back to article Google Glass will SELF-DESTRUCT if flogged on eBay

Buyers of Google Glass have been warned they cannot sell their pricey new techno-spectacles on eBay or anywhere else. In terms of sale posted on its website, the advertising giant said a Google Glass was for life, unless you wanted to give it away for nothing. Anyone who failed to follow the rules will have their devices …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. ed2020
    Stop

    I'm confused...

    If Google see these devices selling on eBay, how will they now what device to deactivate?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm confused...

      If Google see these devices selling on eBay, how will they now what device to deactivate?

      They will see the change in habits, websites viewed - basically, the whole chain of events associated with one ID will look nothing like someone else's, and I cannot imaging Google selling you kit without it having an embedded ID of its own. For a company that scams its way into acquiring every shred of intelligence it gets from its users, that will really not be the hard bit.

      However, would YOU want to touch a device that dictates post sale what you can do with it? Isn't that illegal? If not it should be, I can only see that valid for restricted items such as guns.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge
        Terminator

        Re: I'm confused...

        None of this noughtys change in purchasing habits nonsense, that's old hat and Google's cutting edge. On first run they scan your brainwaves and then later electrocute the wearer if the brainwaves don't match.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Indirect revenue goes to the back end owner.

          There is actually an Israeli technology company that can ID you by monitoring cardiac activity. Needs 2 points on the body to monitor and both of them on the head may not work, but it's an interesting possibility.

      2. J__M__M

        Re: I'm confused...

        However, would YOU want to touch a device that dictates post sale what you can do with it?

        You mean like a mobile phone? A PS3? A movie? A book? Music? Apps? Cable TV? This website?

        Anymore this is pretty much just how we roll...

      3. Rampant Spaniel

        Re: I'm confused...

        is this not covered under 1st sale doctrine in the usa? adsolute twats.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm confused...

        Given that it's apparently legal to sell devices that require a special device to control or configure them & refuse to support second-hand owners unless they buy said device & a new licence...

        It looks like it's intended to prevent scalpers from buying a dozen & selling them off at huge markups to the fetishists.

      5. toadwarrior

        Re: I'm confused...

        You can give it away for free. A change in habits or accounts isn't enough to prove anything.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'm confused...

          A change in habits or accounts isn't enough to prove anything.

          As it's Google they probably already know your bank account details too.. And you better make sure you don't collect cash for it within reach of the camera..

    2. JimmyPage Silver badge

      Re: I'm confused...

      Didn't they say you need a Google Wallet account linked to the glasses ? In which case it's trivial - simply have a complicated procedure for changing accounts, where you verify it's a gift.

      Presumably the glasses won't work if they can't access a valid Wallet account.

    3. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: I'm confused...

      Google are hoping the wearer will wear it whilst the item is posted on ebay where by they will despatch the nearest Google car to disable the glasses and the wearer in one go.

    4. Wize

      Re: I'm confused...

      But you are allowed to give them away for nothing. So transferring ownership is possible. How can they tell if money changed hands?

      Does the change of ownership have a pop up with "How much did you pay for these glasses" box?

    5. Jason 5
      Trollface

      Re: I'm confused...

      Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address. Then they cross reference that with a user that setup the required Wallet account and deactivates the associated unit.

      Google probably has court orders printed in bulk for this.

      1. Goldmember

        Re: I'm confused...

        "Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address"

        Give the thing to your mate to sell through his account. Google will have no idea where the glass came from, as the address won't match any records. They also won't know which device to disable remotely.

        1. JDX Gold badge

          Re: I'm confused...

          So you can get away with selling it despite agreeing not to... and? You can copy DRM-protected files too. All it means is you are agreeing not to re-sell, not that you can't do it.

        2. Snarky

          Re: I'm confused...

          Google would have no standing to make such a request unless.....is the agreement the "buyer" signs actually a lease rather than a sale? That would give Google a lot more control over what happens to the product.

      2. Mark 65

        Re: I'm confused...

        "Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address. Then they cross reference that with a user that setup the required Wallet account and deactivates the associated unit."

        Two points

        1. You cannot get a court order unless a crime is shown to have been committed. Maybe in the US, never in EU.

        2. This is all likely illegal in EU under restraint of trade etc.

        1. Throatwobbler Mangrove
          Headmaster

          Re: I'm confused...

          "1. You cannot get a court order unless a crime is shown to have been committed. Maybe in the US, never in EU."

          This is nonsense. Stick to your knitting.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm confused... Because...

      THEY WILL BE WATCHING YOU FOOL.

    7. RJFlorida

      Re: I'm confused...

      From the DNA samples that it collects from your skin cross checked with the photos it takes of you in the bathroom cross checked with the android phone that you have that has been gathering data about every single freaking thing you have ever done since you bought your first android phone.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thats Hardcore

    Even for Apple....................

  3. Justice
    Mushroom

    What gives ANY company the right...

    ...to tell us what what we can and cannot do with a product we have purchased and own outright?

    Getting real sick of big business telling us that it may be ours, but we have to do what they say.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      It's a contract between you and Google. If you don't like the terms, don't enter the contract. Sale with strings attached is not some new thing Google invented, it's pretty common.

      Someone will come along and tell us a fancy legal term for this no doubt.

      Does this stand up to legal scrutiny though if you buy them outside the US?

      1. Graham Dawson

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        It doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny INSIDE the US. There's a substantial body of law and precedent dating back to before the US was even founded (US common law is descended from English common law with very little modification and much of it is unchanged since the 1700s) establishing that a company or person has no right to contractually prevent a second party from reselling goods or items they have purchased.

