[HN Gopher] Better Business Bureau rejects Molekule's air purifi...
___________________________________________________________________
Better Business Bureau rejects Molekule's air purifier claims
Author : prostoalex
Score : 238 points
Date : 2020-03-01 15:50 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thewirecutter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thewirecutter.com)
| fortran77 wrote:
| They're still coming very close to saying misleading things on
| their website:
|
| (Source: https://molekule.com/technology )
|
| > "Developed over two decades by research scientists, PECO is an
| innovative technology that utilizes free radicals--the same
| radicals used to destroy cancer cells--to break down pollutants
| at a molecular level, including VOCs, bacteria, mold, viruses,
| and allergens. By using nanotechnology, PECO is able to destroy
| pollutants 1000 times smaller than what traditional HEPA
| technology was designed to trap."
|
| Basically they may be using "PECO" filters, but there's no
| guarantee a little fan in a cylinder blowing though a PECO filter
| in the corner of your room will actually significantly clean the
| air. And they hint that it cures cancer!
| gregd wrote:
| "And the unit's always-on blue glow--which indicates when its
| primary PECO filter is in operation--can disrupt sleep. (You
| can't physically block the glow with a coin or tape, because
| doing so would block the Molekule's delivery of air.)"
|
| I'm not sure when this trend of putting blue lights on devices
| meant to be put in a bedroom started, or when it will end, but
| for me, this could be the best filter on the market (it's not)
| and I would still not purchase it based on the blue light.
|
| I have a Winix Air Purifier I bought from Costco in my bedroom
| and while it has blue lights, they auto-shutoff in a darkened
| room. There is one blue indicator on the faceplate that stays on,
| but I remedied that with a piece of eletrical tape.
| unholythree wrote:
| I've changed out the super high intensity blue LEDs on my
| computers for amber 30 MCD ones. I don't sleep in the room with
| them, but if I have someone crash on my couch they don't have
| search lights blinking at them all night.
|
| They're plenty bright to see in daylight, and personally I like
| the retro charm.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I'm not sure when this trend of putting blue lights on
| devices meant to be put in a bedroom started, or when it will
| end
|
| Running them so obnoxiously bright as well. I once bought a USB
| plug I could almost read by, it was ridiculous.
| pkaye wrote:
| There are these decals you can buy on Amazon that fully or
| partially block out the light. They come in a sheet with
| varying shapes and sizes.
| sn_master wrote:
| My Honeywell purifier has a button to turn off the blue LED
| lights.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| I always thought that the Internet with its ,,collective wisdom"
| would make it more difficult to sell snake oil to unwary
| consumer, but now I think the opposite is true.
|
| It's crazy how many pseudo-scientific gadgets are hyped up by
| social media these days. Here in Germany we have startups like
| "Mitte" that wants to sell "personalized water" produced using
| smart purifiers and some rather sketchy marketing
| (https://mitte.co). They were really successful on Kickstarter
| (where else) but seem to be in financial trouble now. Maybe
| that's not surprising since Germany (like many European
| countries) has really good drinking water, so apart from making
| the water softer by removing calcium carbonate (which is also
| only a problem in some regions) there's really not much you can
| do to improve a basic product like water.
|
| I wonder what's next after air and water though...
| alephnan wrote:
| > "collective wisdom" would make it more difficult to sell
| snake oil to unwary consumer, but now I think the opposite is
| true.
|
| Check out the Fyre Festival documentaries
| hedora wrote:
| If you're looking for an air purifier, the Honeywell HPA300
| ($200) is more than enough four our three bedroom house (despite
| the 465sq ft rating).
|
| I want to be able to recommend the Bissell Air400, as it is
| quieter, has a built in PM 2.5 meter, auto adjusts to pollutants,
| and the filter works at least as well.
|
| Unfortunately, it randomly turns itself off. This seems to be a
| design flaw, as many other people report the same thing. Also, it
| doesn't seem to use a PID control loop to set fan speed, so the
| automatic speed controller sets itself far too low for our house.
| On the bright side, it is frequently on sale for 50%+ off, since
| it has a terrible reputation.
|
| In practice, I leave the honeywell on, and use the bissell if
| there's a problem (cooking smoke, allergies, wildfires, etc). In
| tandem, the two are able to lower PM 2.5 by over 90%, which is
| more than enough for fire season.
|
| Edit: In hindsight, I would have bought the HPA 300, and a
| standalone sensor like the ones from purple air.
| Youden wrote:
| It's not just Molekule, consumer air quality products in general
| are full of dubious junk.
