Google Glass almost at 100k USD on eBay | Hacker News Reader

Google Glass almost at 100k USD on eBay

ebay.com

21 pointsHeliosmaster23 comments

Just some relevance, but everyone who is getting a set of Google Glasses has done so through joining the Glass Explorer Program. Upon joining they have all agreed to terms of the following [1]. These are not the terms which will apply upon general release.

'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.'

Since the original auction has been removed, here is a screenshot for anyone who missed it. [2]

Also, from a legal point of view, I believe that the first sale doctrine, does not apply in this situation because, 1) people had to apply to join the program, and then agreed to the terms of the Glass Explorer Program [3], 2) They are just shutting down the device. Your ownership and property rights are not affected.

[1] : https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zeDA7Huey9o/UWy-qZX9LbI/A...

[2] : http://www.chrisacky.com/images/glasses1.png

[3] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass#Glass_Explorer_Pro...

"Google reserves the right to deactivate the Device"

Wow, is it even possible for Google to do this? I mean, if they can do it for pre-release versions, how can I be sure they won't deactivate mine's whenever Google want's

technically, it does not seem too far fetched.

I don't really know why, but I thought of the infamouse "we have root" quote of Mark Shuttleworth.

Also, if Google is able to install automatically software on your phone (by following your input in Google Play, of course), I wouldn't be surprised if they could brick it remotely.

Androids can be potentially bricked by a system-signed app [0], I wouldn't be surprised if it has a similar counterpart in Glass.

[0]: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.perm...

He's taking the auction down apparently. Here's his rant:

"Please note: this auction is being removed, due to finding out that Google Glass cannot be resold once obtained. Since I have not received anything other than confirmation from Google that I have been selected for the #ifihadglass contest, I was not given the terms of service agreement that those who received the first batch did indicating the device could not be resold. So, all of you who apparently have no life aside from posting in forums about this auction can sleep well tonight knowing that the glasses will not be sold. Thanks to Patrick Nugent (eBay user torwolv) and the many others who have driven up the price for their own amusement. #ifihadalife Sorry for being a recent college graduate that was hoping I could possibly resell my Google Glasses to help pay down my student debt. Yes, I am everything that's evil in the world. Anyway, nothing to see here anymore. Take a screen shot, it will last longer!"

Where's the outrage here about first sale doctrine and how a ToS shouldn't be able to dictate what you do with 'your' property.

Looks like some fraud going on here. Look at the bidding history: http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=...

Started at $5,000, then the same user bid $5,100 all the way to $84,000 without anyone else bidding. Checking out the user history, this looks like the only thing they've bid on.

Did you read the auction description? It appears the owner is taking the auction down anyway due to resale being against the google glass ToS.

He also implies bidding fraud.

I can't see the history now, but if someone has a maximum bid above yours, it can look at first glance like you are only bidding against yourself.

This wouldn't happen if the initial allocation of Glass units had been done in sane way, like setting a market-clearing price, rather than basing it on Twitter follower count.

(And yes, I'm pissed that I didn't get one.)

Did you see the list of people who got them? A significant number had no followers at all. I doubt the median follower count of selected accounts was much different from the median follower accounts of the active twitter population.

> setting a market-clearing price

That would be _way_ less of a random sampling than what they have now. You don't get good feedback by having it available to such a tiny segments of the population.

It makes sense if you look at this as a promotion/market research instead of a first batch of sales. And I think that's exactly what they're doing, giving the product to a large group of people who can reach a larger number of people to introduce their product.

It's also a bit of market and use testing since they'll be able to see how people are using them and improve or expand the application offerings in those areas.

They may not want there to be any headlines about "Google Glass costs $50,000" out there.

I don't know if Google are going to like this if they figure out who it is. I would be inclined to say that they won't honour their agreement to sell them a beta pair if they don't even plan to use them.

What does everyone else think on this? This to me is like buying a ticket to a show with the sole intention of turning a profit on it?

I was a participant in the Chromebook pilot program and I received a CR-48. When applying for the pilot program you had to agree that you wouldn't sell the device to anyone else (I don't know where the ToS for that is, but that was the gist). The terms implied that you weren't really receiving the device for "free", you were receiving the device on the terms that you will test it and provide feedback. I suppose it would depend on the ToS of the Google Glass pilot program, but I don't forsee Google smiling upon this as selling CR-48s was strongly discouraged by Google.

I can see the auction has been removed now for that exact reason. My main issue with it was that it is not fair for other people that entered the the program for a trial pair of the glasses. The guy has clearly stipulated it was to pay for his student debt, doesn't seem fair for people actually wanting a pair for genuine reasons.

On the other hand, people outside the USA weren't allowed by Google to sign up for the Glass trial program. This gray market could provide access for those who couldn't get one.

This is less of a first round of sales and a more of a public beta test and market research rolled into one.

Does google own all beta test units or do the beta testers?

It's whatever Google wants, because they can "hack" your device and kill it if you assert your property rights.

And no company has been charged with the CFAA.

i picked up glass yesterday at google's campus. they are freaking sweet! not worth $100k though. $1500 was plenty :)

This wont be up long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com