        The contract is void and unenforceable in law. If they try and enforce it they're acting illegally.

        1. Dave Fox
          Stop

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          I rather suspect that the point is that the contract relates to the Google services that Google Glass needs to connect to in order to function correctly.

          Whilst they can't legally stop you reselling the item, they can prevent the purchaser from accessing the required Google services because the contract for supply of those services isn't transferred with the ownership of the device.

          1. Bod

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...

            If you buy a car and sell it on, usually the services it came with like warranty are not passed on.

            The difference here is the product will not work without the service. Though why Google can't just ask for a payment from the new owner to activate the services I don't know.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. Just a Framer
                Unhappy

                Re: What gives ANY company the right...

                ....all very interesting, there is a loophole in Oz on swimming pool warranties. the original warranty is for say 15 years BUT if you sell the house with the pool after 3 4 years the warranty is void......

            2. Jolyon Smith
              Pint

              Re: What gives ANY company the right...

              Not true. At least not in all countries. Here in NZ, manufacturer's warranty is transferable upon resale as long as you have the original sale receipt to establish the date of purchase . But then, we have one of the strongest consumer protection regimes that I am aware of, with goods and services held against far higher standards than is the norm.

              For example, goods must last for a reasonable time. That is over and above any warranty - manufacturer or 3rd party (most retailers won't even bother pestering you about taking out 3rd party insurance because of this, which is another benefit!).

              A colleague of mine had a 3 year old Dell 30" LCD monitor (2 yr warranty) replaced when it's power supply blew up. Power supplies reasonably should last more than 3 years (there are some general guidelines for "reasonableness" in relation to certain products, but ultimately it is taken on a case by case basis and considers things like how an appliance or device has been cared for etc). Dell, to their credit, not only replaced the unit without quibble and free of charge (they are entitled to charge to cover reasonable costs if they wish), but also arranged next-day courier delivery and collection of the expired monitor, also at their own expense !

              I myself had a Logitech Harmony remote (1 yr warranty) replaced after 2 years when the recharging contacts on the docking station failed (due to a flaw in the design/implementation of spring mechanism intended to sustain the contact with the remote). Again, entirely free of charge.

              In my case, unfortunately, the design flaw remains in the replacement unit and after 2 years this one has now started exhibiting the same fault. This time around for the sake of $100 I can't be bothered and don't want another unit which is going to do the same thing in another 2 years, so it's time to get a new remote entirely.

            3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: What gives ANY company the right...

              >If you buy a car and sell it on, usually the services it came with like warranty are not passed on.

              I assume car makers will try that next.

              You buy a BMW but have a non-transferable licence to the software in the engine management system which is disabled if you don't have it serviced at a dealer.

          2. Dethstar
            Meh

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...

            Agree. This is very similar the plan for the net generation of computer game consoles. Much has been mentioned of the attempt to stop users buying and selling games and other software. The solution is to make the console "always on" i.e always connected to the internet. Then ensure that only limited content from the original product is accessible to the secondary and tertiary market, effectively achieving the same thing as actively trying to stop the sale of the product.

            This is a trend that is getting worse and worse. Google are just following the trend consumers have allowed by voting with their wallets at every step along the way.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...

            Dave Fox is thinking. Good man. To rest of you I say, do as Dave does.

            Glass is not a HUD. Glass is a portal. You can sell the hardware. They are saying that if you do, your account will be disabled. I find it odd that they don't have some kind of ID swapping in ability. Perhaps it's to make theft more difficult. I'd hate the portal bit anyway. So if anyone ever roots the things, be careful when I walk buy and take 1'500USD worth right off your face.

            In any case, what a piece of crap for 1'500USD? Can't that fetch a some gen1 night vision goggles these days? Much more useful if you ask me.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...?

            YOU give a company the right! (by agreeing to the purchase)

            Don't like the EULA? Don't buy. Problem solved.

        2. Pez92

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          They can brick consoles, they can brick phones, they can brick glasses. It's unfortunate but not illegal.

        3. RJFlorida

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          Right you are Graham, companies try to skirt around it but their efforts don't withstand legal scrutiny

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          They can not stop you from selling it. They can stop you from using it.

      2. Tom 38 Silver badge

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        In reasonable countries, the consumer has protection against wilfully unfair terms and conditions in contracts, as it has sensibly been noted that when a consumer enters into an agreement with a business, the business has undue control over the terms specified.

        Therefore, this agreement, whereby you give up your rights to dispose of the entity that you are purchasing, would without doubt be invalid in the EU.

        If google truly wanted to do this in the EU, they would have to apply a rental model - which is what this in fact is, you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device.

        1. TeeCee Gold badge
          Alert

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          ......you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device.

          Holy Zarquon's singing fish, they really are suckers for punishment aren't they?

          You'd have thought they'd have had enough of being repeatedly sued for slavishly copying Apple's methods of doing things.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          "If google truly wanted to do this in the EU, they would have to apply a rental model - which is what this in fact is, you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device."

          The EU recently ruled on this with reference to software licensing. Any license that is "sold", rather than let, is considered to be a sold tangible good, with all that that implies in the context of first sale doctrine. If you buy a software service license for a single, one-off payment, it is to every intent and purpose yours, and you have the right to sell it on. The company that supports that product must continue to support the new user as they would any other basic customer (i.e. they must not cripple the device, they must provide statutory support etc.).