|
| This study [0] fairly comprehensively compared the Foobot air
| quality monitor to a research-grade sensor setup and found that
| it severely underestimated the temperature (one of the easiest
| things to get right in my experience), underestimated tVOC, had
| low correlation on its CO2 output (i.e. the CO2 output was pure
| garbage) and overestimated PM2.5.
|
| I wish this was unique to Foobot.
|
| The problem seems to be that these companies take a bunch of
| cheap, low-quality sensors (e.g. using inferred CO2 rather than
| an NDIR sensor or saving cost by not properly calibrating the
| sensors), put them in a premium-looking (and priced) package and
| market them as if they were premium products, because consumers
| won't know any better.
|
| The worst part is that high-quality sensors really aren't that
| expensive. A bundle of Sensirion tVOC, CO2, RH/T and particulate
| sensors can be had for under $200 and with proper calibration
| they work great. Hook them to an ESP32 or something and put them
| in a case and you've basically got a Foobot.
|
| [0]: https://www.j-sens-sens-syst.net/7/373/2018/
| ilamont wrote:
| The BBB's NAD program didn't conduct these tests this because of
| ordinary people questioning the claims, it's doing it because
| another business demanded it (and paid for it).
|
| When it comes to dealing with consumer complaints, the BBB's goal
| is to make its members look good and keep them out of civil
| lawsuits, regulatory investigations, and media reports. They want
| to minimize damage to paying members, and will do things like
| removing bad reviews from its websites (this personally happened
| to me).
|
| If you have some time check out the CNN report into the BBB
| (especially "These companies got A+ ratings?"):
| https://money.cnn.com/news/companies/bbb-ratings/
| prostoalex wrote:
| Consumer Reports also ended up with "avoid" rating for
| Molekule. Most of their reviews are behind the paywall, but
| they did publish a blog post and gave the company a platform to
| object
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/air-purifiers/molekule-air-p...
|
| They still ended up including Molekule in their list of 3 worst
| https://www.consumerreports.org/air-purifiers/best-air-purif...
| Shivetya wrote:
| Hey I am all for the industry voluntarily policing itself.
| Reading further into the article reveals that is action is
| warranted but not followed up on that NAD will refer the issue
| to the FTC who has the force of law behind it if they find in
| agreement with the assessment.
| Jam-B wrote:
| While I am not defending Molekule, both the BBB and Consumer
| Reports act based upon money generated from competitive
| companies. They are not unbiased, and have found to be biased on
| multiple occasions.
| NoblePublius wrote:
| You can make an air purifier as good as molekule with a $15 box
| fan, $3 20x20 air filter, and four pieces of duct tape. Come at
| me.
| Marsymars wrote:
| That sounds notably better than molekule. You can make an air
| purifier as good as molekule with a fan, a piece of duct tape,
| and an LED.
| johnzim wrote:
| So annoyed I bought one of these based on testimonials from
| people I trust (podcasters with allergies). I haven't seen a
| significant improvement over a regular HEPA filter.
|
| At least it looks cool and has a HEPA filter at the base. It just
| doesn't move that much air.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Be aware that according to the original Wirecutter tests on low
| mode it's significantly worse than doing nothing (filters ~6%
| of smoke particles vs ~15% that would have settled out if the
| fan inside wasn't disturbing the air), and it's significantly
| worse than $100 filters on high mode (filtering ~60% vs ~90% of
| smoke particles)
| adrr wrote:
| Podcasters are always paid for these product reviews. This is
| out of the playbook for all DTC companies. I'd recommend and
| support consumer reports. If you're not paying for a review,
| more than likely it's paid for by a company.
|
| Even review sites that look like they are ad supported and
| independent are controlled by these D2C brands. Eg: Casper owns
| Sleepopolis.
|
| https://www.vox.com/2017/9/23/13153814/casper-sleepopolis-la...
| hkeide wrote:
| Same here. I even did my research, but in retrospect it turns
| out a lot of their TrustPilot reviews are obvious fakes. I'm
| now trying to return it but I'm being ignored by customer
| service. Time to get a chargeback I guess. Any other avenues to
| get a refund?
|
| What a bunch of charlatans. It must be pretty heartbreaking
| working for a company like this.
|
| https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.molekule.com
|
| Edit: btw, the offgassing is bad enough that I wouldn't use
| this anywhere where people breathe the air. Who knows what this
| weird offgassing contains. Who ever heard of an air filter that
| does offgassing?
| alephnan wrote:
| I've been seeing ads by Molekule and their cofounder attacking a
| review by Wirecutter, arguing Wirecutter lacked the technical
| adequacy to review the product
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=sAuZok410V4
| masklinn wrote:
| Ah yes, "it doesn't filter out your dust particules because
| you're not properly dusting your particules!"
