Canadian smart glasses going 'offline' weeks after company bought by Google

[Athan Immortal]

Summary

 

An Ontario-based tech company acquired by Google last month has told customers that its smart glasses will no longer work after Friday 31st July 2020.

 

Quotes

Quote

An Ontario-based tech company acquired by Google last month has told customers that its smart glasses will no longer work after Friday.

 

North, which started as Thalmic Labs in 2012, announced on June 30 that it would be "winding down" production of its Focals smart glasses following the acquisition. After July 31, the "smart" element of the glasses will be unusable.

...

The company said full refunds will be given for all paid Focals orders, in the original payment method. Once the refunds are processed, North said its customers should see the money back in their accounts within a few business days.

 

My thoughts

It seems like such an odd move considering Google Glass seems to have all the tech that it would need, I'm not sure what the acquisition brings them, or the benefit in eliminating them as a competitor. They appear to be bringing the team into google.

 

I'm also not as sure about the refunds for everyone as it seems the news article mentions all paid orders, but the official statement says "Full refunds will be given for all paid Focals orders starting June 30th, 2020" which would suggest anyone before that date is out of luck? But I'm not sure how long it was selling for before that. As someone pointed out, this may just be the date they started issuing refunds, but worded poorly.

 

Sources

News Article - https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/canadian-smart-glasses-going-offline-weeks-after-company-bought-by-google-1.5042010

 

Official Statement - https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045128691

 

Google blog post from 30th June 2020 - https://blog.google/products/hardware/focus-helpful-devices-google-acquires-north

[HarryNyquist]

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

Google forgot Extend.

[lewdicrous]

"There can only be one" - Google.

[RejZoR]

This shows how "smart" all these smart devices really are...

[TetraSky]

And that's why devices that rely on "The cloud" to work properly, are dead on arrival to me.

You never know when they'll cancel the service.

[Vishera]

Google: Let's buy the competition to a product we abandoned in hope that their IP is good enough to bring it back from the dead.

 

Seems like a violation of antitrust laws:

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890:

 

Section 1:

Quote

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

 

 Section 2:

Quote

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

 

Legal Definition of restraint of trade

Quote

1: an act, fact, or means of curbing the free flow of commerce or trade covenant not to compete with an employer after leaving is in restraint of trade and must be reasonable to be enforced

2: an attempt or intent to eliminate or stifle competition, to effect a monopoly, to maintain prices artificially, or otherwise to hamper or obstruct the course of trade and commerce as it would be if left to the control of natural and economic forces

the Sherman Antitrust Act declared every contract, combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade to be illegal

 

[jaslion]

Didn't these glasses only very recently get released and promoted a crapton on youtube? These things are really expensive and this feels like a massive ripoff to people that bought these even at launch as the focals 2.0 has just recently launched.

[Vishera]

9 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Didn't these glasses only very recently get released and promoted a crapton on youtube? These things are really expensive and this feels like a massive ripoff to people that bought these even at launch as the focals 2.0 has just recently launched.

Seems like the acquisition is illegal.

[jaslion]

7 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Seems like the acquisition is illegal.

Seems the 2.0 version was ready to ship but is not shipping now at all. So the product exists but will never be shipped to the people that ordered them. The focals 1.0 are not even a year old so people that bought them at day 1 launch in september are not even getting a year of use out of them on a 1000$ product.

[Vishera]

Just now, jaslion said:

Seems the 2.0 version was ready to ship but is not shipping now at all. So the product exists but will never be shipped to the people that ordered them. The focals 1.0 are not even a year old so people that bought them at day 1 launch in september are not even getting a year of use out of them on a 1000$ product.

That's definitely restraint of trade,which is illegal.

[Taf the Ghost]

40 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

And that's why devices that rely on "The cloud" to work properly, are dead on arrival to me.

You never know when they'll cancel the service.

IoT can be useful, but most IoT is really evil.  No one can change the nature of a 3rd party controlling a device you're using.

[Commodus]

28 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Google: Let's buy the competition to a product we abandoned in hope that their IP is good enough to bring it back from the dead.