          The long and short of it is, within the EU, you'd have the right to re-sell your Glass for whatever price you can get for it, and google would have to support the device as they would any other.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...

            "The EU recently ruled on this with reference to software licensing. Any license that is "sold", rather than let, is considered to be a sold tangible good, ..."

            Absolutely, which is why there is now a brisk trade in WindowsServer2003 licences amongst others, First sale doctorine is being litigated in the US as well IIR. Something about AutoDesk products being resellable. I am not sure how far along it is.

            In the EU, the pseudo-legal bullshit "licencing" that MS (and others) have been threatening with forever, has finally been punctured - and about time too!!! Soon the US, and then the EULA licensing bullshit will go away foreever, as it should.

            1. Naughtyhorse
              Holmes

              AutoDesk products being resellable....

              The EULA _inside_ the sealed box said - (and i'm paraphrasing here for the sake of my sanity), 'by breaking the seal on this box you agree to (amongst other things) not re-sell it.' - so you had agreed to the eula before having the chance to read it, which is, I guess, the basis for the legal challenge. (cos we all read eulas carefully, and have a lawyer give it the once over before checking that box on the bottom of the dialog, don't we?)

              It's a bit moot in practical terms as they have shifted to a subscription model with annual updates and guaranteed non forward compatibility, so you need to have a moderately recent version (less than 3 years old) to work in the market without looking like a muppet, and the original licence to run the new software.

              I can kind of see their point. unlike most vendors they produced a package that pretty much worked straight out of the box (okay, it was actually rev 17!) - and then had to keep piling extra crap and bloat on with each rev, and vast numbers of drawing offices said 'fuck that, we'll stick with the one that works, and we already know how to use' - not good from Autodesk's point of view.

              The upside is, for the casual user or student is that their licensing software is a joke. :-D

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AutoDesk products being resellable....

                "The upside is, for the casual user or student is that their licensing software is a joke. :-D"

                This is the same strategy as weak anti-copy schemes. Make it easy to pirate. All the kids will learn it. The companies will have to buy it. What a bunch of wankers. Please wank somewhere else.

      3. zb

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        Even Steve Jobs never thought of doing that!

        And yes, I don´t like it and do vote with my wallet. This sort of thing pisses me off and is why I have pensioned off my Macbook Pro and iPod and now have a Samsung laptop running Ubuntu and a Galaxy S3 phone. And I don´t touch anything form Mcrosoft or Sony either. Now I will have to think about dumping Google as well.

      4. Jabberwolf
        Facepalm

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        Just because a company has a contract and you sign it in your own blood, and give your fingerprints, voice identification, and promise your first born child --- does NOT mean it can be legally upheld !

        A consumer has rights and this actually VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT MISUSE DOCTRINE!!

        In fact such misuse of destroying property sold to its customer might actually be grounds for a class action suit against Google.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      Those are the terms and conditions for the developer explorer edition, which is massively over subscribed. Pretty sensible to stop the scumbags profiting from it on ebay. Quite clearly it needs to be going to genuine Google Glass developers, not scammers.

      Pretty sensible for Google to this this AT THIS STAGE...

      1. Pat 4

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        Ah!

        NOW it may make sense...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          December 2013:

          "BWWAHHHHAAA I can't buy a Nexus4 for the RRP, but there are loads of them on ebay for silly money"

          April 2014:

          "BWWAHHHHAAA Google are preventing me selling Google Glass on ebay for silly money"

          See the problem here? Am I the only person here that's not a total idiot?

          1. zb

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...

            Clearly the answer is no.

          2. Naughtyhorse
            Coat

            Re: What gives ANY company the right...Am I the only person here that's not a total idiot?

            Nope, you are an idiot too

            (only joking - upvoted, but couldn't resist)

        2. Naughtyhorse

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          Breath

          holding

          1....

          2.....

          3......

          4.......

      2. Jolyon Smith
        Pint

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        Sensible it may be, but it's still illegal. The only way they could legitimately implement such a thing would be to retain ownership of the glasses themselves. Since they aren't - apparently - doing that, then they are on a hiding to nothing with this.

    3. Jason 5
      Devil

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      The big print give-ith and the small print take-ith away.

      Read the legal document of your toaster oven. Probably says something almost entirely identical to restricted use. Almost all business use the same legal documents to cover all their bases.

      You "own" an Apple product? Try again. Those legal documents will make you weep when you read that everything you do on or to an Apple device becomes the property of Apple. Photos of a birthday? Apple owns them but give you "free use" rights to their property.

      Music and movie industry also want to use Lease only system so that you have to keep paying them for the right to watch the movie or listen to music.

      This is nothing new and it sure isn't anything we haven't already complained about before.

      This is the new form of business for companies - LEASE or LICENSE instead of Pay-to-own.

      You the consumer GAVE the company the RIGHT to screw yourself over by accepting the legal document you never bothered reading.

      1. apjanes
        Paris Hilton

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        I may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer, but don't these license agreements a. have to abide by and not take away constitutional rights and b. have to be understood (and therefore reasonably understandable) by those who accept them in order to actually hold up in the court of law? Has any big company actually try to enforce the concept you present that "Apple owns them but give [sic] you 'free use' rights to their property" Jason 5?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        "You "own" an Apple product? Try again. Those legal documents will make you weep when you read that everything you do on or to an Apple device becomes the property of Apple. Photos of a birthday? Apple owns them but give you "free use" rights to their property."