| williesleg wrote:
| Just face it we're all gonna die.
| subpixel wrote:
| Ok, how can we get them to do the same for Berkey filters,
| manufactured by New Millennium Concepts?
|
| I used these for years before realizing I had fallen for their
| shuck and jive.
|
| Backstory: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/big-berkey-water-
| filter-sy...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Founders say they're "very confident that this technology will
| destroy Coronavirus"_
|
| I would love if this led to some serious legal consequences. This
| is creating danger to the public.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| BBB has zero credibility
| sn_master wrote:
| Why ? And where are you from ?
| TylerE wrote:
| BBB is just old people Yelp. They're a rent seeker, and n any
| sort of government body or regulator.
| tyfon wrote:
| To me this looks almost criminal but I don't know advertising
| laws in the US. In my country you can't claim you are best in
| something without substantial evidence to back it up. Most just
| write "one of the best" to avoid having to prove it although that
| statement in itself has to have some evidence backing it.
|
| In any case I have a general rule. If you need to advertise your
| product it sucks. If you have a quality product you will sell
| based on word of mouth of early adopters. The first example that
| comes to mind is Tesla which spends zero on marketing.
|
| So for me, if I'm looking to buy a certain item and I see an ad
| for something in that category it will be the last manufacturer
| that I consider. This isn't always true but so far this rule of
| thumb has held up for me pretty well.
| astura wrote:
| USA has a broad federal law prohibiting "unfair or deceptive
| acts or practices in or affecting commerce." (Section 5(a) of
| the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 USC SS45))
|
| This appears to be in violation
| mindslight wrote:
| In the US you can basically lie about anything and it's fine.
| If it's a relative statement, no one can disprove it. If it's
| an absolute statement, then it's on the consumer to know that
| it was supposed to be hyperbole or whatever and not an actual
| statement of fact.
|
| Even numerical specifications can be blatantly fraudulent and
| it's still fine - eg "6.0 horsepower shop vacuum". A standard
| wall outlet _cannot_ supply more than 2HP, but manufacturers
| have devised this outlandish "test procedure" that produces
| the bogus number. Still, zero prior restraint. The best
| enforcement we can hope for is a class action lawsuit in a
| decade where everyone will get a coupon for five dollars off a
| new shop vac, and the industry will move on to a new fraudulent
| measure.
| tyfon wrote:
| Sounds crazy.. and most people still believes what is said in
| advertisements or do they just accept that it's all fake?
| harryh wrote:
| Tesla spent $70 million on marketing in 2018.
|
| https://ir.tesla.com/node/19496/html
|
| "Marketing, promotional and advertising costs are expensed as
| incurred and are included as an element of selling, general and
| administrative expense in the consolidated statement of
| operations. We incurred marketing, promotional and advertising
| costs of $70.0 million, $66.5 million and $48.0 million in the
| years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively."
| tyfon wrote:
| Ok, not quite zero but close to it. I've never seen a banner
| ad or tv ad for tesla outside of their stores.
|
| I suspect most of this cost is banners and such in their
| stores and video production for their youtube channel. Maybe
| they also count reveal event.
|
| In any case it pales in comparison to let's say Wv who spends
| between 5 and 6 billion each year [1].
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/286537/volkswagen-
| advert...
| adrr wrote:
| Comparing a company that sells 10 million+ cars a year to a
| company that sells 500k cars.
| tyfon wrote:
| Well it's still comparatively low. I've yet to see a
| Tesla ad on TV, news papers or billboards and they still
| sell like hot cakes in my country.
|
| If we count the full 70 million for tesla spend in
| marketing against an annual average of about 6 billion
| for Vw, Tesla comes out at $140/car and Vw comes out at
| $600/car or about 4 times as much pr car.
|
| The main point I was trying to make was that for me ads
| are a negative towards a brand not a positive as I will
| suspect the quality of the product if they have to
| advertise.
| fsh wrote:
| As others have pointed out, Tesla actually spends quite a bit
| of money on advertising. They also got reprimanded in Germany
| for lying about pricing in their ads:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/tesla-to-...
| tyfon wrote:
| They had to stop putting the "price after savings" on their
| web pages in Norway long time ago, it just wasn't compatible
| with our laws. They also had to pay back money to buyers due
| to having the combined power of the motors on their web page
| and not what the battery actually could put out.
|
| I wouldn't count a product web page advertisement but I guess
| definitions vary.
|
| In any case they spend close to nothing if anything on
| regular ads and sell a ton of cars (at least here in Norway).
