[Updated, accounts no longer banned] Google goes after Pixel resellers by blocking the buyer's accounts

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

they probably still pay sales tax but not corporate taxes which they should. but two wrongs dont make a right

This wrong is not related to the actual transaction of reselling physical products, which is perfectly legal: there's illegal ways to do legal things but that doesn't makes reselling illegal, or even immoral imo.

[Arty]

Just now, Snadzies said:

 

I don't care if it is one or a thousand.

You can think it is a dick move and I'd prolly agree with you, but regardless of the quantity I or anyone else sells it should still be their right to sell said items that they payed for.

Google also has their right to do what they said in their TOS.

[Snadzies]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

nope its actually illegal if you sell without paying taxes

That should be of no concern to Google.

If the IRS wanted to take it up then that is their business.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

This wrong is not related to the actual transaction of reselling physical products, which is perfectly legal: there's illegal ways to do legal things but that doesn't makes reselling illegal, or even immoral imo.

so what if i buy all the epipens in my city and increase the price to 2 times its original amount when selling. you say that isnt immoral?

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Snadzies said:

That should be of no concern to Google.

If the IRS wanted to take it up then that is their business.

the part that concerns google is that their ToS is being broken

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

nope its actually illegal if you sell without paying taxes

also it is immoral to buy up all the stock so you can charge extra cost

As others have pointed out, tax evasion is unrelated to this discussion.

 

Would you be happy with these people buying the phone, reselling it for profit, and paying their taxes? That would make it cost even more for the poor fool who needs a Pixel right now.

[Snadzies]

3 minutes ago, Arty said:

Google also has their right to do what they said in their TOS.

And if you want the various manufacturers of cars, graphics cards, tools, toys, homes to start preventing you from selling things you bought because it is against their TOS, then don't come crying to me.

[spartaman64]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

As others have pointed out, tax evasion is unrelated to this discussion.

 

Would you be happy with these people buying the phone, reselling it for profit, and paying their taxes? That would make it cost even more for the poor fool who needs a Pixel right now.

no but the tax evasion means that they are doubly in the wrong

[Snadzies]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

the part that concerns google is that their ToS is being broken

And if you want the various manufacturers of cars, graphics cards, tools, toys, homes to start preventing you from selling things you bought because it is against their TOS, then don't come crying to me.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

no but the tax evasion means that they are doubly in the wrong

Perhaps. Do you even know for a fact that the site in question pays no taxes? Or are you just assuming that this is the case?

[spartaman64]

Just now, Snadzies said:

And if you want the various manufacturers of cars, graphics cards, tools, toys, homes to start preventing you from selling things you bought because it is against their TOS, then don't come crying to me.

if i bought all the stock for a car then charged 50% extra for the cars yes i deserve to be prevented from doing so

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

so what if i buy all the epipens in my city and increase the price to 2 times its original amount when selling. you say that isnt immoral?

Yes: it isn't immoral. What's immoral is that we charge for health care to begin with and profit from people getting sick. But the act of cornering a market? Not immoral at all under a Capitalist society.

 

That's how the stock trade works basically. That's where all the money from banks comes from.

[spartaman64]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Yes: it isn't immoral. What's immoral is that we charge for health care to begin with and profit from people getting sick. But the act of cornering a market? Not immoral at all under a Capitalist society.

 

That's how the stock trade works basically. That's where all the money from banks comes from.

in a purely captialist society charging and making profit off of healthcare isnt immoral.if you are just going by capitalism even if i charge millions of dollars for a vital life saving drug it would be well in the spirit of capitalism but good thing we dont live in a purely capitalistic system

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

if i bought all the stock for a car then charged 50% extra for the cars yes i deserve to be prevented from doing so

Actually, what you describe is 100% perfectly legal.

 

There ARE other methods manufacturers can use to "encourage" people to buy directly from them (or through authorized sellers) - eg: Warranty.

 

If you buy all those cars and resell them, the warranty is null and void. It doesn't exist, as far as the manufacturer is concerned.

 

Now, that's a consideration a buyer will have to take into account. To them, the warranty might not be worth anything. Or it could be incredibly important. It's up to the buyer to decide.

[Snadzies]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

if i bought all the stock for a car then charged 50% extra for the cars yes i deserve to be prevented from doing so

 

If there were no other cars available to buy and such cars were needed to sustain life rather than people just wanting them then I can see a case for someone stepping in.