        Absolute and total fantasist nonsense. Please quote a single Apple agreement that backs up what you have said.

        For the record, this is in fact what Apple's agreement says for iCloud and no other agreement I've seen, contradicts it (and you won't find this in a Google agreement):

        "Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you. "

        The second part of that clause after the however is purely necessary protection for them from people who make things public but then want to later claim it was Apple's fault. But, having ensured they have this protection, Apple even ensure their use will be limited to the intended purpose. So if you share photo's on Photostream, they couldn't then use them for e.g. Advertising. Yes I am one of the few who actually read the agreements I click. And I can tell you it's one of the very good reasons I am for Apple and avoid Google. Try finding a similar assurance in a Google agreement. As of 2010 you wouldn't for sure, and I have little reason to think they will have changed if late. After all, when you use Google, YOU are the product.

        1. Philip Lewis
          Megaphone

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          Here is what Google says these days. It used to be far more evil.

          "When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. "

    4. 1206549

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      That's probably because those who signed up for the Glass Explorer edition aren't exactly considered regular consumers. They're just used as lab rats for Google. This probably won't apply when Glass is officially released. and you can do whatever you want with it.

    5. R 11

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      You write that as if Google has no lawyers. The company has every right to enforce whatever the contract you agree with them says they can do. There are very few rights that cannot be freely contracted away. Don't like the terms, buy a different product from someone else.

      Looking at the terms quoted in the article, Google don't claim it's illegal for to resell the device.

      What Google do appear to say is that the buyer is entering into a contract with Google. As part of the buyer's obligations under the contract they agree they are not entitled to sell the device. They may still be legally able to sell the device, but would also be opening themselves up to a claim by Google for breach of contract.

      They are also on notice that if they do sell it, Google may deactivate it.

      1. Jolyon Smith
        FAIL

        Re: What gives ANY company the right...

        You write as if Google's lawyers aren't entirely aware that their customers won't - in the main - be able or willing to afford to hire a lawyer to ascertain the validity of the non-negotiable contract they put in front of them.

        Those Google lawyers will also almost certainly have included a severability clause in the contract. Why ? Because they will also know that some of the other clauses in that contract are not actually enforceable (such as trying to constrain the rights of an individual w.r.t their own private property) and without a severability clause such clauses would render the entire contract void, at Google's fault. Severability ensures that where a clause is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the remaining contract survives.

        1. Inselaf
          Devil

          Re: What gives ANY company the right...

          Here in Germany the Contract would be considered an "agreement contrary to public policy". Basically that means that Googles "Condition/Contract of sale" would be completely invalid, especially if as mentioned here that there are a lot of flaws in the Contract. In fact Google would have to continue to provide the services that the original buyer received, otherwise they would not be allowed to sell it. I believe also that the Contract breaks a number of E.U. laws regarding the restrictions.

          Yes Google & all the other United States Companies (ie Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc) that keep trying to push on to us in Europe, their ideas of fair business keep running into a brick wall. Rightly so I would suggest.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      You did.

      You gave them the right when you voted (or failed to vote) and didn't care what your representative's views were on this.

      You did it every time you accepted a EULA without reading it because you wanted the software.

      You did it every time you downloaded an app or an ebook.

      You did it every time you traded your rights for the convenience of the next shiny shiny.

      You give away your rights all the time.

      Eventually (like about right now) they cease to become rights at all.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      At least it guarantees us that no one will BUY this knowing what will happen.

      I would hate someone having a Call of Duty movie theater view of my life.

      What has the world come to? next we will be banning curtains and mandating in-house CCTV for private residents, of course this will be outsourced to Google.

      1984 is real albeit 30 years late.

    8. garbo
      FAIL

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      Yes, a rather crude, intimating (very un-google) EULA. Why not "lease" the device indefinitely rather than sell it. Then the EULA is (more) acceptable.

    9. Micha Roon
      Happy

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      as long as it's not in the fine print, it is fine.

      there is a site in Switzerland qoqa.ch which has offers every week. One week they had a Porche Carrera for a very reasonable price. You could buy only one and you had to keep it for 12 months.

      It was printed in normal sized letters on the offer and no one could have missed the message. I see nothing wrong with that.

    10. Micha Roon
      Happy

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      that would be the law

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      Buy from a different vendor, or stifle your childish need for the latest toys or to be constantly entertained.

    12. RJFlorida

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      HEY I'VE GOT A GREAT PLAN!!! How about we not buy the damn thing to begin with?

    13. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      1. Don't buy these things until Google changes it's mind. When big business gets the idea that you own

      nothing, private property will be history

      2. Remember, in the United States, conservative Republicans represent big business, not the people. When

      you elect a conservative, you are voting against yourself.

    14. Fat Northerner

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      How can they know who they're spying on if they are sold outside their control?

    15. adamsin
      Happy

      Re: What gives ANY company the right...

      You aren't purchasing the equipment or own it. You are entering an agreement with Google the terms of which you are agreeing to be paying a sum of money. seems pretty clear to me...

  4. Spearchucker Jones
    FAIL

    so if I don't like it

    I can't sell it on? Really? They're not offering a try-before-you-buy, and there's no word on returns.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: so if I don't like it

      You can return under statutory rights surely?

      1. Crisp Silver badge

        Re: so if I don't like it

        They can take away a lot of your freedom in an EULA, but they can't touch your statutory rights.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: so if I don't like it

      Yup you can in the UK, it's called the distance selling act, you only have a limited period though. Doesn't apply if you pick up the goods from a store.

