Dbrand “hydrodip” case

[SansVarnic]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm sorry, but that's an asinine thinking.

 

If your acknowledement is that it's not a product of hydro dipping then it's just stupid to call it jargon vs flat out lying.  To hydro dip something has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning in terms of technique used to create a product.  Notice my word is Hydro dip not Hydro-dipped and to suggest just because they didn't add an 'ped' it becomes jargon instead of a lie and a non-issue is just flat out silly.

 

While we are at it, where exactly do you think the OP should look.  I pulled up the product page.

 

I agree with the OP, the facts are simple.

 

They called it hydrodip, which implies that perhaps it's actually made using hydrodipping

They specifically say "We drowned the Grip Case so you don't have to"; which implies that the case itself would be hydrodipped if chosen.

 

On the buy now page, there is NO MENTION THAT IT IS NOT HYDRO DIPPED.  And no indication that the case itself wasn't the one that was hydrodipped [like the marketing implied].  I went as far as the checkout page where I would have to start adding my details and it didn't specify the method.

 

So maybe take your own advice and read through before you make the assumption that it's a non-issue.  I'll say it what it is, it's a bold face lie by dbrand and not some "jargon" like you are suggesting.  And WHO CARES if it's jargon vs lying, it's extremely trashy and shady of a company to essentially trick consumers into thinking the product is something else.

10 hours ago, zaprqn said:

So if i sell you a Golden Ring, and even throw a 24K at the end implying something with it, but then you get the ring and it turns out its not golden its just steel painted golden and i then defend it by "I never said it was made of gold", would i be using jargon or would it be deception? And then when you ask "What about the 24K, doesn't that mean 24 Karats?" and i go "No, thats just the model number", would that still be a non issue? 

 

While yes, it is in part on the consumer to do their due diligence but when something is made intentionally misleading then it crosses the line by what acceptable marketing should be, if not legally, then at the very least morally.

 

And whenever people start defending such practices with "It didn't specifically say or didn't say something", while heavily implying it you are defending negligence at best or malice at worst, this ignorance and apathy from a lot of the consumers is what allows for such deceptive practices to thrive. An honest person would strive to provide the most detailed and relevant information possible, a dishonest one would obfuscate it and even make claims that are untrue so that their products look more appealing.

 

When did lying became "edgy marketing" as some other members here tried to make a case for?

Welcome to how marketing works, as I pointed out already.

And for the record I didn't say I accepted it. Just pointing out what it is.   fall on that sword if you wish.

 

 

[zaprqn]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Welcome to how marketing works, as I pointed out already.

And for the record I didn't say I accepted it. Just pointing out what it is.   fall on that sword if you wish.

 

You dismissed people having issues with it by calling it a non issue, how is that not accepting it?

 

I'm falling on that sword because thats how erosion of everything happens, you know 10-20 years ago we used to own stuff, now its license that can be revoked on a whim and services we have to subscribe to every month for no other reason but to pay more money, we used be able to repair stuff now "we are assaulting people in parking lots" if we do "unsanctioned" repairs, one day something you care about will be taken away and you will be met by the same "Who the F cares". Just because we dont have functioning governments and regulators doesn't mean a lot of things are how they should be. Tell me im wrong.

[wanderingfool2]

15 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Welcome to how marketing works, as I pointed out already.

And for the record I didn't say I accepted it. Just pointing out what it is.   fall on that sword if you wish.

When it gets to the point that you were victim blaming and being asinine and pedantic.

 

You have by your actions have shown you do accept the level of wording dbrand has used; and you are willing to effectively gaslight the OP by making statements that he's effectively wrong.

 

Trying to pass it off as just "marketing" and acting like because it's "marketing" somehow trivializes that it's blatantly a lie (again this assume no hydrodipping took place).  The fact is, if a lawyer got ahold of this and wished to proceed they would likely win a case under false advertisement.

 

Here though, I'll quote you on the things that very much indicate you accept it.

  

On 5/5/2024 at 5:08 PM, SansVarnic said:

Looking at the site its an inlay on the back of the case to look hydro-dipped, they are not as it would seem actually hydro-dipping. They are calling the inlay HYDRODIP, not Hydro-Dipped.

