The MindStream Pricing and Subscription Model

[MindStream]

For a grand upfront and a monthly disk fee, the hardware should have a lifetime warranty.

It has a tiny built in motor. That's a failure point for sure.

After the first year, what's is the cost going to be, to send if back and replace the built in motor?

The MindStream Monitor is built with the highest quality parts available including space-age plastics to prevent water seepage in the housing and algal growth. The monitor is designed to last a minimum of 5 years and has not tubing, pumps, wastewater, or reagents.

 

[GoVols]

The MindStream Monitor is built with the highest quality parts available including space-age plastics to prevent water seepage in the housing and algal growth. The monitor is designed to last a minimum of 5 years and has not tubing, pumps, wastewater, or reagents.

After the first year, thru the 5th

If the motor goes out, what is the cost to the consumer to have that fixed?

Thank you

 

[MnFish1]

So, if the mindstream tells me my salinity is 35, it could be anywhere between 33.25 and 36.75? That’s atrociously poor accuracy for a product that requires a monthly disc subscription supposedly because it’s calibrated for accuracy. That accuracy is also far worse than that Hanna salinity checker which has an accuracy rating of +/- 1ppt

If the margin of error of the Hanna checker is 1 ppt - and the normal salinity is 35 - that is 1/35 x 100 or +- 2.85 percent. If you look at the Hanna site, the accuracy at a salinity of 40 ppt is +- 2 ppt or +- 5% - which is similar to the Mindstream - not 'far worse'

Hopefully Mindstream will 'weigh in'.

 

[Paul Sands]

Hi Paul Sands,

I'd be happy to clarify that with our electrode-based salinity reading is benchmarked against NIST certified conductivity probes and has an accuracy of at least +/- 0.75 ppt. The MindStream Monitor utilizes noble-metal electrodes to measure salinity which results in a highly stable (precision of 0.0002 specific-gravity units) and reliable measure.

Regards,
Alex

So now your product is suddenly more accurate than it was in the post before? Which one should we believe? Is there somewhere that you have the accuracy of each test noted?

 

[lexinverts]

So now your product is suddenly more accurate than it was in the post before? Which one should we believe? Is there somewhere that you have the accuracy of each test noted?

The .75 ppt accuracy refers to a 2% error. In the previous post they gave a range of accuracy for all of the parameters. Some parameters are more accurate than others. The least accurate have an error of 5% and the most accurate have an error of 2%.

 

[MindStream]

To clarify, I think that different parameters could have different accuracy error rates. They provided one error rate range above for all of them lumped together of 2-5%. I would be surprised if parameters that are measured in different ways (electrode versus fluorescence) have an identical accuracy error. It seems likely that the electrode-based salinity measurement would have an error of 2% (similar to the similar technology in the Hanna probe) rather than 5%, which could be for alk, ca+, mg, etc.... I'm just speculating here, so Mindstream should weigh in.

Hi lexinverts,

Thank you for your comment. Depending on water conditions, flow, biology, and specific tank characteristics, we've observed a range of accuracies. As you know, we send a newly calibrated sensor disc each month and are continuously developing new technologies which allow us to further enhance our accuracy with each replacement.

 

[MnFish1]

The .75 ppt accuracy refers to a 2% error. In the previous post they gave a range of accuracy for all of the parameters. Some parameters are more accurate than others. The least accurate have an error of 5% and the most accurate have an error of 2%.

1 ppt is 2.85 %. .75 ppt/35 ppt x 100 = 2.1% (Just so Paul Sands doesn't mention it - its 2.1 % not 2 percent....... In any case - Its better than the Hanna checker.

 

[lexinverts]

Hi lexinverts,

Thank you for your comment. Depending on water conditions, flow, biology, and specific tank characteristics, we've observed a range of accuracies. As you know, we send a newly calibrated sensor disc each month and are continuously developing new technologies which allow us to further enhance our accuracy with each replacement.

Have a you observed a range of accuracy for the salinity probe? It seems like that should not vary much with the conditions that you mention above.

 

[MindStream]

Have a you observed a range of accuracy for the salinity probe? It seems like that should not vary much with the conditions that you mention above.