      1. Tom 38 Silver badge

        Re: so if I don't like it

        DSA doesn't apply if you've opened the box. It's meant to cover the situations where you order something, it arrives and you think "Wait, what? I thought I was getting a XYZ". It's not meant to cover the situation where the thing is what you are expecting, but doesn't quite work as well as you want.

        The intention is that it gives you the same chance to back out as if you were in a store, all the goods have been rung up and it is time to pay.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: so if I don't like it @Tom 38

          >DSA doesn't apply if you've opened the box

          Yes it does. The intention is to give you the same chance to inspect a product as if you were in a store which you can't do unless you take it out of the box.

          1. Crisp Silver badge

            Re: DSA doesn't apply if you've opened the box

            Yes it does. I've recently had to return a mobile phone handset to Virgin Media, and they said they'd be quite happy to accept the return even if the security seal on the box had been broken.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So you don't like post-sales (mind) control..

    .. well done.

    You just gave yourself an excuse not to waste that money, but rather spend it on women/men and booze :).

    1. Charles-A Rovira
      Happy

      My Grandpa taught me the secret to a happy life,

      "Spend all of your money on wine, women and fast cars and squander the rest foolishly on real-estate."

      The old coot was absolutely right. :-)

      1. MrXavia
        Thumb Up

        Re: My Grandpa taught me the secret to a happy life,

        He was so right!

        Can't go wrong with those, well assuming you know what wine to buy :-D (hint spend MORE than £5 a bottle)

  6. Crisp Silver badge

    Once I've bought it, it's mine.

    This is like a car manufacturer putting sugar in the tank of anyone that dares to sell their car second hand.

    It's vandalism.

    1. eclairz
      Meh

      Re: Once I've bought it, it's mine.

      Actually its more like this

      When you buy a car from the manufacturer they take your bank account details, and when you go to get special petrol to use your car you have to pay with said credit card which is linked to your bank account. If you don't use the same bank account then petrol will not be provided.

      This does not stop someone from hacking the car engine from using standard petrol which may not be as efficient but still works. Also this does not stop someone from giving the car to another person with the bank account selling the car and also giving the new owner the bank card, however making so many bank accounts will eventually put you into having bad credit, which would probably be the main dissuading practice (but not for the poorest of the poor) of black market resellers.

      It's one way of dissuading middle men buying in bulk and selling at greater cost, however it cannot stop the practice, as it just increases the time taken/effort/risk to resell it, a china man living off £1 a week with £1500 savings would probably risk giving someone his Google wallet, with time and effort to sell it at £3000 for instance.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Once I've bought it, it's mine.

        *sigh* You could have at least written "I am not a lawyer"....

        Actually, come to think of it, it's pretty obvious. Silly car analogies (Did you think you were on slashdot?) don't a law make.

    2. 1206549

      Re: Once I've bought it, it's mine.

      The thing is, the current edition of Google Glass (the Explorer Edition) is meant for developers and not regular consumers so that devs can start developing apps. This makes sure that those people buying Glass are real developers and not just people trying to make money off of it. If Google doesn't do this, a lot of phonies would pretend to be developers and then sell it to random people. This wouldn't apply when Glass does get released for regular consumers though.

  7. Chris 244
    Trollface

    Includes free gift

    For sale, one bespoke USB cable. Bidding starts at $3000. Winning bidder also receives one set of Google Glass as a gift, absolutely free of charge.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Includes free gift

      You are bidding on a box, inside this box i shal place a google glass

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Includes free gift

        You can do that but they'll still reserve the right to deactivate it. Maybe each unit is tied to a google id so you'd have to sell the google id as well.

  8. mike2R
    Stop

    Overreaction?

    Isn't this just for these early adopters, before the device is on general sale? Which makes some sense since with them only available invite-only, there will be plenty of people willing to pay well over the odds for them.

    If this is part of the retail TOS then I agree there is an issue, but I don't see any reason to assume it is - there would seem to be legal issues apart from anything else.

    1. nuclearstar

      Re: Overreaction?

      Pretty sure that this wont stand up in court if it was on the commercial device. Just because they put stuff in their terms of sale/service, it doesn't automatically make it legal and binding.

      If that was the case then I could sell a product, include a huge terms of service document and put "by buying this device, you agree to sell me your home and car for £1 whenever I want" in tiny writing in the middle of the ToS.

    2. Ian Yates
      Stop

      Re: Overreaction?

      This seems to me just a way to prevent scalping. True, it comes across as horridly totalitarian, but how else do you prevent people buying up the (limited) stock for their personal profit?

      The purpose of the first release is to get the device in to the hands of devs so that they can create cool stuff for it, which would be hurt by allowing anyone to buy and resell them.

      Arguably, "free market" blah blah blah, but they have a point.

      Caveat: the above is void if this clause remains for the final product.

      1. Marcelo Rodrigues
        Facepalm

        Re: Overreaction?

        Do not sell: lease it, with a buying option at the end of the contract. Problem solved, and no one would get annoyed.

        With the right values, it would cost the same 1500 at the end of the projected beta period.

    3. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Overreaction?

      I can't see a good reason Google would want to block 2nd-hand sales of the regular retail version. It's surely similar to an iPad or Kindle - it is tied to a personal account BUT you can change which account it is linked to.

    4. aaronj2906_01
      Big Brother

      Re: Overreaction?

      FIRST SALE DOCTRINE... should roll over anything Google has to say about the hardware. These are not rented, they're sold.

