Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Most tech buyers, especially early adopters depend heavily on being able to sell their "old" devices so that they can afford the next big thing. And Google users are not Apple users, they don't accept everything that is being dished out and say thank you. Many want to tweak their devices. What if multiple users want to use the same device? What if one user wants to use several accounts? And let us face it, unless some serious design changes are being made this thing will not become main stream, non-Geeks would probably be embarrassed to be seen with it. Heavy restrictions would spell an early end to this product.
Google never makes money on hardware, they make money mining users' data. So for Google such restrictions would make even less sense -- they would hope that users resell, let their friends use it, etc.
|
Maybe you haven't read the article.
Quote:
|
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.”
|
It doesn't say that you can never resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person. It also doesn't say that Google will definitely brick it if you sell it without authorization.
Google didn't contact the guy who tried to sell the device to point out the terms of service, fans did:
Quote:
|
“People were acting like I had did something sacrilegious,” he said.
|
Which should tell you something about the similarities between Google fans and Apple fans. From another
article on the subject:
Quote:
Yes, Google is able to throw a remote brick through your lenses -- though some informed sources suggest the company has no intention of doing so.
Openness has a very interesting definition on occasion. As does fandom. For what some might find moving is that it was Google fanboys who actively tried to ensure that Ed's auction wouldn't succeed.
He ended up withdrawing it. He told Marketplace he was "sick of being harassed by Google enthusiasts." Who knew that Googlies could be so aggressive?
Marketplace quotes Kevin Dietz, a student at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who confessed he had gone to an online group for Glass Explorers and featured a link to Ed's auction. The idea, it seems, was to artificially raise the price to such a degree that the auction would become meaningless.
"The reason why I posted it in the first place was to prevent the auction from completing. The whole idea of being a part of the Explorer program is not about getting Google Glass or turning a profit. It's about being on the cutting edge, and this person clearly doesn't care about that," he said.
|
So I pointed out that restrictions such as the ones found in the Terms of Service for Google Glass are also found in the Terms of Service of mass produced devices; I pointed out that it is still possible to resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person within the present Terms of Service; I pointed out that at least for this device the fans are similar to the Apple fans. Is there any reason left to support the opinion that Google will change the Terms of Service?