 

Seems like a violation of antitrust laws:

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890:

 

Section 1:

 

 Section 2:

 

 

Legal Definition of restraint of trade

 

It isn't necessarily illegal, and there's a good case to be made that it's entirely legal.

 

Antitrust cases in situations like this require that the buying company have a dominant position in the relevant market. Google dominates search and mobile, but we don't know how much of a position it has in smart glasses -- it certainly doesn't aim Glass at consumers like it did initially. And in the enterprise area where Glass does compete, there are options ranging from Epson and Vuzix through to Microsoft's HoloLens.

 

Now, if Google had a commanding lead in consumer smart glasses and was snuffing out one of its last remaining competitors, you'd have a good argument... but your claim seems to be that Google's mere existence in smart glasses makes the acquisition illegal, and that's just not true.

 

There are deals worthy of closer scrutiny, like Fitbit, but this likely isn't one of them.

 

I really wish people would stop making pronouncements on the legality of things when they genuinely know nothing about competition law. Hell, while I know more than the average person, I'll be quick to admit that there's a lot I just shouldn't talk about.

[ThePD]

"Dont Be Evil" ~ Google Probably

[Vishera]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It isn't necessarily illegal, and there's a good case to be made that it's entirely legal.

 

Antitrust cases in situations like this require that the buying company have a dominant position in the relevant market. Google dominates search and mobile, but we don't know how much of a position it has in smart glasses -- it certainly doesn't aim Glass at consumers like it did initially. And in the enterprise area where Glass does compete, there are options ranging from Epson and Vuzix through to Microsoft's HoloLens.

 

Now, if Google had a commanding lead in consumer smart glasses and was snuffing out one of its last remaining competitors, you'd have a good argument... but your claim seems to be that Google's mere existence in smart glasses makes the acquisition illegal, and that's just not true.

 

There are deals worthy of closer scrutiny, like Fitbit, but this likely isn't one of them.

 

I really wish people would stop making pronouncements on the legality of things when they genuinely know nothing about competition law. Hell, while I know more than the average person, I'll be quick to admit that there's a lot I just shouldn't talk about.

An attempt or intent to eliminate or stifle competition is enough to call it restraint of trade,Google eliminated a competitor therefore it stifled competition.

Google also curbed the free flow of commerce:

22 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Seems the 2.0 version was ready to ship but is not shipping now at all. So the product exists but will never be shipped to the people that ordered them. The focals 1.0 are not even a year old so people that bought them at day 1 launch in september are not even getting a year of use out of them on a 1000$ product.

Which is restraint of trade as well.

[RejZoR]

Yeah, but that probably only applies if both are from US. Here, they are from canada and Google is US. Besides, this is Google. Even if they fine them it's probably worth for them in the long run. Gotta love corporations so big they can do whatever the F they want and when they face legal problems they just throw cash at them to go away. And they usually do go away...

[Commodus]

7 minutes ago, Vishera said:

An attempt or intent to eliminate or stifle competition is enough to call it restraint of trade,Google eliminated a competitor therefore it stifled competition.

Google also curbed the free flow of commerce:

Again, merely acquiring a competitor is not illegal. If it was, many acquisitions simply wouldn't happen. For this to violate antitrust laws, Google would have to be proven as a dominant company in the sector, abusing that dominance to acquire a company that otherwise posed a viable threat. And to date, there's no evidence of any of that.

 

As I said before: please don't make claims about competition law when you know nothing about the subject. You don't have to like that Google acquired North, but your dislike doesn't make it illegal.

[Athan Immortal]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Gotta love corporations so big they can do whatever the F they want and when they face legal problems they just throw cash at them to go away. And they usually do go away...

Or keep appealing the decision for a decade. Or when the fine doesn't even come close to the profits made, therefore it was worth it anyway.

 

Seriously, companies getting fined needs to be equivalent to the money they made from the practice and carry jail time.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

This shows how "smart" all these smart devices really are...

And how dumb ppl really are who buy smart junk.....

