Google is forbidding users from reselling or loaning Glass eyewear

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by Wired

Google is barring anyone deemed worthy of a pair of its $1,500 Google Glass computer eyewear from selling or even loaning out the highly coveted gadget.

The company’s terms of service on the limited-edition wearable computer specifically states, “you may not resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person. If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google’s authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty.”

Welcome to the New World, one in which companies are retaining control of their products even after consumers purchase them.

...

The tech world, including Google, won an approval-of-sorts to control its stream of commerce in 2010, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said licensing language controls resales.

The case concerned a dispute about whether a California man could resell Autodesk software on eBay. Autodesk prevailed in a lawsuit, and the San Francisco-based appeals court pointed out that the shrink-wrap agreement between its customers forbade the resale of it.

The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did. The Motion Picture Association of America also sided with Autodesk.

You can read the rest here: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/...glass-resales/

[K. Molen]

This is pretty disgusting if you ask me. It saddens me to see Google stray further and further from "Don't be evil."

[QuantumIguana]

I would think it would be hard enough selling the Google Glass at $1,500 as it is. To tell me that I can't sell or loan it, it wouldn't be worthwhile at 1/10 the price.

[pl001]

It sounds bad, but if you read the part of the article that was snipped out you can see why they are doing this. This is a limited trial for a high demand product. Some guy was trying to sell his pair on eBay and bids were up to $90,000.

So, not so evil after all. If they keep the policy in place after they become available to the general public, then that's another story. But I highly doubt that will happen.

[CyGuy]

I find this very confusing, Google can't "forbid" you from selling them even if they wanted to. Something doesn't add up here.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by pl001

It sounds bad, but if you read the part of the article that was snipped out you can see why they are doing this. This is a limited trial for a high demand product. Some guy was trying to sell his pair on eBay and bids were up to $90,000.

So, not so evil after all...

I did read the rest of the article and I don't see why they're doing it. Why is it any business of theirs if I lend the glasses to my friend? If they gave these away (or lent them) for free to beta testers, I could get behind them wanting total control, but since people are buying these I very much think it's "evil" to not allow them to be lent or resold.

As far as I'm concerned, it's none of their business what I do with a product I've bought. Except they're making it their business, so there's not much I can do about it except make angry forum threads and not buy a pair.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I find this very confusing, Google can't "forbid" you from selling them even if they wanted to. Something doesn't add up here.

Since they're tied in with your Google account they kinda can. Sure, if you sell them and Google ends up banning that unit, whoever bought them technically still have the glasses, but they're not very useful if they've been banned.

Anyway, I'd suggest clicking through and reading the article in its entirety. They do a better job explaining it than I do.

[Sil_liS]

The definition of owning something is changing.

[AndrewH]

I'll wait to overreact till Google Glass is out of beta. To me, this is nothing more than people whining about NDAs.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I find this very confusing, Google can't "forbid" you from selling them even if they wanted to. Something doesn't add up here.

They can't forbid you, and they aren't forbidding you. They are saying that if you stray from the rules they've set, they reserve the right to turn your Glass into a brick.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I find this very confusing, Google can't "forbid" you from selling them even if they wanted to. Something doesn't add up here.

They can't legally prevent you from reselling the hardware, but they can deactivate your account for doing it. And without the linked account, the hardware is pretty useless.

Until someone jailbreaks them, I suppose, and figures out how to run them with a different OS and a different cloud storage setup.

[JeremyR]

We're being turned into serfs. We don't own anything anymore, everything is owned by the lord of the manor

[david_e]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

We're being turned into serfs. We don't own anything anymore, everything is owned by the lord of the manor

So don't buy it.

There, now I've freed the serfs. That's going to look so kewl on my permanent record.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

I'll wait to overreact till Google Glass is out of beta. To me, this is nothing more than people whining about NDAs.

this. its a closed controlled beta/developer program. everyone should have know that going in. in fact they were sent the particulars before the glasses shipped. they did not have to be a part of the program or pay for them if they did not want to abide by the agreement.

[BeccaPrice]

It sounds like it's the same model for the walled-garden ebook readers: you buy the device, but only license the content.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

It sounds like it's the same model for the walled-garden ebook readers: you buy the device, but only license the content.

Same with unwalled readers. You always only license the content. Only the copyright owner "owns" the content. Same with a paperback, for that matter. You own the wood pulp, not the content.