Ok, big difference.  Thats solved moving on ... this is a non-issue.

On 5/5/2024 at 5:08 PM, SansVarnic said:

OP I suggest you read through the product page a bit more thoroughly.

 What gets me is that you make a statement like this, blaming the OP essentially...when the product page DOESN'T specify it hasn't hydro-dipped it.  And no hydrodip vs hydro-dipped IS NOT a big difference. [Especially when they have included phrases referring to processes involved in hydrodipping]

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

So has anyone in this thread actually taken a step back to consider that the marbled design on the skin itself might have been created with the hydro dipping? And more to the point, what would be the material difference between actually hydro dipping the skin or case or "just" using a print of the same design? Where do you lose out? Never mind that if you're deceived by that, you're also deceived by the teardowns and angry that you're not actually looking at your own phone's internals and just a composite image of one.

[Agall]

11 hours ago, zaprqn said:

 

You dismissed people having issues with it by calling it a non issue, how is that not accepting it?

They're dismissing it as an issue without providing overt support for the action.

 

Marketing isn't always accurate, but its not inaccurate enough to be legally a problem.

 

On 5/3/2024 at 1:30 PM, Erioch said:

I must not be seeing the same thing you are.  I don't see anything iterated or reiterated.

 

So you're telling me that you clearly don't notice the lack of 'hydro-dipping' in any part but the area that the skin goes? This still looks 'hyrdro-dipped' and not simply a skin to you?

[Bitter]

37 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

So has anyone in this thread actually taken a step back to consider that the marbled design on the skin itself might have been created with the hydro dipping? And more to the point, what would be the material difference between actually hydro dipping the skin or case or "just" using a print of the same design? Where do you lose out? Never mind that if you're deceived by that, you're also deceived by the teardowns and angry that you're not actually looking at your own phone's internals and just a composite image of one.

Ah yes, my print of the Mona Lisa...

[SansVarnic]

12 hours ago, zaprqn said:

You dismissed people having issues with it by calling it a non issue, how is that not accepting it?

I'm dismissing the issue not the people, lets not go down that road.

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

When it gets to the point that you were victim blaming and being asinine and pedantic.

 

You have by your actions have shown you do accept the level of wording dbrand has used; and you are willing to effectively gaslight the OP by making statements that he's effectively wrong.

 

Trying to pass it off as just "marketing" and acting like because it's "marketing" somehow trivializes that it's blatantly a lie (again this assume no hydrodipping took place).  The fact is, if a lawyer got ahold of this and wished to proceed they would likely win a case under false advertisement.

 

Here though, I'll quote you on the things that very much indicate you accept it.

  

 What gets me is that you make a statement like this, blaming the OP essentially...when the product page DOESN'T specify it hasn't hydro-dipped it.  And no hydrodip vs hydro-dipped IS NOT a big difference. [Especially when they have included phrases referring to processes involved in hydrodipping]

 

When did I victim blame? I don't recall doing so. Geez your on some kind of witch hunt over me lately aren't you?

Its clearly not Hydro-dipped and I made it clear as much by pointing this out... They are calling the design HYDRODIP that is obvious. Took me a whopping 10 seconds to see that. If you honestly believe they are making this out be hydro-dipped then well I'm not sure how to explain that for you.  Its also clear that my first comment had nothing to do with the product itself and only about the marketing jargon being used. My third comment is when I actually looked at the site and it is fair to say that is obvious.

There really is no point in us continuing this. Lets drop it shall we?

[Erioch]

3 hours ago, Agall said:

So you're telling me that you clearly don't notice the lack of 'hydro-dipping' in any part but the area that the skin goes? This still looks 'hyrdro-dipped' and not simply a skin to you?

I didn't zoom in on anything.  I read the words.

[Agall]

32 minutes ago, Erioch said:

I didn't zoom in on anything.  I read the words.

[Erioch]

8 minutes ago, Agall said:

Next time I'll ...

 

 

I wouldn't buy from Dbrand anyway.  They're assholes.

[GuiltySpark_]

8 minutes ago, Erioch said:

I wouldn't buy from Dbrand anyway.  They're assholes.

Distinct difference with how people perceive them. Precisely why I buy from them. 