Hi lexinverts,

Yes - we see a deviation in our NIST probes depending on the parameters mentioned above. The probe works by determining the ability for electrons to move between two electrodes using the ions in the water. The more ions, the easier it is for the electricity to flow. Interference in the water column has the ability to create more or less "mobility" for the electrons within a certain range (a maximum of 0.75 ppt in an aquarium environment). We use rare-metal electrodes with a very large surface area to mitigate as much error as possible.

Regards,
Alex

 

[Paul Sands]

If the margin of error of the Hanna checker is 1 ppt - and the normal salinity is 35 - that is 1/35 x 100 or +- 2.85 percent. If you look at the Hanna site, the accuracy at a salinity of 40 ppt is +- 2 ppt or +- 5% - which is similar to the Mindstream - not 'far worse'

Hopefully Mindstream will 'weigh in'.

Well if your salinity is 40ppt, it’s well above normal reef levels. Not sure why you’d have it that high. You might want to start there.

Yes, the Hanna salinity checker has an accuracy of about 3% at normal reef levels or +/- 1ppt but the earlier post from mindstream stated their test accuracy was between 2-5%. Now they are claiming accuracy much lower. Who knows what to believe. Have they posted *actual* accuracy of this product anywhere? Hanna does.

Regardless, the accuracy of the mindstream at the *new* stated accuracy of +/- .75ppt is similar to the accuracy of the Hanna at +/- 1ppt. The Hanna doesn’t require a $40/month subscription to get that accuracy, the mindstream does.

 

[MindStream]

Well if your salinity is 40ppt, it’s well above normal reef levels. Not sure why you’d have it that high. You might want to start there.

Yes, the Hanna salinity checker has an accuracy of about 3% at normal reef levels or +/- 1ppt but the earlier post from mindstream stated their test accuracy was between 2-5%. Now they are claiming accuracy much lower. Who knows what to believe. Have they posted *actual* accuracy of this product anywhere? Hanna does.

Regardless, the accuracy of the mindstream at the *new* stated accuracy of +/- .75ppt is similar to the accuracy of the Hanna at +/- 1ppt. The Hanna doesn’t require a $40/month subscription to get that accuracy, the mindstream does.

Hi Paul,

The aforementioned accuracy range of 2-5% stands as well as the +/- 0.75 ppt for average reef conditions. Check out our responses above on how our salinity probe works or visit our website (MindStreamH2O.com) to learn more about the product.

The monthly subscription covers a small pre-calibrated sensor disc which is needed by the MindStream Monitor to measure all 10 parameters and proactive text/email alerts. The monitor measures your water every 15 minutes and continuously uploads the data to the cloud where you can access it from any device. There are no sample preparations, tubing, pumps, or reagents needed.

Regards,
Alex

 

[GoVols]

The monitor measures your water every 15 minutes and continuously uploads the data to the cloud where you can access it from any device. There are no sample preparations, tubing, pumps, or reagents needed.

Regards,
Alex

Alex,

Mindstream has a tiny built in motor that rotates the disk.
That is a point, of possible failure.

If the motor blows after the first year thru the 5th.

Does Mindstream know how must it would cost the customer to have that fixed?

 

[MnFish1]

Well if your salinity is 40ppt, it’s well above normal reef levels. Not sure why you’d have it that high. You might want to start there.

Yes, the Hanna salinity checker has an accuracy of about 3% at normal reef levels or +/- 1ppt but the earlier post from mindstream stated their test accuracy was between 2-5%. Now they are claiming accuracy much lower. Who knows what to believe. Have they posted *actual* accuracy of this product anywhere? Hanna does.

Regardless, the accuracy of the mindstream at the *new* stated accuracy of +/- .75ppt is similar to the accuracy of the Hanna at +/- 1ppt. The Hanna doesn’t require a $40/month subscription to get that accuracy, the mindstream does.

It was the Hanna website that posted 40 PPT the error rate is +- 2 percent and +- 1 percent at 35 - I assume the reason is that as salinity rises from 35 to 40 - the error gradually increases from 1-2%. Obviously - no one wants a salinity of 40 - im sure it was just to show that their results get less accurate as the actual salinity increases

You may have missed it - they are not claiming their accuracy is 'much lower' they said the parameters they measure are between 2-5% - .75 PPT is 2.1 percent. I dont know if you are misunderstanding or just aren't double checking what you write? (i.e. its not a *NEW* stated accuracy as you suggest)

I dont know if they have posted accuracy (on a website) as Hanna does but they have posted precision - which hanna does not. They have also told anyone that has asked what the accuracy is - so what exactly is the problem?

