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

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

google does get to make the rules for their products. also if the resellers try to bring google to court they will probably be hit with tax evasion

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

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

Those people would be stupid. These reseller websites don't pretend to be the Google Play store. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Buyers need to do proper research, like anything else.

 

And if the sellers are charging too much? Welcome to Capitalism. If they are asking too much, people will go elsewhere for something else.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

google does get to make the rules for their products

Sure, but those rules have to abide by US Law (And potentially other law too). If a rule in their TOS is in contest with a US Law, the Law takes precedence.

 

Furthermore, you can challenge the TOS rule in the court of law, and potentially get Google into major trouble for their actions, if said actions are preventing legally allowed actions.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

google does get to make the rules for their products.

No, they don't. They get to make the rules for services they provide but not for physical products. We have consumer rights backed by Law, Google is not above the law because of a stupid paper that says they are.

 

This didn't work for when companies wanted to force a contract agreement on you for buying a product i.e. even though Microsoft makes it difficult you can legally ask for a partial refund if you do not accept the Microsoft licence agreement with a new PC purchase. They get around it by greatly reducing the price of the OEM licences so most people don't bother to act legally to get 20 bucks back but if they wanted, they could and many have done so in court.

[spartaman64]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Those people would be stupid. These reseller websites don't pretend to be the Google Play store. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Buyers need to do proper research, like anything else.

 

And if the sellers are charging too much? Welcome to Capitalism. If they are asking too much, people will go elsewhere for something else.

exactly people would go elsewhere loosing google customers. also is the google store the only valid seller? i would imagine google commissions best buy and other retail stores to sell their phones so people who dont want to research the specific store might just assume its commissioned by google 

[Snadzies]

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

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

It is still not the only option available and it is something you want, not a life critical need.

 

There are countless things I want but for various reasons don't / can't buy and instead get something else that will do the job adequately enough.

 

Many of those customers would still not be able to get their hands on the phone regardless of the resellers.

If only the people who wanted the phone had bought it there still likely wouldn't have been enough to go around and, in your scenario, Google would have still lost customers.

 

The only thing Google's TOS is doing here is potentially harming a person's right to sell items they bought and own.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, but those rules have to abide by US Law (And potentially other law too). If a rule in their TOS is in contest with a US Law, the Law takes precedence.

 

Furthermore, you can challenge the TOS rule in the court of law, and potentially get Google into major trouble for their actions, if said actions are preventing legally allowed actions.

 

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No, they don't. They get to make the rules for services they provide but not for physical products. We have consumer rights backed by Law, Google is not above the law because of a stupid paper that says they are.

 

This didn't work for when companies wanted to force a contract agreement on you for buying a product i.e. even though Microsoft makes it difficult you can legally ask for a partial refund if you do not accept the Microsoft licence agreement with a new PC purchase. They get around it by greatly reducing the price of the OEM licences so most people don't bother to act legally to get 20 bucks back but if they wanted, they could and many have done so in court.

yes their ToS cant break a law but i dont think it is in this case. 

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

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

Google is to blame for the higher prices: If they can't sell as many units as the people want to buy then they didn't do proper market research at the very least. You can decide to sell your product at any time: With barely any stock or with millions waiting on warehouses. Most companies have such sophisticated control of the supply chain they can predict how many units they'll need in advance and start manufacturing more as soon as they're checked out of a register in a store or soon after.

 

Saying is not their fault is either disengenious or you not comprehending simple concepts as supply and demand.

[Arty]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/18/google-reverses-decision-ban-pixel-phone-resellers

@LucidMew

You might need to update your post. 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Snadzies said:

It is still not the only option available and it is something you want, not a life critical need.

 

There are countless things I want but for various reasons don't / can't buy and instead get something else that will do the job adequately enough.

 

Many of those customers would still not be able to get their hands on the phone regardless of the resellers.

If only the people who wanted the phone had bought it there still likely wouldn't have been enough to go around and, in your scenario, Google would have still lost customers.

 

The only thing Google's TOS is doing here is potentially harming a person's right to sell items they bought and own.

no they wont care if you dont sell hundreds of them and if they do crack down on people selling one or two of the phones that they owned then ill take it back but right now what i think they are doing is cracking down on people who buy huge amounts of stock to sell for steep prices. also you generally charge less for a phone that you owned and is trying to sell

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

 

yes their ToS cant break a law but i dont think it is in this case. 