[Erioch]

13 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Distinct difference with how people perceive them. Precisely why I buy from them. 

Racist assholes.

[Agall]

31 minutes ago, Erioch said:

Next time I'll ...

 

 

 

I wouldn't buy from Dbrand anyway.  They're assholes.

Ah, your true intention on display

[Erioch]

12 minutes ago, Agall said:

Ah, your true intention on display

The last case I bought was from them.  No more.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

When did I victim blame? I don't recall doing so

You literally disregard the concern and tell the OP to read more carefully; and essentially boiled it down to him understanding that "hydrodip" name and advertising with lines like dipping cases in water somehow doesn't mean it's hydrodipped.

 

You are in effect trivializing everything the OP is saying by saying it's a non-issue and deflecting the blame onto him by saying he should be reading better.

 

4 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Geez your on some kind of witch hunt over me lately aren't you?

Not a witch hunt; you are making asinine or incorrect statements and pretending like what you said isn't what should be implied and I'm simply calling you out on that

 

4 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

ts clearly not Hydro-dipped and I made it clear as much by pointing this out... They are calling the design HYDRODIP that is obvious. Took me a whopping 10 seconds to see that. If you honestly believe they are making this out be hydro-dipped then well I'm not sure how to explain that for you. 

Then you are being ignorant.

 

Product is called HYDODIP, and their wording talks about a process an user would do to hydro-dip their phone case.

 

Lets see, are you seriously still trying to be justify a LIE because someone should be able to tell a product called hydrodip with the phrasing essentially saying the case in so you don't have to.

 

It's like what @zaprqn's argument was, if you are okay with it being called hydrodip then it's akin to calling a metal bar "24k Gold" and making it from bronze then claiming people should know it's not actually gold.

 

Since you told the OP read more, then show where it was marked that it wasn't a product of hydrodipping.  Notice if you go to hydrodip.com for example the products there are all hydrodipped.

[zaprqn]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

I'm dismissing the issue not the people, lets not go down that road.

 

On 5/7/2024 at 2:00 PM, zaprqn said:

You dismissed people having issues with it by calling it a non issue

Again with the semantic wordplay deflections.
 
Hydrodip is e specific term for a specific process, the only way it would be obvious TO EVERYONE it wasnt made using that process given the lack of information on their site is if its something that is not applicable in this situation, which it is considering there are companies out there actually offering hydrodipped cases, not just prints. 

All they have to do is call it hydrodip style print or pick any other term or phrase to name their line of products that doesnt have a specific meaning and imply something that wasnt actually done. 

 

You are defending dbrands intentional or accidental deceptive marketing, while those who are against it are asking for clarification and transparency. 
So im not sure you are dying on the correct hill there, but if thats your thing.

 

Go ahead, tell me next how you are not defending it, you are saying its just marketing, for the record.
 

13 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And more to the point, what would be the material difference between actually hydro dipping the skin or case or "just" using a print of the same design? Where do you lose out?

The actual process creates a specific and unique pattern and texture, while the print is just that a print, its the difference between a painting and a poster.

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 hours ago, zaprqn said:

The actual process creates a specific and unique pattern and texture, while the print is just that a print, its the difference between a painting and a poster.

Have you looked at the skins in question? They have that specific, unique pattern on it that marbled hydro dipping is known for. Sure, maybe every skin has the same "unique" pattern on it, but let's not pretend that you're gonna care that much about the specifics of the pattern. This isn't about aesthetics for ya'll, this is about semantics and looking for a reason to be upset. And I've actually done the kind of marbled hydro dipping shown in those products, there's no texture to the process beyond what the surface you're applying it to has. The paint layer is so ridiculously thin that you'll want to have some type of topcoat on it anyway, or you'll gonna scratch it off in record time.

[Erioch]

44 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

The paint layer is so ridiculously thin that you'll want to have some type of topcoat on it anyway, or you'll gonna scratch it off in record time.

You're kind of helping to prove our point.  Actual hydrodipping has more perceived and actual value than a sticker.  I'm glad you agree with us.

[Avocado Diaboli]

3 minutes ago, Erioch said:

You're kind of helping to prove our point.  Actual hydrodipping has more perceived and actual value than a sticker.  I'm glad you agree with us.

