Hacker News Reader

Comment by antihero | Hacker News Reader

If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"?

Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit?

What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over this massive shit that is being taken over consumer rights?

The market is only as free as the consumer.

View on HN

There are certain legal differences between 'selling a product' and 'distributing testing hardware'. It's not clear to me that classifying the Explorer Edition as the latter would hold up in court because of the method of distribution, but that seems to be the theory that Google is working under. And it's perfectly possible that it would hold up.

If it doesn't hold up, it has no legal force. Though they can still close your account and make you take them to court over the software side of things.

This is not the retail version.

This is a limited run that is meant to be tested by a small number of people.

And is remarkably similar to the CR-48, which had the same "do not loan, do not sell" provision.

I wouldn't pay $1,500 for the test hardware with this provision, but I'm going to withhold my hypothetical anger until Google does this with the consumer version.

I think the difference is in the contract agreement. The right comes from the user agreeing in writing to forbid doing certain things with the item. Given the fact that no one is being coerced into buying it I think the boundaries can be drawn pretty wide on those agreements.

I think the question is, is it reasonable to assume that if the user broke the contract, the seller could repossess the item. I would imagine it wouldn't be any different than if someone didn't pay their car payment to the auto dealer/bank. In either case the user and seller agree to actions which each will take over a set period of time.

In 20 years time, this thing is probably going to have some memorabilia value. I wonder if this provision makes it impossible to sell as a collector's item too.

Consumer rights also include not buying this POS and making a huge deal about it. If Google really wants to transform this industry, then they can buck up and not try to strong arm people into how they can use something they pay a lot of money for.

Also, if this is tied to your email address, people will simply create a dummy email, with fake information. Then when the time comes, they can just transfer the account along with the glasses.

A fake identity is less likely to have passed Google's selection process, and may be be difficult to verify when they go to pick up the device in person.

Also, the terms specify that Google is allowed to deactivate the device if they find you've given it to someone else.

Google's increasingly strident insistence that every interaction I have with their services is tied irrevocably to my real name is souring what is otherwise a very happy relationship. I love Android, Chrome, Gmail, Translate, and Search but I don't like having my real name via Google+ twisted up in my use of these services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com