 

These phones are neither the only option available nor are they an item needed to sustain life.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

in a purely captialist society charging and making profit off of healthcare isnt immoral.if you are just going by capitalism even if i charge millions of dollars for a vital life saving drug it would be well in the spirit of capitalism but good thing we dont live in a purely capitalistic system

It's also a good thing a luxury fucking phone is not as vital as Insulin or Epinephrine for people. Your analogy is akin to making a Hitler comparison to win an argument: you're appealing to emotion through a false equivalency.

[Mr.Meerkat]

14 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

if you dont sell it to your cousin you will be fine

How would they know tho? I bought it using my gmail account while he logs in with his own, they could think I "resold" it...

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

How would they know tho? I bought it using my gmail account while he logs in with his own, they could think I "resold" it...

are you doing this for all your extended family spanning hundreds of people? if not i doubt they would care

 

also as dalek said you can contact support and explain to them and if its one phone or even 10 phones they would most likely believe you

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

How would they know tho? I bought it using my gmail account while he logs in with his own, they could think I "resold" it...

Could be, but you'd just contact their support number and be like "Hey why did you ban my account for giving a birthday gift to my cousin? Way to ruin his fucking birthday!"

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Actually, what you describe is 100% perfectly legal.

 

There ARE other methods manufacturers can use to "encourage" people to buy directly from them (or through authorized sellers) - eg: Warranty.

 

If you buy all those cars and resell them, the warranty is null and void. It doesn't exist, as far as the manufacturer is concerned.

 

Now, that's a consideration a buyer will have to take into account. To them, the warranty might not be worth anything. Or it could be incredibly important. It's up to the buyer to decide.

i was talking about it in more of a moral lens

2 minutes ago, Snadzies said:

 

If there were no other cars available to buy and such cars were needed to sustain life rather than people just wanting them then I can see a case for someone stepping in.

 

These phones are neither the only option available nor are they an item needed to sustain life.

but what if thats the phone that you want the most and now that just limited your choice. also google just lost a customer so not fair to them either

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

i was talking about it in more of a moral lens

but what if thats the phone that you want the most and now that just limited your choice. also google just lost a customer so not fair to them either

Morality is subjective. Supply and demand define our culture. What you see as immoral, another person sees as an investment opportunity.

 

The end result is that if people want that phone, but don't want to wait for Google Store to come back in stock, they'll pay the excess price of the reseller.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Morality is subjective. Supply and demand define our culture. What you see as immoral, another person sees as an investment opportunity.

 

The end result is that if people want that phone, but don't want to wait for Google Store to come back in stock, they'll pay the excess price of the reseller.

or they might just go buy a phone from LG and google lost a customer. this is why google dont want people to do this even though they move through inventory quickly and make a quick profit. in the long run it will hurt them

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

or they might just go buy a phone from LG and google lost a customer. this is why google dont want people to do this even though they move through inventory quickly and make a quick profit. in the long run it will hurt them

Actually Google wouldn't lose a customer. Google will have x amount of phones in stock. If all those phones sell out - regardless of whether it is because of direct buyers, or because of resellers, the phone is now out of stock.

 

Meaning, even if resellers didn't buy them all, a person looking for this phone would have to either wait or consider alternatives. Exactly the same, whether Google sells out because of resellers or direct buyers.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

or they might just go buy a phone from LG and google lost a customer. this is why google dont want people to do this even though they move through inventory quickly and make a quick profit. in the long run it will hurt them

Google doesn't gets to make the rules and if challenged in court they could end up losing the case for unfairly punishing people for something perfectly legal.

 

So in short: Google can get fucked. Their stupid Terms of Service cannot supercede the law.

[spartaman64]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Actually Google wouldn't lose a customer. Google will have x amount of phones in stock. If all those phones sell out - regardless of whether it is because of direct buyers, or because of resellers, the phone is now out of stock.

 

Meaning, even if resellers didn't buy them all, a person looking for this phone would have to either wait or consider alternatives. Exactly the same, whether Google sells out because of resellers or direct buyers.

the resellers are charging at a higher price so they wont be as successful especially when they are going against google's competitors like LG to can undercut their price. also people might not understand that those people are just resellers not in association with google and blame google for the high prices