| notahacker wrote:
| And one of Tesla's core marketing claims - that their
| vehicles are equipped with 'the hardware needed for full self
| driving capability' certainly isn't any more honest than
| Molekule's claims about the efficacy of their filters.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I somehow missed that this air filter exists, but taking an
| existing, boring product category (air filters, mattresses,
| razors, toothbrushes, edit: _cigarettes_ ), giving it a design
| makeover, and following through with marketing on social media
| and podcasts, seems to be a path straight to the wallets of
| millennials.
| m0zg wrote:
| Instagram is full of this bullshit. I routinely get dog food ads
| that advertise that their dog food has "vegetables" in it. Why
| the fuck would a carnivore need "vegetables"?
| eth0up wrote:
| In my view, the BBB has become an extortion agency. A business
| can essentially commit serial murder and maintain an A+, so long
| as they pay their dues. There are many reputable and fine
| businesses with low BBB ratings, simply because they refuse to
| pay for accreditation. An A+ from the BBB, should in my opinion,
| be a stigma as easily as a credential. It is not always so, but
| it is a problem.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Possibly true, but this is not related to the point of the
| article.
| eth0up wrote:
| I'll go as far as to agree with commenter PragmaticPulp, but
| not entirely that the integrity of the BBB is unrelated here.
|
| Edited to add: I have had extensive interaction with the BBB
| regarding real, genuine product safety issues, which
| encompassed misleading advertising and due to the
| indifference of the BBB, led to an FTC report and more.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Please read the article. This concerns NAD, a division of BBB
| that arbitrates trade disputes before they go to the FTC. It
| has nothing to do with the accreditation sales teams.
|
| Information on NAD here:
| https://bbbprograms.org/programs/nad/nad-contact-us
| sorokod wrote:
| A spelling error in their name was the first clue.
| BubRoss wrote:
| The better business bureau is not an authority in the same way
| that a government regulations body is.
| fortran77 wrote:
| True, but this isn't the point of Wirecutter's article.
| jjeaff wrote:
| >Highlights include Molekule's position that its claims weren't
| referring to the Molekule purifier itself--weren't referring to
| the product it was selling--but rather were referring only to the
| underlying PECO "and other" technology. In fact, Molekule based
| many of its claims on tests of prototypes, or of the PECO filter
| alone
|
| Seems like we have a mini-theranos on our hands. To make claims
| in your sales material about you PECO technology filtering VOCs
| then claim you weren't talking about the product itself is beyond
| scummy.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I had no idea the BBB did this kind of thing. I thought it was
| only the regulatory bodies and Consumer Reports.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| If you're being harmed by false advertising as a competitor you
| can pay them $10,000-35,000 to look into it and issue one of
| these.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I expect a lot of people will focus on the problematic BBB in the
| comments here, but it's important to focus on the core problem:
|
| Molekule's marketing claims have been debunked from the start.
| Their massive social media advertising campaigns have fed a lot
| of misinformation to a lot of people since their launch. It's
| amazing how many people I know who confidently recommend Molekule
| air filters as superior technology based on nothing more than
| having seen their Instagram ads. Molekule has secured media puff
| pieces from several influential media outlets as well as several
| print publications, none of whom seem to have done the slightest
| amount of testing to verify their claims.
|
| Both Wirecutter and Consumer Reports actually tested the Molekule
| and found the performance to be abysmal. Wirecutter went so far
| as to declare it the worst air purifier they've ever tested:
| https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-air-purifier/#molekul...
|
| The product just plain does not work, and their marketing
| material appears to be pure lies. I hope they see some
| consequences for this.
|
| Perhaps the worst part is that the underlying PECO technology is
| potentially promising as an adjunct to a traditional HEPA filter.
| Instead, the Molekule company has gone all-in in their anti-HEPA
| marketing strategy, creating a false dichotomy for marketing hype
| instead of trying to create an evolution of the standard HEPA
| filter.
| borkt wrote:
| I work for a municipal government in an area where wildfires
| hit. During the emergency our city's fire department gave city
| hall a molekule air filter to run in the office. Knowing our
| typical budget I can only assume these were sent to us free by
| molekule, and I did not notice any improvement in air quality,
| likely as the technology is more for voc's than large air
| particles. Felt super shady to me
| naner wrote:
| I hope they were free, those things are way more expensive
| than an effective HEPA filter system.
| kurthr wrote:
| What I find interesting about InstaAds is that whatever product
| you find advertised is likely garbage... whether it is or isn't
| you can find it (at the same or higher quality) for 50% off by
| searching eBay/Alibaba. It's almost a joke now. Maybe I should
| make a meme and post it to the Gram.
| volkk wrote:
| I've noticed this as well! I think there are tons of dropship
| companies that are run by a single person looking to make a
| quick buck selling rebranded low quality alibaba products.
