Silicon Valley’s $400 Juicer revealed to be unnecessary after journalist uses their hands instead - Sensationalist Headlines

It's gonna be a nightmare in the future when the internet goes out and I can't get a drink or brush my teeth or take a shit because my fucking toilet couldn't get the daily OTA update.

Drek, some corp dataslave figured out I've been using non-proprietary bags in my juice machine.

[QUOTE]transforms single-serving packets of chopped fruits and vegetables into a refreshing and healthy beverage.[/QUOTE] So it was supposed to be like say apple slices inside the bag and the machine would squeeze those fresh apple slices into juice but in reality the bag is already just juice making the machine totally useless?

[QUOTE=Jitterz;52133351]So it was supposed to be like say apple slices inside the bag and the machine would squeeze those fresh apple slices into juice but in reality the bag is already just juice making the machine totally useless?[/QUOTE] The bag probably is filled with chopped fruits but apparently the press isn't necessary to squeeze most of the juice out.

[QUOTE=Jitterz;52133351]So it was supposed to be like say apple slices inside the bag and the machine would squeeze those fresh apple slices into juice but in reality the bag is already just juice making the machine totally useless?[/QUOTE] It's been described like three times already. It's not already juice inside the bag, it's very finely chopped fruits or vegetables. The useless part is how you can just squeeze the bag and get the same result as the $400 juicer. If the bags were cheap and they just dropped the juicer entirely they could have a working business model. It's like they set out to make a juicer you don't have to clean, ended up making the juicer itself unnecessary, but went through with making the juicer anyway.

[QUOTE=Jitterz;52133351]So it was supposed to be like say apple slices inside the bag and the machine would squeeze those fresh apple slices into juice but in reality the bag is already just juice making the machine totally useless?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;fcfFChGar4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfFChGar4o[/video]

It's a shame tripe like this is going to be the public perception of the IoT. It's a really neat progression in technology, when done right at least. Things like smart thermostats are genuinely quite cool, the higher end ones give you absolute control over when your heating comes on, how hot and for how long, all whilst tracking energy usage and calculating the cost of that usage. The one my parents recently had fitted syncs into a central smart meter and monitors energy and gas usage too. But things like this don't really require the Internet. I could see it being useful for things like product recalls, but that's about it. One major thing a lot of IoT devices fail at (other than security but that's another problem entirely) is that they aren't fail-safe. When they lose their connection to the Internet the device should still function at a basic level, just without the augmentations of Internet access. We've already seen what happens when companies fold or sell off their products and the server goes down.

Isn't the whole point of a machine like this supposed to be it's easier, faster, and/or cheaper? It's literally none of these things.

All its missing is an Apple logo. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Connected iJuicer. Only from Apple.

with all the google backing (critikal's video says 120m), and how the manual explicitly states that theyll sell info to advertisers, I have to wonder if this is just an experiment to see how far consumers will put up with this always online and DRM shit i may be paranoid but there's no way google poured 120 million into a glorified packet smasher

[QUOTE=Untouch;52133614]with all the google backing (critikal's video says 120m), and how the manual explicitly states that theyll sell info to advertisers, I have to wonder if this is just an experiment to see how far consumers will put up with this always online and DRM shit i may be paranoid but there's no way google poured 120 million into a glorified packet smasher[/QUOTE] It's not just Google. There have been a total of [url="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/juicero/investors"]17 disclosed investors[/url] so far, the two most notable being GV and KPCB.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52133560]I could see it being useful for things like product recalls, but that's about it.[/QUOTE] See, I don't. The packs last for 5-7 days, and that's assuming they sell off the shelf immediately. These sort of recalls they talk about are generally just one-off incidents; a very, very select few batches are contaminated. Usually by the time the offending batches have been identified, it's been at least a week. By that time, they'll have already been consumed or - in this case - expired. Since the unit will not press an expired pack, they just get thrown out. The "product recalls" line is 100% bogus. They likely have the capability to recall something, but this data is being sent back for datamining, not for customer safety. Their [URL="https://www.juicero.com/privacy-policy/"]privacy policy[/URL] is a fucking joke - they flat-out tell you that they sell this information, and they'll probably sell advertising space for you to their "affiliated businesses" in the future based on this information.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52133766]See, I don't. The packs last for 5-7 days, and that's assuming they sell off the shelf immediately. These sort of recalls they talk about are generally just one-off incidents; a very, very select few batches are contaminated. Usually by the time the offending batches have been identified, it's been at least a week. By that time, they'll have already been consumed or - in this case - expired. Since the unit will not press an expired pack, they just get thrown out. The "product recalls" line is 100% bogus. They likely have the capability to recall something, but this data is being sent back for datamining, not for customer safety. Their [URL="https://www.juicero.com/privacy-policy/"]privacy policy[/URL] is a fucking joke - they flat-out tell you that they sell this information, and they'll probably sell advertising space for you to their "affiliated businesses" in the future based on this information.[/QUOTE] The only somewhat useful thing I see out of the concept is the QR code on the packaging, but again it's kind of useless given the shelf life of the products. I mean if you don't want pre-bottled juice why not just buy all the raw produce yourself and use a $50 juicer for them? And let's be real, juicing itself is a pretty terrible way to get nutrients out of fruits and vegetables. On some things it makes sense but you're missing out on the vast amount of nutrients stored in the actual fiber. I'd almost rather eat what's in the packages with a fork than juice them if I fell for this meme.

If I were a Google shareholder right now I'd be pissed they gave this thing hundreds of millions of dollars.

