In what way is it unfair? It's honest. Yes, we paid for what we got. Yes, the image from the sensor is pretty bad. Yes, Seek does a lot of cosmetic work to the image output to beautify it (targeted at casual gadget addicts). It's like saying it's unfair to call people on welfare poor. It is what it is.
What is truly unfair is how Seek marketed the camera. They lied about performance and used images from a high end camera in their advertisements. They lied about the effective resolution of the sensor, and they came here and tried to argue that the enormous amount of dead/disabled pixels doesn't matter due to the wavelength:pixel size ratio! They still haven't released any serious data on the sensor (sensitivity? Hello?). It's industry standard to release the full specs on a thermal imager. Yes, it matters. Even FLIR's little Lepton sensor has full details, and that thing was made originally for isheeple. Oh, and don't get me started on the smartphone software. They gave us halfway working emissivity settings and instead of fixing it, they removed it. How about the uniformity issue that pagued brand new devices out the door.
Calling it unfair to Seek isn't justified. It was unfair to the consumers who were duped. I called them dishonest long ago and I still stand by it.