| It's endless on my instagram, and I now ignore every single
| one of them because I know that it's essentially nothing more
| than spam.
|
| My gf ordered a few things that took AGES to arrive (probably
| because its shipping straight from China), with 0 customer
| support (primarily because it's likely run by a single person
| that couldn't care less about the actual customer who
| probably subscribes to /r/entrepreneur or /r/juststart). And
| the final product was as you put it, garbage.
| gumby wrote:
| > My gf ordered a few things that took AGES to arrive
| (probably because its shipping straight from China)
|
| Probably they waited until they had enough orders to fill a
| container (or a single pallet in someone else's container!)
| to save money.
| eloff wrote:
| Maybe, but often they may be shipping single units from
| China mail via boat, which take about a 4-6 weeks to
| arrive (from order placement to arrival at your door.)
| organsnyder wrote:
| My favorite is a fancy "plug strip" that is comprised of a
| metal junction box and a couple of standard outlets. Sure,
| the junction box is painted, and the cord is braided, but
| they're selling it for ~$100.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This is one of my problems regarding advertising. Turns out
| for most good products you'd either already have them or
| would hear about them from word of mouth or by searching
| online, so they don't need significant advertising anymore.
| Which means the only ads left go to garbage products.
| adrr wrote:
| Not exactly true. Some stuff of the stuff isn't bad. I have
| bought Vuori shorts, Marine Layer shirts and a Cotopaxi
| jacket which I would rank higher than incumbent brands in
| terms of quality and value. Discover of these products I made
| though Instagram advertisements.
|
| There's complete garbage like supplements on there. Just do
| your research and make sure the brand has a decent refund
| policy.
| catblast wrote:
| It's literally just the comtemporary version of As Seen On TV
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Does anyone know the appeal that "As Seen on TV" was
| supposed to have? A lot of products are being advertised on
| TV (anything from clothing brands to cars to health
| insurance) and don't use that fact as a selling point. Why
| was the fact that it's "seen on TV" used as the only
| differentiating marker on the product?
| ralusek wrote:
| I imagine it's just to assure the consumer that "this is
| likely that very product you saw cut the skin off a grape
| in that infomercial that impressed you."
| cgriswald wrote:
| I think it's mostly marketing at this point, but for
| awhile it used to differential products that were
| previously only available through mail-order. I remember
| in the 90's there was an "As Seen on TV" store in the
| Mall of America that only offered such products. See the
| Wikipedia article:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_seen_on_TV
| Stratoscope wrote:
| There is still one at Oakridge Mall in San Jose. Probably
| a bunch more in other malls.
|
| https://www.westfield.com/oakridge/stores/all-stores/as-
| seen...
| robk wrote:
| I kinda like this. Makes me aware of cool stuff I can source
| directly at better quality
| fossuser wrote:
| From the wire cutter review:
|
| ###
|
| Molekule claimed at the time that its "scientifically-proven
| nanotechnology outperforms HEPA filters in every category of
| pollutant."
|
| Our tests proved otherwise. The Molekule turned in the worst
| performance on particulates of any purifier, of any size, of
| any price, that we have tested in the seven years that we have
| been producing this guide.
|
| Not long after we published our findings, that statement was
| removed from the Molekule website.
|
| Guide author Tim Heffernan asked Molekule CEO Dilip Goswami
| why. He answered, "the point about 'in all categories' is that
| we see a device that outperforms across all of the categories.
| Right? So we're not trying to say that individually, on any
| particular metric, we would be number one. Right? What we're
| saying is, when you look across all the categories, we
| outperform HEPA. Right? And that's what we're attempting to
| convey with that. And so--it's fair to say that we needed to
| re-examine some of the language to make sure that it's saying
| what we're intending to say."
|
| ###
|
| This seems like it rises to the level of criminally false?
| samstave wrote:
| Well that sucks - so the Theranos of Purifiers, then?
| eternalny1 wrote:
| To be honest, as human beings we've evolved over millions
| of years to be able to handle all of this stuff.
|
| If you are immuno-compromised or otherwise in poor health,
| then maybe these are worth something, but I highly doubt
| it. The volume of air they "purify" versus a given room is
| nothing.
|
| Imagine visualizing the air around you in a room that you
| are breathing, do you think a small device in the corner
| with a HEPA filter is going to solve anything?
|
| It's all smoke and mirrors.
