcyberzombierotateleftbytemacxpressdysamoriabonobob
  • Reply 4 of 68
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    There is no way this is legal. If they were upfront about a subscription becoming mandatory at some point that's fine, or if the subscription added extra features in addition to what it came with then also fine. But to suddenly start charging for access to something that was working perfectly well before and had no indication it will stop working at some point without more money is extortion. Their claim that "the one-time cost of buying a Wink product is incapable of sustaining their business" is something they should have worked out in the first place, it's not exactly a fortune to use a couple of AWS instances for this kind of thing - and is no excuse to start charging people.

    It would be like buying a car outright, then 6 months later the manufacturer getting into financial difficulty, going back to its old customers and saying "oh by the way we didn't tell you at the time but we're struggling financially so you need to pay us $$ per month to continue using the car you already paid for". Uh, nah.
    edited May 2020 jbdragonretrogustodysamoriaviclauyycdonjuankurai_kage
  • Reply 5 of 68
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    Where is Wink's business plan? How could they believe one-time purchasers of their products could sustain their business? 

    Did Wink believe they could sustain the business through selling advertising?

    jbdragonMplsPdysamoria
  • Reply 6 of 68
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    elijahg said:
    There is no way this is legal. If they were upfront about a subscription becoming mandatory at some point that's fine, or if the subscription added extra features in addition to what it came with then also fine. But to suddenly start charging for access to something that was working perfectly well before and had no indication it will stop working at some point without more money is extortion. Their claim that "the one-time cost of buying a Wink product is incapable of sustaining their business" is something they should have worked out in the first place, it's not exactly a fortune to use a couple of AWS instances for this kind of thing - and is no excuse to start charging people.

    It would be like buying a car outright, then 6 months later the manufacturer getting into financial difficulty, going back to its old customers and saying "oh by the way we didn't tell you at the time but we're struggling financially so you need to pay us $$ per month to continue using the car you already paid for". Uh, nah.
    Heck even BMW told customers upfront they would have to subscribe to CarPlay.  :D
    jbdragonpscooter63
  • Reply 7 of 68
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    #JustSayNoToHubs -- unless it is an Apple Hub

    Not only, as we see here, does it open one to extortion but it destroys any concept of privacy you might have.

    It amazes me that people who are horrified at the idea of their government doing contact tracing would put a hub from a private company in their home to collect their private information and send it whereever that company wants to send it or sell it.

    Apple needs to enhance this part of Homekit beyond piggy-backing on their other existing products meant for other uses  (Homepods, AppleTVs, iPads).  An ideal solution would be for them to resurrect their modem line and enable it as a HomeKit Hub.  But, it seems that Apple is just dipping its toes in the waters of home automation where they could be making a significant contribution to what, I think, will be a significant market.
    baconstangchasmwatto_cobraronn
  • Reply 8 of 68
    I used to have Wink and some other "first generation" smart home kit, anyone remember TCP Connected Lights? Once those were killed off, I made a decision to go all in on HomeKit and dumped my Wink hub. Never regretted it, and now, even glad I did.
    lolliverchasmkurai_kagewatto_cobraols
  • Reply 9 of 68
    zroger73zroger73 Posts: 787member
    This is a risk you take with ANY device that relies on a service provided by others in order to function.


    macxpressdonjuanwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 68
    davgreg said:
    The worst things that ever happened to computers were the in-app purchase and subscription software.
    Only to people like you that think everything should be free, or cost $9.99 once for unlimited lifetime usage and updates.

    For the rest of the real world, it is the best thing that has ever happened to make the 1000-fold increase in demand for software almost profitable.
    dewmelkruppuraharapscooter63Rayz2016lolliverchasmdmdevkurai_kagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 68

    larryjw said:
    Where is Wink's business plan? How could they believe one-time purchasers of their products could sustain their business? 

    Did Wink believe they could sustain the business through selling advertising?

    They probably didn't believe it. They were just pressured into doing it by the entire market which thinks everything in high quality software is supposed to be free.