      But that only applies to the physical hardware. The courts have shown precedent (I suspect due to lobbying/bribes) that the software is not be sold, but licensed. Google can just terminate their side if the connection to the hardware, sales doctrine intact.

  9. FunkyEric
    Thumb Up

    Well I think they're cool and want one!

    Or should I just wait until the implantable version comes out? ;-) Science Fiction becomes science fact before our very eyes. So what if they monitor where I am and what I do on the web, this happens anyway, I carry a mobile phone around with me and use Google to search for stuff. I just think the idea of a computer that you wear that you talk to is just amazingly cool.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well I think they're cool and want one!

      Yes, but everyone else will think you look like a dick.

      1. dotslash

        Re: Well I think they're cool and want one!

        come out from behind your AC shadows and tell us we look like dicks to our faces (but please don't say "google" before you say "dicks").

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well I think they're cool and want one!

      I just think the idea people that you talk to is just amazingly cool. I really actually do. I understand machines. So they are not as fascinating as people. ;)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Am I the only one that thinks this is good?

    First - let's put this in context. The first glass owners have been chosen by raffle and have asserted themselves as hardcore tech addicts, and they've had to put down a lot of cheddar to get them. Google wants to sell the first batch to these enthusiasts to trail the tech and generate word of mouth.

    What Google don't want is for the usual profiteers to buy up the first batch and flog them on ebay for a massive profit. This will annoy those tech addicts who lost out in the raffle and will feel upset when they feel they have been passed over in favour of people trying to make a quick buck. This policy will deter such buyers.

    Once the first few batches have been sold and supply is ramped up, this restriction will probably be destroyed and you can flog your glasses to whomever you desire.

    1. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Am I the only one that thinks this is good?

      I hope you're right. If it's a temporary restriction to prevent scalping, that's entirely acceptable. But if not, that would basically reduce or eliminate interest in the product.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Am I the only one that thinks this is good?

      Let me guess, You work for Google?

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Am I the only one that thinks this is good?

        Let me guess, You work for Google?

        Why? It's a perfectly valid comment. It's what I assumed, that the $1,500 prototypes are supposed to be for developers, and they want feedback and apps written. Remember people were actually selling invites to Google+ on eBay, when it was invite only. Bizarre, but apparently true. Sorry, I should say offering. I hope no-one was mad enough to pay.

        This is common with tech now. Scalpers make cash on getting iPhones into China, before Apple release them there. The same happened with the original Raspberry Pi's. Google would like to try to stop it, which is fair enough.

        Obviously I'll have to eat my words if this is Google long-term policy. But as it's almost certainly illegal, I rather doubt that. This being a developer program, I'd imagine consumer law doesn't apply.

        Oh, and downvoted for being childish and accusing someone of being a shill. Which is my pet hate.

    3. aaronj2906_01

      Re: Am I the only one that thinks this is good?

      "Once the first few batches have been sold and supply is ramped up, this restriction will probably be destroyed and you can flog your glasses to whomever you desire."

      You put a lot of faith into a company that has an explicit purpose of being an AD company to make profits. Not calling you dumb or bad... but I would hold off on holding any company in good light automatically.

      My two cents (not worth a dime), Google is not into philanthropy, and should be considered that way.

  11. Gordon Pryra

    Worthless Small Print

    Google's guidelines have been talked about a lot lately. Like where their webmasters guidelines are more stringent than the legal requirements. This is fine where applied to inclusion on their systems.

    BUT

    Their small print does not carry more weight than a country's laws, no matter what they command you to do It's your property, and If it requires access to Google wallet, and Google wallet is not a subscription based service, then you are free to do whatever you want with the item.

    While they will deactivate the item, you will then just lodge a complaint with the small claims court (in the UK anyway) who will then give Google the choice of defending themselves. When they fail to file paperwork on time (obviously they don't want to risk actually going to court) the court will rule in your favor, at which point they will instruct Google to refund the cash it cost you.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Worthless Small Print

      They can say the device is registered you your id and therefore deactivate it once it's not used by you. Then they would be pressurised to let you re-activate them against a new account.

    2. paulll Bronze badge

      Re: Worthless Small Print

      "Their small print does not carry more weight than a country's laws,"

      Quite true. I can't remember though, which Act explicitly requires that, "A vendor of a physical artefact must transfer subscription to any attendant services on sale of said artefact by consumer." Can you remind me please?

  12. SuperTim

    Simple workaround.

    For sale: Google Glass charger. $1500. Includes free pair of Google glasses as a gift*

    (worked when I sold London 2012 tickets i didn't want that happened to have accompanying merchandise with them).

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm waiting for the inevitable "Glasshole punched really hard in the face for ... being a glasshole" story.

    1. Mike Smith
      Pint

      Glasshole?

      Now that's a neologism that needs to be spread far and wide!

      Have a beer for that one :-)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Glasshole?

        It's not new. It's even in the dictionary -> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole

  14. Charles-A Rovira
    Meh

    It might not stand up to a constitutional chalenge,

    but it probably doesn't have to for very long.

    Glass is a "walled garden" developers can build apps in, just like the iPhone and iPad are. The Android marketplace is simply a far too undisciplined Wild West bunch of developers.

    I fully expect that the WiFi, BlueTooth tethers that will be built into Glass will interoperate with the sizable (multi-million unit) iPhone and iPad markets once Google works out the bugs..

    Google did NOT get to its position in search and in telephony by leaving money on the table.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Video conferencing?