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| Your argument is incredibly naive.
|
| As an Aussie an air purifier saved me from the bushfire
| smoke and the subsequent dust that was relentless for
| months. I tried for about a week without one, and nearly
| ended in hospital multiple times. The air purifier made a
| safe little haven that was the _only_ place I could
| breathe without discomfort. After 1.5 months I needed to
| change the filter as it began to spew out dust and smoke
| because it was all clogged up. (It was supposed to last
| 12 months in average conditions)
|
| On the worst days when you couldn't see more than short
| distances, and the filter was running flat out, I found
| that a ceiling fan helped circulate the air so that 2
| rooms (about 25 sqm) were regularly filtered and clean.
| samstave wrote:
| Ha! I totally agree with you. I never take any meds. Not
| even aspirin or ibuprofen. My immune system is very
| strong - what we should be doing is gut biome transplants
| - not hepa and hand sanitizer crap.
| shock wrote:
| > To be honest, as human beings we've evolved over
| millions of years to be able to handle all of this stuff.
|
| I don't think ever before in human history there have
| been as many particulates in the air as they are now
| (except when a volcano erupted, until the ash settled).
|
| Additionally, "handling all this stuff" doesn't come for
| free: I don't have them on hand, but in the previous HN
| discussions about pollution there have been several
| papers linked on the effects of pollution on cognitive
| ability and health in general.
| eternalny1 wrote:
| Since you are comparing the amount of particulates in the
| air to a volcanic eruption ...
|
| How is your HEPA filter in the corner going to handle
| that? Not well, at all.
| hinkley wrote:
| The thing that's always fascinated me about fantasies of
| using lie detectors to protect consumers or citizens from
| liars is that the most convincing liars have lied to
| themselves first.
|
| They fully believe their own bullshit. By any objective
| measure they aren't lying. They're dogmatic and steadfastly
| wrong. You know, idiots.
| 76543210 wrote:
| >Molekule air filters as superior technology based on nothing
| more than having seen their Instagram ads.
|
| Reminds me of an overpriced tech company that claim security
| but continuously gets their devices hacked.
| syshum wrote:
| Once Again the FTC is proving to be useless in the one area
| where there should be actually providing consumer protections
|
| Truth in Advertisement.
|
| It is takes a Corrupt organization like the BBB is "expose"
| this bad company (meaning they simply did not pay the BBB
| enough money) then really the "core" of the problem is not with
| Molekule at all, but with a system that allows companies like
| Molekule to exist with little to no liability.
|
| There should be a way to actually economically harm these
| companies that make these false claims, but instead it is up to
| the FTC to "regulate" their advertisements and clearly they
| (the FTC) do not actually do anything
| gist wrote:
| > Molekule air filters as superior technology based on nothing
| more than having seen their Instagram ads.
|
| Is this any different than people buying any luxury product
| based on marketing? Look at any designer clothing item. It's
| all based on (close to 100%) what people feel as a result of
| marketing and branding. The actual product sure is sometimes
| higher quality and better but not to the extent that it costs.
|
| Take a women's pocketbook for $5000 (Gucci). It's a pocketbook.
| Woman buys it because of marketing and image. Same here I say
| (Tesla is another example and note that Bill Gates still buys
| Porsche because that was the car in the era he was raised in).
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Take a women's pocketbook for $5000 (Gucci). It's a
| pocketbook. Woman buys it because of marketing and image.
|
| OK, but if the $5,000 pocketbook secretly _incinerated_
| anything you put in it, you 'd probably get some frustrated
| customers.
|
| A Gucci pocketbook may be overpriced, but you're at least
| getting something that works.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| > pocketbook [that] secretly incinerate[s] anything you put
| in it
|
| is it weird that i kind of want to build this?
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| If someone didn't want to build it, I would wonder what
| website I had accidentally wandered onto that looked
| vaguely like HN.
| p1necone wrote:
| Sounds like a great Bond gadget.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| No. It would be a great art project!
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| _The actual product sure is sometimes higher quality and
| better but not to the extent that it costs._
|
| In many cases, people pay the extra because, yes, it's only
| fifty percent better and costs ten times as much, but there
| are no products that are fifty percent better and only cost
| fifty percent more. If you want fifty percent better, you
| will have to pay ten times as much. If you can afford it and
| you don't want the lesser quality product, this is
| realistically your only option.
|
| Price often doesn't scale linearly. Neither do, say, academic
| grades. The difference between an A and a B is often more
| work than the difference between a B and a C.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Sounds like a good business opportunity. In general many
| brands are involved multiple price point markets. Eg: a
| liqour company sells a high quality expensive bottle and
| also remarkets under a different name to say Costco for
| example. Sometimes it's a very similar product, sometimes
| they don't want to associate thier name with a worse
| product though they are owned by the same company
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| And sometimes it may very well be _the same product_.
| Expensive alcohol, clothes, handbags, etc. are very often
| bought as status symbols - i.e. as evidence you can
| afford to burn all that money on what 's at best an
| incremental improvement over the mid tier.
