Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
When did Juul ramp up the advertising to a younger crew? Seems like it was at the start of 2019 when I first started noticing more juul ads and in a way that made them less interesting to an old fart like me. These guys play a long game and have for decades.
Conspiracy theory: BT buys into vape industry, destroys it from the inside with the aid of politicians and gov agencies, social and mainstream media(which they have financial interests in) , then releases fda approved devices, business as usual.
Or theyre just really bad at business, lol, or they are just backng every horse in the race.
Juul was privately held, not listed on an exchange. That makes it difficult to determine what "market value" really was at any given point. Also, I gather that most of the 35% stake that Altria bought was previously in the hands of the founders and company management, who held out for the best possible offer.
I really doubt it was Altria's plan to destroy Juul. I think they wanted a product that was worth submitting a PMTA for, and their previous in-house effort, Mark Ten, was something of a flop.
Juul is carrying on in markets outside the US, where all their flavors are still available.
I'm not convinced they are killing it, but if they are, buying out the [highly successful] competition does make some sense in the LONG TERM. Short term, it's a hit. Juul supposedly had a lock on 75% of the easy-vaping market. That ain't hay.
IDK about IQUOS vs Alto, I'd go toward Alto, not IQUOS. I mean, nic users aren't monolithic so having options is OK, but IQUOS seems like such a PITA to clean and it would be smelly and stuff. Meh.
If they get WTA pods approved for Alto.....
How is that a conspiracy theory when it's happening before our eyes?
I expect the Juul strategy in the states is simply accommodating the current political climate, keeping the product on the market as long as possible. Juul in it's current form can't meet the PMTA requirements IMO as it's pods are replaceable with alternate pods/clones. My impression is that any vaping combination they would consider approving must be a "married" combination of battery and topper that may require a chip. I think Juul is just a placeholder for Altria, giving them a large loyal customer base for marketing the next product that will potentially meet PMTA requirements.
They are running huge campaigns in all of the EU and CIS on Iqos, and a lot of ppl are already using it now and the numbers are growing. Barely seen any ads or campaigns for Alto even on-line. 0 in off-line.
I don't think the fact that alternate pods are available will kill it's PMTA. They might alter it with some sort of proprietary chip, like they're already planning a Bluetooth version to key into your phone/device to verify the "registered user" (over 21) is using the device, that will only pair with their battery. But they can't be held liable if unauthorized manufacturers are capable of making knockoffs. If that were a criteria, it's hard to see how any device could ever be approved as anything can be reverse engineered if the secondary market will support it, including IQOS.
Huh.
Cable TV was flooded with Alto commercials, but I didn't see any for IQOS.
I guess it's true, YMMV.
Not that I want to foster BT stuff, as I don't personally trust them much, but I'm surprised people haven't seen it on TV or whatnot. I googled for it, but didn't find a recent one, it's full of old vuse stuff, not new vuse-alto.
It has a "let's face it, smokers just want nicotine satisfaction" [?paraphrase?] line. Was seeing it all over the place for a while. Even on SyFy and such.
Last edited:
Is that in the PMTA????????
I know it's been a strategy for the manufacturers...but did they put that in the regs?
Not exactly spelled out that way, but there is a lot of language about characterizing the potential for misuse and abuse.
It's been a while since I've skimmed that, but I took that as meaning "tampering with ingredients". That's related to, but not the same as, "make it clone-pod proof".
But they're all idiots anyway, so I suppose they could think that would be effective. I mean, open new pod/drill hole even, then insert "other stuff", close pod. Sell on the street. Doesn't stop a damn thing.
Closed pods make it harder, that's all. But the chip won't change crap.
IDK how much of this corporatism-driven, competition elimination, lying B.S. regulation I can take. We all know there's precisely ONE primary reason to put chips in, and that's to lock the device into manufacturer-only capabilities, and thus guaranteeing that-company's revenue, by eliminating clone-competition for pods.
If I asked you to Demonstrate thru Documentation how likely the e-Cigarette you want me to Approve can be Adulterated and what Steps you have Taken to Prevent this from Occurring, what would you bring to me?
I wouldn't bring you some "chip" that locks the device into my-pods-only. Because that in and of itself doesn't solve the problem at all.
But I'm a techie type, so I'm not as easily duped by that. Politicians can't even figure out what the word "vaping" means....so....
So what would you Bring Me?
And Why Doesn't a Chip Paired Pod/Mod reduce the Likelihood of Adulteration?
A chip in the pod that mates only to the approved battery, and also keeps count of puffs. The maximum puff count is estimated at just slightly over the theoretical # of puffs that the given pod can hold when factory filled. Once that maximum count is reached, the pod fails to fire.
It wouldnt stop someone from draining a factory pod and refilling it, but it would limit the potential for reuse. Essentially making it non cost effective to user to do so. Unless the the user is converting it to a Dank like product, but even then not very cost effective.
With appropriate encryption and Bluetooth pairing (or similar schema) counterfeiting would also be minimized.
Back in the old days a 74xx chip could be jumpered to turn functions on and off and a pulse train could be added to some to chips to create a frequency controlled feature. But, that was a time when a chip was more a discrete product that had to be combined with a number of other chips to render a working and functional device.
These days you can buy a LSI chip that contains complex programming features for just about any product you want to build.
These days you can buy a LSI chip that contains complex programming features for just about any product you want to build.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