    What the hell are people video conferencing a Google Glass wearer going to see? An eyeball? It'll be like conferencing Sauron!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. BigGreenThumb

      Re: Video conferencing?

      Your's was the best post of all. An eyeball? It'll be like conferencing Sauron! too funny

    3. Tim Jenkins

      Re: Video conferencing?

      Due to circumstances beyond our control, unforeseen technical difficulties with the Ithil and Anor segments of the Palantír (TM) network have left our Orthanc node with reduced functionality. There is no confirmed date within the current Age for resolution. Please refer to Avallónë technical support for further information. (N.B. owing to its uncertain geographical location, calls to Tol Eressëa may billed at premium rate)

    4. jason 7 Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Video conferencing?

      You buy the Google Face Mirror accessory I guess?

      1. Miek
        Linux

        Re: Video conferencing?

        The camera is front-facing, who would actually want to see the Glasshole instead of the pretentious 'scene' that they wish to share with you ?

    5. TeeCee Gold badge
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Video conferencing?

      <Insane giggling>

      +1 Internets to you Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Coward.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Video conferencing?

      Perhaps I want people to think I'm Sauron. It would help with getting the Council to do something about the pavement parkers.

    7. spold Bronze badge
      FAIL

      Re: Video conferencing?

      Ah you will need the video conferencing add-on - think head band with a bent coat hanger stickiing out front and a mirror dangling off the end....

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Equal footing please

    Dear CWFDNE.

    You can have my money, but if I don't like what you do with it, I can have it back.

    So there.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That explains why they seem to be US limited for the moment - such a restriction would be illegal in most of the rest of the world.

  18. Number 8

    This all sounds very familiar.

    "resistance is futile"

  19. James Charlton
    Facepalm

    Locked up

    Google have this locked up in the wordings. If you buy teh device and use it then you cannot sell it on. Ifyou buy it as a gift you cannot use it before you would give it to that person. The device can only ever have one owner from new. Unless authorised by Google. So selling USB cable with with free google glasses doesnt work either as it will already be registere. Yes this is wrong and I do not agree with it hence not buying one ever unless they change this. Plus you can only own one device ???

  20. alain williams Silver badge

    How long before they are rooted ?

    Once you can do that you can do what you want to it; doesn't matter what google try to do with it.

    If you have rooted it (and it talks to non google servers) and google tries to disable it -then surely they are trying to damage your property and could be prosecuted.

  21. Arly

    Good luck to Google

    For those of you who have purchased a Google Glass don't fret. The product transfer restrictions that Google is attempting to enforce violates the well-established "First Sale Doctrine" and are uninforceable under established U.S. patent, trademark and copyright law. Google has just invited a class suit which will likely cost them more damages than any profits they might make selling the product. My recommendation to Google is to fire your corporate ambulance chasers and hire some real attorneys who are familiar with U.S. intellectual property laws.

  22. macnay

    GMAIL

    There was this type of hype when Google launched GMAIL, people were selling GMAIL invites on eBay in the same manner of hype. It's predictable.

  23. Svarog
    Black Helicopters

    Let's NOT buy the google glass

    If Apple was selling thousands of phones a week (like some other manufacturers) they wouldn't be such apple-holes. I won't buy a product in the first place as I didn't buy iPhone (I waited to get a good unclocked android when android became a solid product - v4 = ICS). So wait untill Baidy glass or something else comes along without the restrictions. I'm European but I like the american moto of vote with your wallet. Well, vote with your wallet, don't buy this product and you'll see how google will change their mind. One of the reason of high price of apple products is the second hand market. If you can't sell your iPhone 4 for a good price you won't be buying the 5.

    1. kyza

      Re: Let's NOT buy the google glass

      Since you're not one of the 1500 Americans who've bought the Explorer, V1.0 of this product none of this need concern you. You can't buy one yet, and there's nothing to indicate these would be standard TOS for a commercially available product.

      As someone said above, I also suspect that this is a being done to both limit the prospective secondary market one what was a raffled product and that for a full commercial release reselling would be permitted.

    2. opaque

      Re: Let's NOT buy the google glass

      Thousands?

      Try millions

      http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/07/apple-iphone-analysts-estimates/

  24. Pat 4

    I have to wonder if that's even legal!

    You can't legally limit what people do with their own private property. (within the bounds of law... obviously)

  25. Ikoth

    Apple

    I'll wait for the Apple version thanks.

    They won't be as authoritarian or draconian as...... Oh wait.....!

  26. Greasemonkey
    Flame

    Bloody Advert!

    There's a bloody advert in the top right hand corner which obscures the article text down that side. It won't go away & can't be closed. If this is what the Reg is heading for, I'll be off!

    1. Crisp Silver badge

      Re: Bloody Advert!

      Have you heard of AdBlock?

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Bloody Advert!

        Have you heard of the idea that adverts make money for sites?

        1. MrXavia
          Thumb Up

          Re: Bloody Advert! @JDX

          Yup! that is why I don't use ad blockers, but I do block third party cookies, if I click on a link, it will take me to the site with a tracking token,the site gets paid, and I don't get annoying ads for things I've already brought!

        2. Crisp Silver badge

          Re: Bloody Advert!

          I only block the badly designed intrusive ads.

          I still read the product reviews.

        3. A J Stiles
          Thumb Down

          Re: Bloody Advert!

          I have, but here's the thing: I don't care. It's *my* screen, and *I* will decide what I get to see on it.