Nah, that's just you building a strawman argument. I suggest you drop the bad faith attempts at any gotchas that are this transparent to call out.

[Erioch]

14 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Nah, that's just you building a strawman argument. I suggest you drop the bad faith attempts at any gotchas that are this transparent to call out.

If a food place advertises Wagu beef and you get regular hamburger, that is deceitful and false advertising.  Dbrand is doing the same thing.  Thorum, who is/was an LMG sponsor, still advertises Dinosaur Bone as a material in their rings.  That is deceitful and false advertising.  Dbrand is advertising hydrodipped cases that are stickers.  It's deceitful and false advertising.  No strawman.

[Avocado Diaboli]

29 minutes ago, Erioch said:

If a food place advertises Wagu beef and you get regular hamburger, that is deceitful and false advertising.  Dbrand is doing the same thing.  Thorum, who is/was an LMG sponsor, still advertises Dinosaur Bone as a material in their rings.  That is deceitful and false advertising.  Dbrand is advertising hydrodipped cases that are stickers.  It's deceitful and false advertising.  No strawman.

Again, the design might have been created with the hydro dipping technique, which by default makes it not false advertising.

 

Never mind that your reply wasn't about that. The strawman in question was about you thinking that I somehow demonstrated or even agreed with the assessment that a hydro dipped piece was more valuable, neither of which I did and neither of which have been demonstrated at this point. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Again, the design might have been created with the hydro dipping technique, which by default makes it not false advertising.

Here, buy this gold gilded case.  Just ignore the fact that it's actually just a print and contains no real gold.  [Ginger ale has gotten sued in the paste when allegations were made that it wasn't made from real ginger]

 

It is false advertising.

 

For myself, I would be more inclined to buy a case that was hydro-dipped.  The reason, I have a tendency to pick at corners when I fidget and also the way I put phones into my pockets it tends to peel.  Yes hydro-dipping can get scratches, but I prefer scratches over peeling of skins.  Anyways, something that has been hydrodipped would also have a coating protecting the paint layer making it resistant to scratches.

 

It's not semantics as you put it, it's about the fact that it is not what it claims to be.  It's literally a statement of claim "We drowned the Grip Case so you don't have to".

 

Literally everyone here wouldn't be complaining if they actually hydro-dipped or if they called it a style instead of implying they are hydro-dipping.

[Bitter]

They just need to add two words to their marketing wank.

"Hydro-dip inspired print"

And all would be well, fairly small simple adjustment and it satisfies everyone. It clarifies that it's a print of a hydro-dip.

A friend of mine got a Dbrand case for his phone that was marketed and shown to be a 3D effect of some kind with some prismatic look to it. IRL it was a flat sticker with some shiny bits,one of the obsidian ones. He was mildly upset about it. I would have been too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dbrand/comments/zqh81b/am_i_the_only_one_disappointed_by_the_damascus/

[SpaceGhostC2C]

18 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And more to the point, what would be the material difference between actually hydro dipping the skin or case or "just" using a print of the same design? Where do you lose out?

OP has already answered that: having to apply a sticker by yourself vs. not having to do anything to obtain the final result. Whether the seller was misleading people or not into believing it was one or the other, it's something I haven't looked in detail to form an opinion. Still, reiterating questions with obvious, already provided answers is a waste of time in any case.

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Here, buy this gold gilded case.  Just ignore the fact that it's actually just a print and contains no real gold.  [Ginger ale has gotten sued in the paste when allegations were made that it wasn't made from real ginger]

 

It is false advertising.

I'm sorry, but they also have skins labelled as concrete, white marble, black carbon and they used to sell ones labelled as wood

 

 

Meanwhile, the one's made from actual, real leather are labelled as "real leather"

 

You people not being able to understand the difference is not false advertising. 

 

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's not semantics as you put it, it's about the fact that it is not what it claims to be.  It's literally a statement of claim "We drowned the Grip Case so you don't have to".

Their product page also claims they've done research regarding chemically-induced brainwashing. I'm sorry, but again, if you people fail at detecting the obvious disconnect, you're beyond help. Of all the hills worth dying on...