    They've now found out, like the rest of the entire software industry, that software is not sustainable as a business unless it is a subscription service. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Unfortunately this fast and desperate move by Wink will be viewed as just that, even if it is the right thing to do.
  • Reply 12 of 68
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 611member
    In order to sustain there business they chose to implement a plan that will take them out of business. The problem with all of these proprietary gadgets is that they are just that. As soon as the manufacturer quits or moves on to new products the customer is left holding the bag. The worst products I know of are ones that have been needlessly computerized in someway to add automation features that are dubious at best. These products will be left by the wayside and without a phone or computer they will be worthless. Examples include refrigerators, coffee pots, etc.
    jbdragondewmeGeorgeBMacwatto_cobraronn
  • Reply 13 of 68
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    seanj said:
    This would be illegal in some jurisdictions.
    Name one.
    Metriacanthosaurus
  • Reply 14 of 68
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member

    elijahg said:
    There is no way this is legal
    Wrong. It may rub people the wrong way and result in losing customers, but there is nothing illegal about raising prices.

    Even if there was a contract that guaranteed the service would be free for life (there isn't), that would be breach of contract, not a crime. 

    Get a grip on reality. 
    edited May 2020 Metriacanthosaurusuraharawatto_cobrasconosciuto
  • Reply 15 of 68
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member

    amar99 said:
    How is this not considered extortion?


    Here is the federal extortion statute so you can answer your own question:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951
    beowulfschmidtwatto_cobrasconosciuto
  • Reply 16 of 68
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    flydog said:

    elijahg said:
    There is no way this is legal
    Wrong. It may rub people the wrong way and result in losing customers, but there is nothing illegal about raising prices.

    Even if there was a contract that guaranteed the service would be free for life (there isn't), that would be breach of contract, not a crime. 

    Get a grip on reality. 

    They didn't RAISE prices.  They sold devices that worked for FREE, and now they are sticking on a $4.99 monthly FEE to use a device you already paid for and was using for FREE as it was sold that way.   I'd be pissed myself and pull any of their devices I had.

    elijahglolliverronn
  • Reply 17 of 68
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    Wink claims that the move is necessary, as the one-time cost of buying a Wink product is incapable of sustaining their business.



    Any more questions as to why Apple prices its hardware the way it does? Any more questions as to why Apple slurps up the majority of profits while others eke out an extremely low margin existence and slowly disappear?
    watto_cobraronn
  • Reply 18 of 68
    bakerzdosenbakerzdosen Posts: 181member
    I *think* it all depends on their ToS - you know, that thing nobody actually reads but always clicks "accept". I haven't (and won't bother to) read it, but if their ToS states they're going to provide the service for free indefinitely (they'd be dumb if they said that) then it would be illegal as they'd be in breech of contract.

    But somehow I'm guessing there is a clause in their ToS that states (even if it's only an implication or ambiguous, which is pretty likely) that they reserve the right to change the services they provide.

    Thus, perfectly legal.

    Unethical? Schmaybe.

    Bad PR? Yup.

    But most likely perfectly legal.

    Edit: given the choice, most owners would prefer the "pay $5/mo" option over "the company closes up shop and your equipment is worthless now" option.
    edited May 2020 dewmebaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 68
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    From a business perspective this is bonkers. A bit of napkin mathematics shows that a marginal price increase would be a better approach than trying to scam $60 a year from all existing customers. It's also reasonable to suggest that this change might have legal or litigable consequences.
  • Reply 20 of 68
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    What's with their website? https://www.wink.com If this is how they set up a website, no way I'd buy from them. I'll let so,eone else read their new legal information, https://www.wink.com/legal/. Would have been nice to see the original version but as they say near the top, they can do whatever they want to at any time:

    Site Changes and Interruptions

    Wink reserves the right to interrupt the Site with or without prior notice for any reason or no reason. You agree that Wink will not be liable for any interruption of the Site, delay or failure to perform. Wink has the right at any time for any reason or no reason to change and/or eliminate any aspect(s) of the Site as it sees fit in its sole discretion.



    baconstang
Sign In or Register to comment.