[Vishera]

Just now, Commodus said:

Again, merely acquiring a competitor is not illegal. If it was, many acquisitions simply wouldn't happen. For this to violate antitrust laws, Google would have to be proven as a dominant company in the sector, abusing that dominance to acquire a company that otherwise posed a viable threat. And to date, there's no evidence of any of that.

That's debatable but it's a good point,my point here isn't strong enough.

That aside,What do you say about Google curbing the free flow of commerce?

[Commodus]

4 minutes ago, Vishera said:

That's debatable but it's a good point,my point here isn't strong enough.

That aside,What do you say about Google curbing the free flow of commerce?

There would be free flow of commerce if North wasn't already in trouble; this is Google salvaging a company that was already likely on its way out, certainly in the pandemic era.

 

And the same logic applies: most acquisitions would be illegal if merely limiting the free flow of commerce was enough to violate antitrust laws. Apple and Microsoft have bought numerous apps with plans to shut them down, like HopStop or Sunrise Calendar, but those deals were still fully legal even though the companies already had apps in those fields. 

[Brooksie359]

54 minutes ago, Vishera said:

An attempt or intent to eliminate or stifle competition is enough to call it restraint of trade,Google eliminated a competitor therefore it stifled competition.

Google also curbed the free flow of commerce:

Which is restraint of trade as well.

If you look at the antitrust cases of the past it's pretty clear that this isn't the same thing. If everytime someone in the industry bought another business in the same industry was considered antitrust then we would have a whole heck of alot more cases. Google as alot of lawyers and alot of them would be working on the acquisition so I am pretty sure if they new it was a blatant antitrust violation they wouldn't do it. 

[BuckGup]

33 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And how dumb ppl really are who buy smart junk.....

That's a terrible argument.You just hear about poor implementations of smart functionality in devices that either don't need it or the technology isn't advanced enough for it to be worthwhile adding 

[Vishera]

7 minutes ago, Commodus said:

There would be free flow of commerce if North wasn't already in trouble;

So you agree that there is no free flow of commerce,i would add that Google's actions and decisions curbed the free flow of commerce,and not the North's financial situation.

Since you agreed that there is no free flow of commerce,but with the product ready for shipping,so why would North's financial situation stop selling and shipping a product that is already in stock ready to be shipped?

Your argument is flawed.

21 minutes ago, Commodus said:

And the same logic applies: most acquisitions would be illegal if merely limiting the free flow of commerce was enough to violate antitrust laws. Apple and Microsoft have bought numerous apps with plans to shut them down, like HopStop or Sunrise Calendar, but those deals were still fully legal even though the companies already had apps in those fields. 

In past cases offering a product for free did excuse the company from antitrust liability.

An example for that is:

Quote

One of the earliest antitrust lawsuits against Google was brought by a private company that alleged Google was exploiting its free online search service in an anti-competitive manner. The complaint was dismissed in 2007 by a court reasoning that antitrust law does not “concern itself with competition in the provision of free services.”

 

[Commodus]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

So you agree that there is no free flow of commerce,i would add that Google's actions and decisions curbed the free flow of commerce,and not the North's financial situation.

Since you agreed that there is no free flow of commerce,but with the product ready for shipping,so why would North's financial situation stop selling and shipping a product that is already in stock ready to be shipped?

Your argument is flawed.

In past cases offering a product for free did excuse the company from antitrust liability.

An example for that is:

 

Again, this is completely illogical.

 

If acquisitions that stopped a company from selling products were illegal, many already-completed acquisitions would be illegal. Companies would always be forced to keep selling an acquired firm's products, maybe even to run them as subsidiaries for all eternity.

 

I don't know why you're still trying to argue this. You're not just a little bit wrong about antitrust law; you're completely, unquestionably wrong about it. Unless you have evidence that Google is dominant in consumer smart glasses and was buying North to silence competition, just accept that this is likely legal and move on.

[paddy-stone]

3 hours ago, Athan Immortal said:

Full refunds will be given for all paid Focals orders starting June 30th, 2020

Means that's when they start giving the refunds, NOT the cut-off date for refund.