We just told you it is, here's a link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking

 

The principle behind jailbreaking is the same: The manufactuer wants to prevent users to take their phone to other companies, territories, reselling, etc. But customers are entitled to thinker with their devices and deactivate such measures, legally.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Google is to blame for the higher prices: If they can't sell as many units as the people want to buy then they didn't do proper market research at the very least. You can decide to sell your product at any time: With barely any stock or with millions waiting on warehouses. Most companies have such sophisticated control of the supply chain they can predict how many units they'll need in advance and start manufacturing more as soon as they're checked out of a register in a store or soon after.

 

Saying is not their fault is either disengenious or you not comprehending simple concepts as supply and demand.

at the beginning google only have a vague idea of what the demand will be and they dont take into account people who buy hundreds or thousands of stock to resell at higher prices

[Misanthrope]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

at the beginning google only have a vague idea of what the demand will be and they dont take into account people who buy hundreds or thousands of stock to resell at higher prices

That's not true: while products flop sometimes they have preorders, they have surveys and focus groups, they have entire fucking armies of people figuring out how much they'll sell specially at launch.

[Snadzies]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

no they wont care if you dont sell hundreds of them and if they do crack down on people selling one or two of the phones that they owned then ill take it back but right now what i think they are doing is cracking down on people who buy huge amounts of stock to sell for steep prices. also you generally charge less for a phone that you owned and is trying to sell

 

It doesn't matter how many someone sells, as long as those phones were payed for then it doesn't matter the quantity.

[DrMikeNZ]

46 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

The resellers didn't break any laws, only a terms of service for a private company. They should not face any kind of prosecution, and they won't.

A group of people conspiring together to reduce supply of a product to drive up prices to force consumers to purchase from them at elevated prices.

This is an intentionally dishonest business based on fraud, tax evasion and providing a service where one isn't needed. This is a modern day equivalent of racketeering. While what they had done may not be covered under any specific law where they are, the loopholes that they are operating within may need to be tightened.

[Mooshi]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

No. Resellers take advantage of supply and demand, something Google themselves control. They want to make their product desirable by limiting supply and putting a high price tag on them but resellers are just part of that fucking beast Google themselves create intentionally.

Companies are guilty of controlling stock, Nintendo is the perfect example of this with Amibos and the mini NES. However, companies don't force people to buy a product for $60 and then charge $600+ for it on the reseller market. 

 

IE those type of resellers are still colossal dicks. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Mooshi said:

Companies are guilty of controlling stock, Nintendo is the perfect example of this with Amibos and the mini NES. However, companies to force people to buy a product for $60 and then charge $600 for it. 

 

IE those type of resellers are still colossal dicks. 

I disagree, for the reasons I've been talking about through the thread and the fact that you admit companies do controll their stock. We also know they're big on the artificial scarcity principles as a marketing tool do we not?

[goodtofufriday]

At the end of the day this is scalping. Scalping is not illegal, and in the state they operate in there are no legal limitations to selling these phones. Now if they were to sell them in say, New York, most likely they would need to get a license do so as per state law. 

 

Another question is, is it illegal to restrict a users access if they break a TOS? Google is not technically restricting the resale of the devices, they are just removing features of your service if you do. This is at most a legal grey area and I dont think any precedent has been set in a federal court case. 

[Kobathor]

1 hour ago, DrMikeNZ said:

A group of people conspiring together to reduce supply of a product to drive up prices to force consumers to purchase from them at elevated prices.

This is an intentionally dishonest business based on fraud, tax evasion and providing a service where one isn't needed. This is a modern day equivalent of racketeering. While what they had done may not be covered under any specific law where they are, the loopholes that they are operating within may need to be tightened.

I have no idea what laws they would be breaking. Resellers are not conspiring together to raise prices, that would actually be directly breaking America's price fixing laws. You are throwing a lot of accusations in there, like tax evasion and fraud, that you don't even know they are committing. All we know is that they go to a store, buy all of 'em,  then sell them at higher prices. That's all they're doing. Douchey? Yes. Breaking any laws? No.

 

You need to take a chill pill or five.

[dtaflorida]

47 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Resellers are not conspiring together to raise prices, that would actually be directly breaking America's price fixing laws.

They don't seem to be doing anything to prevent the lack of supply either. Release a month later when they've got enough in the warehouse to meet demand on release + preorders. It's Google's phone, they DO have the data to know how many they need. They're just running their projections so close to the line that outside parties like Dan can jump in and alter the supply/demand mix.

 

If you bought something and then it ran out of stock, you'd be pretty self-satisfied that you shelled out big bucks rather than wait. For ppl that wait there's the discounts and deals that eventually come with over supply and declining demand. I don't doubt they factor a bit of undersupply into the release.

[dalekphalm]

Google may well have intentionally under supplied themselves.

 

There is something to the notion that people are more excited to buy a product that immediately becomes sold out, because they instinctively think "Well it MUST be good if it's sold out!"