|
| Still, that's something entirely different than straight
| up lying about the objective qualities of your product.
| Especially medically-relevant ones.
|
| In all seriousness, for that coronavirus mention, I'd
| like to see someone jailed.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I don't really approve of that. I know it goes on, but
| I'm not giving my seal of approval to that.
|
| It's just a pet peeve of mine that dressing well is often
| mocked as frivolous. It often has a gendered component to
| it, like women are silly creatures.
|
| I knew a professional couple that both worked at the same
| place in different departments. She talked about going
| shopping and both of them spending hundreds of dollars on
| office clothes over the weekend.
|
| The following Monday, she got teased at work for wearing
| a new outfit. No one said one word to her husband about
| his new office attire, though he had spent at least as
| much as her.
|
| My annoyance about how socially acceptable it is to act
| like nice clothes are merely stupid status symbols is in
| no way intended to justify deceptive marketing,
| especially for medical stuff.
| danShumway wrote:
| The difference is that Gucci doesn't claim that their
| pocketbooks will protect you from Coronavirus.
|
| People paying for a Gucci know what they're getting: a
| pocketbook that conveys a particular fashion, status, and
| personal brand. People buying Molekule air filters don't know
| what they're getting.
|
| If Mlekule air filters could be picked up at $5 at your local
| 7-11, this would still be predatory false advertising. The
| price doesn't matter.
| p1necone wrote:
| Designer clothing and pocketbooks still succeed at being
| clothing and pocketbooks respectively. It sounds like this
| air filter doesn't actually achieve the goal of being an air
| filter. (Also the _entire point_ of designer clothing is to
| look pretty, and everyone accepts that so it seems like a
| poor example).
| erentz wrote:
| Their marketing claims are complete lies about the
| effectiveness of their product for the purpose of filtering
| air. People shopping for air purifiers/filters are often
| enough doing so because they have health problems such as
| allergies. Not because they want a buzzing cylinder to sit in
| the middle of their room as some piece of art.
| oefrha wrote:
| Not the same thing. People buying luxury clothing or
| accessories are basically buying into the fashion and/or
| status symbol. Whereas people buying high end air filters are
| probably expecting functionally better air filters.
| fortran77 wrote:
| In general, you can't "purify air" without passing all the air
| in the room through a filter every "n" minutes, and maintaining
| some sort of barrier for outside air, like a pressurized room
| so air won't flow in naturally. Any little filter that you can
| stand in the corner can't do much to clean the air in the room.
| It may remove some large items like pet dander. A good filter
| in an HVAC system may do a little bit, but those are mainly to
| protect the HVAC system from gunk.
|
| This has always been a fertile area for scams, like the air
| filter that caused the demise of the Sharper Image, once it was
| established that it caused dangerous ozone levels.
| naravara wrote:
| I think you're taking the term "purify" too literally. These
| are just filters meant to reduce the concentrations of dust
| and other particulates. Nobody is expecting to create like, a
| microprocessor clean room with these.
| fortran77 wrote:
| when Molekule claims they can eliminate airborne viruses
| they are!
| BubRoss wrote:
| That has nothing to do with what you claimed in the
| grandparent post and what this person was replying to.
| You said you can't 'purify' air with a small off the
| shelf air filter and many people gave you examples to the
| contrary.
| [deleted]
| peferron wrote:
| > Any little filter that you can stand in the corner can't do
| much to clean the air in the room. It may remove some large
| items like pet dander.
|
| A consumer-grade HEPA air purifier (DIY or < $200 on Amazon)
| against a wall in your bedroom will commonly cut PM 2.5
| concentrations by 10x in a few hours if you keep your windows
| and doors closed.
|
| Source: I own a PM 2.5 counter and have operated air
| purifiers in China smog and California wildfires. There's
| also plenty of evidence out there.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| They work for their intended purpose.
|
| I live in a city block with nut trees and a dog. The pollen,
| dander and pollen+diesel soot from the main road sucks and
| creates a mess. Running one of these machines in our front
| room makes a noticeable difference during peak pollen and
| shedding seasons.
| wongarsu wrote:
| There are plenty of good products out there that are
| basically a fan with a HEPA filter and an activated charcoal
| filter. Even at fairly low airflow it does continously filter
| the entire room air, and can radically reduce particle counts
| within half an hour.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, a few years ago, i bought a blueair 211+, which has a
| hepa and activated charcoal filter, and felt a noticeable
| improvement in my coughing and sneezing right away (and
| since then).
|
| the 211+ performed the best on wirecutter's own tests, but
| wasn't the top recommendation for what seemed like
| arbitrary reasons. you change the filter twice a year for
| about $100 in yearly costs.