BTW - just for the sake of discussion - go to the Trident website - and find 'the accuracy of the trident'. I can't find it. It says 'the precision and accuracy of the trident is .....(then lists only the precision numbers)' for more details look here - when you go to the detailed site - no where is accuracy mentioned - only precision (quoting from the website):
CONSISTENCY AND PRECISION, TEST AFTER TEST
The Trident tests with a precision of +/- 0.05 dKh for Alkalinity and 15ppm for Calcium and Magnesium. This is better than humans can do consistently with every hobby-grade test kit on the market.

As far as I can see - this is 'worse' precision than Mindstream. But - there is no accuracy data - perhaps you can find it.

 

[MindStream]

Alex,

Mindstream has a tiny built in motor that rotates the disk.
That is a point, of possible failure.

If the motor blows after the first year thru the 5th.

Does Mindstream know how must it would cost the customer to have that fixed?

Hi GoVols,

The MindStream Monitor has a 1 year manufacturer warranty. We will evaluate your monitor for replacement / refurbishment at our facility at any time and provide cost (if any).

 

[Paul Sands]

Hi GoVols,

The MindStream Monitor has a 1 year manufacturer warranty. We will evaluate your monitor for replacement / refurbishment at our facility at any time and provide cost (if any).

The OP asked for the cost to repair the motor if it fails, not for your warranty terms

Are you able to answer the question asked or do you not have the answer? What happens if the motor fails 13 months after purchasing it? Is it possible to replace that motor and how much will that cost the end user? Otherwise, people have to assume that this is a one year product that costs $1,500/year between the hardware and the “subscription”

 

[MnFish1]

The OP asked for the cost to repair the motor if it fails, not for your warranty terms

Are you able to answer the question asked or do you not have the answer? What happens if the motor fails 13 months after purchasing it? Is it possible to replace that motor and how much will that cost the end user? Otherwise, people have to assume that this is a one year product that costs $1,500/year between the hardware and the “subscription”

He did respond. Basically he said its a 1 year warranty - and that if the motor fails between the expected 5 years and the end of the 1 year - that it would be handled on a case by case basis (I'm paraphrasing). @MindStream said: "We will evaluate your monitor for replacement / refurbishment at our facility at any time and provide cost (if any)."

This is typical of many hardware companies - who use discretion after the warranty period to determine the cost of a repair. Do we assume that the Apex is a 'one year product' since the warranty is '1 year - 90 days for probes'? Aquailluminations is also a '1 year warranty' - Does that mean its a poor product?

Curious - what products do you use on your tank?

 

[lexinverts]

The OP asked for the cost to repair the motor if it fails, not for your warranty terms

Are you able to answer the question asked or do you not have the answer? What happens if the motor fails 13 months after purchasing it? Is it possible to replace that motor and how much will that cost the end user? Otherwise, people have to assume that this is a one year product that costs $1,500/year between the hardware and the “subscription”

Give me a break. Does GHL or Ecotech tell you how much an imagined/possible problem would cost to fix at some point in the future if it is out of warranty. No. They usually will work with you and you pay for shipping and the cost of parts.

 

[GoVols]

The OP asked for the cost to repair the motor if it fails, not for your warranty terms

Are you able to answer the question asked or do you not have the answer? What happens if the motor fails 13 months after purchasing it? Is it possible to replace that motor and how much will that cost the end user? Otherwise, people have to assume that this is a one year product that costs $1,500/year between the hardware and the “subscription”

Agree.

You have to make the stretch from after the first year to the 5th, when they service the unit.

And, Mindstream's pricing structure is way different than any of the other companies out there.

JMO...

 

[jim_fitz]

im happy to pay the initial price and the subscription

any idea when it will be available in the UK ?

Happy to be a guinea pig

 

[Crashjack]

Since you measure every :15 min and are sending the results to users' accounts on the website, do you do anything else with the data? What I'm getting at is, it seems to me that algorithms could determine "bad" readings and could even offer "corrected" readings with all of that data. I'm not saying this should eliminate real-time test readings. It just seems like accuracy could be improved at the software level with all of that data collected for all of the things you are testing.