[QUOTE=download;52134466]If I were a Google shareholder right now I'd be pissed they gave this thing hundreds of millions of dollars.[/QUOTE] I always think of it as the "karma tax" for when you dodge taxes, but end up spending your gains on useless shit like this that even an imbecile could see was a terrible, [I]terrible[/I] idea from the get go.

[QUOTE=download;52134466]If I were a Google shareholder right now I'd be pissed they gave this thing hundreds of millions of dollars.[/QUOTE] Not even close, most likely. There were several different investors, they were one of them. Nobody can confirm how much they actually put in.

I hope script kiddies hack this and cause chaos

This internet connected fad creates the dumbest crap.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52132363]I'm still trying to rationalize the pro's of this machine but this thing is like the most hipster-bullshit thing I've seen in my life this is like something an unemployed mbillionaire would buy[/QUOTE] A juicer produced by a startup in San Fransisco that requires a wifi connection to operate and utilizes DRM bags. This is the single most millennial thing I've seen this year.

[QUOTE]First, the Press. Our connected Press itself is critical to delivering a consistent, high quality and food safe product because it provides: The first closed loop food safety system that allows us to remotely disable Produce Packs if there is, for example, a spinach recall. In these scenarios, we’re able to protect our consumers in real-time. Consistent pressing of our Produce Packs calibrated by flavor to deliver the best combination of taste and nutrition every time. Connected data so we can manage a very tight supply chain, because our product is live, raw produce, and has a limited lifespan of about 8 days.[/QUOTE] what a load of dogshit lmao

[QUOTE=Eonart;52134763]forcing customers to connect to the internet and using first party products only just for a buck is the worst fucking thing that greedy fucknuts are trying to do in the technology age trying to squeeze every little penny they can out of each purchase apparently modern execs have never learned that customer satisfaction is actually important[/QUOTE] More like they learned how unimportant it is. The consumer side of the market is wholly complicit in its own ass-reaming.

Okay, so this is obviously a luxury good made to squeeze the juice out of high class, serious juice drinkers. The machine's obviously full of shit that doesn't need to cost this much. But what about the juice? Are they good? They advertised that those are some of the freshest juice made with the best motherfucking plants on Earth. So? Are they? Like, I like that they have a scheduled delivery of packs and the QR code that... verify whatever details (it is a nice touch nonetheless). I mean, I checked their website and it is actually full of convincing shit, can't deny that their stuff is either actually good (but a little pricey) or their marketers have a way with words.

[quote] Juicero offering refunds to all customers after people realize $400 juicer is totally unnecessary Juicero is offering all of its customers the option to return their juicer for a full refund within the next 30 days, even if they bought it as far back as when the product launched a year ago. The offer comes after Bloomberg published a story yesterday pointing out that the packs of pre-cut fruits and vegetables that Juicero’s very expensive juicer was designed to press don’t actually need to be placed in the juicer — it turns out, they can be squeezed by hand.[/quote] [url]http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15375940/juicero-full-refund-customers-ceo-jeff-dunn[/url] lmao

[QUOTE=shian;52135314][url]http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15375940/juicero-full-refund-customers-ceo-jeff-dunn[/url] lmao[/QUOTE] They'll be out of business by the end of the month.

Technology was a mistake.

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;52132375]DRM for fruit :wow:[/QUOTE] Does this make Hand squeezing the bag a form of piracy?

[QUOTE=meppers;52132387]I should also mention that it's a weekly auto-renewing subscription service, too. $120 a month for fucking juice[/QUOTE] On top of the $400 surchage just to get the juice bags 1840USD a year for juice [editline]22nd April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Oizen;52135385]Does this make Hand squeezing the bag a form of piracy?[/QUOTE] [B]You wouldn't SQUEEZE your JUICE[/B]

[QUOTE=Van-man;52132291][URL="https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to-drm-its-coffee-cups-totally-backfired"]I remember last time a big company tried to implement DRM for foodstuffs.[/URL] [URL="https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/keurig-stock-drops-10-percent-says-it-was-wrong-about-drm-coffee-pods/"]It didn't go well[/URL], [URL="https://hackaday.com/2014/12/10/dead-simple-hack-allows-for-rebel-keurig-k-cups/"]especially since it could easily be bypassed[/URL][/QUOTE] Wow, how incompetent can you be. All they had to do prevent this obvious circumvent is to put a barcode with an unique ID which the device accepts once each. With IoT you could have each unique ID marked used globally if you want to go the extra mile to prevent sharing used codes across machines. Should I not give them ideas?

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52135613]Wow, how incompetent can you be. All they had to do prevent this obvious circumvent is to put a barcode with an unique ID which the device accepts once each. With IoT you could have each unique ID marked used globally if you want to go the extra mile to prevent sharing used codes across machines. Should I not give them ideas?[/QUOTE] At that point it'll become popular to manufacture, sell and retrofit third party control circuits for those machines so they'd be de-IoT'd

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52135613]Wow, how incompetent can you be. All they had to do prevent this obvious circumvent is to put a barcode with an unique ID which the device accepts once each. With IoT you could have each unique ID marked used globally if you want to go the extra mile to prevent sharing used codes across machines. Should I not give them ideas?[/QUOTE] The "problem" with your solution is backwards compatibility. They had a product on the market without protections, then tried to tack them on after the fact. Plus, it's unlikely that they actually cared all that much. It was a few cents of hardware (seriously, the detector for keurigs is very simple), and the goal was to inconvenience a few people into buying first party solutions. They still got their payoff because the first party shots are so overpriced that even a handful of people buying in paid for the initial investment, and there wasn't much incentive to push further because the people who seriously wanted third party drinks would have just ditched the keurig entirely if they couldn't "mod" it.