|
| i hvae some air leakage around doors and windows (old
| building), but it's not enough to overwhelm the 211+ (as
| noted by my air quality sensor). in fact, i'm ok with some
| external air exchange, because CO2 levels can otherwise get
| unacceptably high overnight.
| stordoff wrote:
| > because CO2 levels can otherwise get unacceptably high
| overnight
|
| I got a CO2 sensor recently, and I'm surprised how much
| of a difference small changes can make. One of my rooms
| was hitting 1600-1800ppm overnight (which as I understand
| it is not a problem per se but not great) with the door
| open about 2in/5cm - leaving the internal door open an
| extra 6in/15cm or so means it rarely goes above about
| 700ppm (generally hovers around 600).
|
| I'm also surprised at how quickly it'll go up - that same
| room will go from 800ppm to 1600ppm with the door shut in
| well under an hour.
| guitarbill wrote:
| they do explain quite well why they picked what they did,
| and the blueair 211+ is their upgrade pick for bigger
| rooms. at least they publish their test methodology and
| results, so you you can make up your own mind based on
| the data.
|
| good to hear it's made such a difference for you. i've
| never considered getting an air purifier, but living in a
| city, maybe i should.
| clairity wrote:
| sorry, i should have added that the review snub was a few
| years ago when i was researching my purchase options. but
| yes, they have since added the 211+ as an "also great"
| recommendation.
|
| i think the main (dubious) issue before was that they
| doubted the longevity of the high air purification levels
| they saw and so didn't want to give it a recommendation
| at the time.
| tbrock wrote:
| We have several Winix filters from amazon and they work
| great! They are HEPA w activated charcoal.
| heliodor wrote:
| I see unsubstantiated statements like this one so
| frequently. Please explain how you have determined that
| "it works great".
| shock wrote:
| Not the OP, but I have bought a Sensirion particulates
| sensor which I have used to measure the number of
| particles coming out of two air purifiers. It showed all
| 0 in the case of one purifier and very low values
| compared to ambient in the case of the other.
|
| Here's what it shows in my bedroom:
| measured values: 0.88 pm1.0 0.93
| pm2.5 0.93 pm4.0 0.93 pm10.0
| 5.87 nc0.5 6.95 nc1.0 7.00 nc2.5
| 7.00 nc4.5 7.00 nc10.0 0.52
| typical particle size
| fortran77 wrote:
| Sure! You can filter large particles out of the air with a
| fan and a few square feet of filter in a closed room. But
| Molekule said it "purified" air -- including viruses -- and
| hinted that it destroyed them instead of merely capturing
| them.
| jonahhorowitz wrote:
| You can filter very small particles out of the air with
| the right kind of filter[0], and you can sterilize the
| air by hitting it with UV light.
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA [1] - https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradia...
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| I've found that a ceiling fan can also assist in making
| sure there's good air flow and that the room's getting
| proper filtering.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Even a box fan and 2 Merv-13 furnace filters glued to it in
| a V-shape will perform FAR better than 99% of non-HEPA
| consumer purifiers out there, for a fraction of the price.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| There seem to be quite a few air purifier startups. I was reading
| about one called Mila recently -- does anyone know if they are
| legit? I currently have a cheap air purifier in my apartment, but
| with concerns about both wildfire season and viruses, I would
| like to get a nicer one.
| masklinn wrote:
| How do you know you could benefit from or should get an air
| purifier (one that works I guess, not Molekule's)?
|
| They're not ultra expensive but they're not super cheap either,
| and it feels a bit like a first world problem.
| wasdfff wrote:
| Make one yourself one with a box fan by taping a cheap hepa
| filter from home depot taped to the back. It will outperform
| everything in this market, only it will look a little ugly.
| prostoalex wrote:
| It's a no-brainer for people with asthma or those susceptible
| to allergies.
|
| The rest depends on your sensitivity to decreases in air
| quality. Regularly changing a filter in your central AC/heating
| system is probably enough.
| Marsymars wrote:
| I got one because of wildfire smoke and pollen allergies. I
| wouldn't bother if I didn't have visible symptoms that could be
| alleviate by a purifier.
| jekroo0nnd wrote:
| Yeah here's the best idea: let's fetishize more bespoke gadgets
| as a localized band aid and avoid discussing why people feel like
| they need these things in the first place.
|
| Bravo, humanity. You're so against collective sacrifice of
| extreme consumerism, you'll consume yourself into environmental
| collapse.
|
| Dumbest species on the planet.
| bobblywobbles wrote:
| It's a good thing I didn't buy one of these, and instead opted
| for a Coway.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-01 23:00 UTC)