I'd also add that you should find common requirements that customers have and build your solution around those.
Much better to have 100s of customers using a product with 1 feature, than 1000s of customers using a product with 1000s of features (with the corresponding overhead).
Thanks! We do have some instructions on how to integrate once you've generated your embed code on sign up however I agree this should also be available without sign up. Privacy/security have been questions we get from almost everyone so we're actively working on better documentation around this. I'll make sure to include info about XSS.
It would be great to see an example of a weekend location, itinerary & recommendations.
Also, would be useful to have a "couples" price.
And a different cadence (once every 2 months, once a quarter)
Thanks for the feedback! We have made it so you can pause/cancel subscriptions, that way you can travel however often you like. You can also add people to your current trip once registered as an add-on
I think before anyone signs up, you really need to publish some example holidays. i need to be able to compare against what is currently on the market as to what i am getting. How would your offer compare to: http://www.holidaypirates.com/holidaypackages/3-nights-in-mo... say?
I have 2 children who need to take meds and would want to buy 2 x medmanager.
- Maybe allow customers to choose more than 1 of the same touchable type.
- Can these be mix/matched across multiple devices ? Can touchables pair with multiple clients ? Can you change the pairing ? More info would be useful
Thank you :) It works with multiple stickers of the same type. You can simply assign them nicknames.
Basically once a touchable is used for the first time, it is assigned to one person. If another person taps it, the first person then can add the other person as friend and they can jointly use it and see the status in their dashboard.
If a person has an iphone, they can also be added via an email address and get email infos about the status. All text is done in a sweet and humourous fashion.
The video was so much fun to create. Many companies in this space are big telcos, so we thought we have to do something that noone else can do :)
As tech we are using NFC, which we are not highlighting, because it will be ubiquituous like Bluetooth sooner than later and the name itself scares off many people. The interesting part is that non-geek people who have tried them, believe they are the same value as 'Tile', etc...
I have come to the conclusion, over many years, that microservices are simply a runtime solution to a compile-time problem. Why can we not develop code in a modular way (to separate concerns & isolate) , but deploy it in a monolithic way (to reduce latency/reliability concerns). This is what we did when OO was fashionable.
I understand that we shouldn't treat RPCs like local calls, but that doesn't mean we cannot do the reverse. If we design services properly we don't need to tie the design and the deployment.
I just can't see the purpose of making something permanently flaky at runtime for the sole purpose of keeping developers on track at design time.
"A failure to comply cancels the transaction. You can get your money back and keep the goods. If the sale was for a service or a digital download, the contract is cancelled and no further payments are due."
I would think that, under contract law, you get your money back and you return the goods - that would be cancelling the transaction. Likewise for digital downloads or services.
Can anyone explain why the provider would be penalized further ?
I'd say that this is explicitly meant as a punishment to disincentivize such actions. Completely canceling the transaction just undoes the damage, and only if it places zero burden on the consumer - no shipping costs nor effort, which is unlikely.
This may come out as a 'double refund', but in generally accepted practice, paying triple of the dishonestly earned amount is also often considered an reasonable measure just as a penalty.
Otherwise if half of the cheated consumers complain and get their money back, and half don't notice it, then it's still a net win for a shady company and an incentive to continue such activities, contrary to the explicit goal of this legislation.
As others have stated, it's to disincentivize abuse. The USPS had a similar problem with scams and fraud, where scammers would send "gifts" to people, then follow them up with a bill. This is now explicitly against the law, but also importantly, if you are sent ANYTHING unsolicited, you may keep it. I'm guessing the second part is the stronger enforcement. Probably similar in this case. See: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/mailfraud/...
Because that could create a situation where the seller can put a burden on you. (arcane rules on how to return goods, trying to get shipment expenses from you, etc.)
We probably should have clarified that this is an online and and offline law affecting all sales and purchases, not just e-commerce ones.
The law provides better protections to consumers, but it also provides some protections to retailers against some of the dodgy practices they've had to deal with from consumers. Returns and expenses are a HUGE part of the law.
My favourite bit is what I call the "anti-wardrobing provision". Under the new law, when you return an item, retailers can now deduct a fair percentage of its cash value from your refund if you have returned it clearly damaged or un-resellable. This is because of wardrobing - the practice of buying an item of clothing, deliberately keeping the tags on, wearing it once, and returning it for a refund stinking of your night out.
The same reason many states say that if the grocery store accidentally overcharges you by N cents for an item, you get 10 * N cents (up to a limit) off of the marked price.
This is encouraging the consumer to engage in self-help and gives them (in theory) just enough of them the motivation to keep on the lookout for the scam.
It's not the only way to run a regulatory regime, and it has some downsides, but it also has a measure of appeal.
I don't claim to know for sure, but it seems to me like the reason for that is because all of these laws are restrictions are companies trying to do shady stuff to sell you more then what you wanted. Allowing the person purchasing the goods to keep them as well as get money back encourages companies to not break these laws since they don't want to lose their stuff. If they got their goods back then there really wouldn't be any repercussions toward the company for breaking these laws since the transactions would (presumably) be cancel-able within a specific time-frame already.
* Run a spell check over your blog entry. One or two are acceptable but there were so many that it detracted from what you were trying to say.
* I didn't understand what the product will do for me (as a product provider) and how I can use this to increase the number of people who buy my goods.
Thanks for the tip with the typos, I wrote it with jade and need to use a spell checker. Very unprofessional.
andbrand is about letting people share how they feel about products in an extremely natural way. If you produce a quality product that people genuinely like, then andbrand should make you look extremely good. Other people will see your product through an organic search process, allowing you to market for free.
Much better to have 100s of customers using a product with 1 feature, than 1000s of customers using a product with 1000s of features (with the corresponding overhead).