Google is forbidding users from reselling or loaning Glass eyewear

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They won't do it unless they only plan to sell to a few geeks. Google is evil, but not stupid.

It looks like there are plenty of people willing to pay $1,500 for an unfinished product with these restrictions. The mass market product will better and cost less. The people who are concerned about restrictions will find a way to root.

People are getting used to restrictions, to buying a license and not a product. Most people don't read articles about restrictions found in the terms. They don't even read the agreements.

[Vic333]

This kind of agreement isn't uncommon for betas releases and prototypes. This product just happens to be one that makes it to the news.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It looks like there are plenty of people willing to pay $1,500 for an unfinished product with these restrictions. The mass market product will better and cost less. The people who are concerned about restrictions will find a way to root.

People are getting used to restrictions, to buying a license and not a product. Most people don't read articles about restrictions found in the terms. They don't even read the agreements.

Want to bet that the mass market product won't have these restrictions?

[ucfgrad93]

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.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

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.

Agreed. This is a beta test, and by participating in it you have to agree to certain rules.

[Ken Maltby]

The concern might be that for after Beta, Google could adopt the DirecTV model.

DirecTV goes so far as to hold that any equipment used to receive their service, no
matter who you may have purchased it from, as leased equipment (belonging to
them ?). So your more expensive Weeknees DVR with the 2TB internal HD that you
bought may not really be yours?

This is worse than what "Ma Bell" used to do, if you ask me.

Luck;
Ken

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

The concern might be that for after Beta, Google could adopt the DirecTV model.

DirecTV goes so far as to hold that any equipment used to receive their service, no
matter who you may have purchased it from, as leased equipment (belonging to
them ?). So your more expensive Weeknees DVR with the 2TB internal HD that you
bought may not really be yours?
Luck;
Ken

I've not heard that. DirectTV has never made such claims about my owned Tivos. I get charged no lease fee (as such) and when I have to replace them over the years the tech people, at least, have acknowledged them as owned and never had a problem reactivating replacements I've acquired nor have they ever asked for old ones to be returned.

I do recall that soon after we joined up with them the stopped "selling" any equipment and made all equipment acquired from them "leased" but I never heard anything about them retroactively claiming anything that WAS owed was now leased.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ApK

I've not heard that. DirectTV has never made such claims about my owned Tivos. I get charged no lease fee (as such) and when I have to replace them over the years the tech people, at least, have acknowledged them as owned and never had a problem reactivating replacements I've acquired nor have they ever asked for old ones to be returned.

I do recall that soon after we joined up with them the stopped "selling" any equipment and made all equipment acquired from them "leased" but I never heard anything about them retroactively claiming anything that WAS owed was now leased.

I am not sure when the policy changed but it has been that way for some time now.
It's in the fine print. I think "Weaknees.com" may still have an article explaining the
situation.

Luck;
Ken

[calvin-c]

For every precedent there's another precedent holding the opposite. (Rule of thumb, not necessarily statement of fact.) Different courts are free to choose which precedent they apply. There are numerous precedents stating that shrink-wrap licenses aren't valid because the buyer doesn't know the terms of the license before opening it (and accepting the terms, according to the license)-and also because there's no chance for negotiation. If a trial over this is held in the 9th District it's likely that the precedent set by the 9th District Court might be held to apply-but if it's held elsewhere it might not.

Also I recall a number of years ago that an author (or maybe a publisher) printed a license in the front of his pbooks. Don't remember what happened, just remember that it purported to prohibit resale of his books.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Vic333

This kind of agreement isn't uncommon for betas releases and prototypes. This product just happens to be one that makes it to the news.

Can you give an example? It would be especially nice if it got to mass production to find the differences between agreements.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Want to bet that the mass market product won't have these restrictions?

I would like to hear why you think that the device won't be bought by more than a few geeks if the restrictions stay.

I was looking for a similar situation and found this:

A couple of days a go, my friend Linn sent me an e-mail, being very frustrated: Amazon just closed her account and wiped her Kindle. Without notice. Without explanation. This is DRM at it’s worst.

Linn travels a lot and therefore has, or should I say had, a lot of books on her Kindle, purchased from Amazon. Suddenly, her Kindle was wiped and her account was closed. Being convinced that something wrong had happened, she sent an e-mail to Amazon, asking for help. This was the answer:

This answer was very confusing. Which account was he talking about? She had never had any other accounts at Amazon.

So Amazon can just close the an account and wipe the device. We are talking about a mass market device. The Kindle sells pretty well, not just to a few geeks. How do you explain this?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I would like to hear why you think that the device won't be bought by more than a few geeks if the restrictions stay.

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.

[Sil_liS]

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.

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:

“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:

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?

[HansTWN]

This early batch of Google Glass devices is for developers only. So special restrictions apply and I consider that to be reasonable. These buyers have been made aware of these rules. They also want to discourage speculation on ebay.

My argument is that once they sell the regular product those will not come with these restrictions -- unless they never intend for this to become a mass market product and just consider it to be an experimental or "proof-of-concept" device.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

This early batch of Google Glass devices is for developers only. So special restrictions apply and I consider that to be reasonable. These buyers have been made aware of these rules. They also want to discourage speculation on ebay.

My argument is that once they sell the regular product those will not come with these restrictions -- unless they never intend for this to become a mass market product and just consider it to be an experimental or "proof-of-concept" device.

You just completely ignored what I wrote.

[Sil_liS]

Devices on Google Play Terms of Sale

You may not commercially resell any Device

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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?

I do not see any similarity to Apple fans. You have a program that is designed to develop applications and a lot of people wanted to be able to do that. A person lying about developing applications should not have been allowed to participate so to me it seems totally reasonable that this should not be a lottery were you make money by re-selling.