          In fact, if I've blocked an advert for your company, that actually means I'm more likely to buy from you, since I tend to avoid companies who advertise to me on general principle.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bloody Advert!

          @JDX "Have you heard of the idea that adverts make money for sites?"

          Says the man who obviously has never fast forwarded, changed channel, turned the volume down, gone to make a cup of tea/coffee or otherwise made a conscious decision to not have to sit through adverts when watching a tv programme - because that would make you a hypocrite wouldn't it - due to the fact that "haven't you heard of the idea that adverts make money for tv stations?"

          So I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not a hypocrite, and therefore you may feel entitled to moralise and tell other people what they should be doing (this is still debatable) - but can I add that I'd hate to watch TV round your house.

  27. John Lilburne

    Who gives a shit ...

    ... about something one isn't going to spend money on anyway.

  28. chart2006

    This draconian requirement by Google may just be for the test version of the glasses as I don't see this continuing once the official consumer version is released. I look at it as a way for Google to shore up the distribution of the developer version to prevent consumers from obtaining them. This isn't all that bad of an idea because developer versions tend to be unstable and Google doesn't want to provide much support to the device when in the hands of someone who has no patience or knowledge of how to troubleshoot. I would do the same thing but again for the consumer version that would change.

    In all honesty though I wouldn't want this as I already have a cell phone but I would love a pair of glasses that can connect and project my home screen to my eye. The idea would be similar to plugging your phone into an HDTV only wirelessly and in real-time. I would like to keep my phone in my pocket and make all commands from my glasses. The reason for syncing is because I may not always want to use my glasses whenever I want to make a phone call or play a game or other things.

  29. Christian Berger Silver badge

    Yet again, that's why we need free software

    It's a logical consequence of what happens if you don't have free software. Android may be open source, but it's just to hard to get your own image onto a device to really make it free.

    As long as we don't recognize our natural right for free (as in speech) software and hardware, companies will continue to bully us around just like Google does in this example.

    It's even more extreme when you look at the device itself. Those are machines that can see and hear everything you do. They can collect data on everything you do, and they have to in order to provide useful service to you.

    The German constitutional court recently has derived a new right for the "integrity of data processing systems" in wake of the use of trojans to spy on people. They rightfully concluded that if they would allow them now, it would be possible to buy future devices like hearing aids or implants.

    We need actually free software now for those devices, not just some open source code lying around on some server. People must be able to change the code and service any way they want or choose between a number of different versions provided by different people. If we don't do that now we will end up in a dystopian future.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      our natural right for free (as in speech) software

      Americans haven't even decided healthcare is a natural right, most of the world doesn't consider a roof over your head a natural right, and you think "free software" is a "natural right"?

      Maybe those with no healthcare and nowhere to live could do with some of what you're on.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: our natural right for free (as in speech) software

        > Americans haven't even decided healthcare is a natural right,

        Depends what you mean by a natural right.

        One definition, which I probably prefer, is that you should be able to get on with what you want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively (however you might define that). Anything else, which involves the necessary input of others (like healthcare, social security) is probably excluded on that basis because it necessarily involves affecting the freedom of others.

        Despite that, any country that puts defence (insurance against a possible aggressor) miles ahead of healthcare (something that everyone will need at some point in their life) really needs a reality check.

        That the most powerful western nation (at the moment) doesn't have the best healthcare available to all Americans as a social service is just bizarre.

        And for those that say it's about choice and freedom, well you can't choose your police service, your fire service or your army so the concept is not exactly a new one is it?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yet again, that's why we need free software @Christian Berger

      It's worse than that dude. Let's start with not making code illegal because it can be used to circumvent security controls. That is the courts fault. (WRT some countries like Germany) The people's fault is being idiots and allowing fuckwits to control them because they are too lazy to think for themselves. (WRT to the military/industrial complex, TV, politicians who pass stupid software patent laws, inhumane rabid tech fans, the self-destructing, non-human entities, etc. See what I did there... o))

  30. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge
    Meh

    Would you accept one as a gift?

    Personally I would not. Please use the up/down buttons to vote, Up for Yes, Down for No

  31. graeme leggett

    Why "sell" in the first place

    Just make it a indefinite rental period, and all those lovely restrictions become enforceable.

    Though I bet even with the restrictions on selling in place, someone will try and sell one, and someone will buy it - if the price is right.

    1. Arly

      Re: Why "sell" in the first place

      FYI, in the mid-1990's many of the fledgling software companies tried to circumvent U.S. law and the "First Sale Doctrine" by characterizing a consumer software product sale as a lease,a restricted license, or a restricted "rental". This attempt failed since these transactions had all the characteristics of an actual sale. These so-called "licenses" were called "shrink-wrap licenses" which referred to software licenses where the terms of the license were concealed from the purchaser until the the shrink-wrap packaging was removed and the box was opened. The majority of U.S. state laws found these types of licenses to be invalid and unenforceable. The software companies tried to circumvent state law by lobbying for federal legislation to permit such licenses but this effort failed due consumer opposition and U.S. legal precedent of the Uniform Commercial Code and the "First Sale Doctrine" which forbids restrictions on post-sale product transfers whether software or hardware

  32. Miek
    Linux

    I guess that, even after you've purchased the device, it actually still belongs to Google. I would have thought that such terms are unenforceable in the UK.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It probably is in the US as well, since they have a similar "First Sale Doctrine" which limits the seller's influence after the sale.

  33. Marketing Hack Silver badge

    Self-destructing video glasses?

    Good morning, Ethan!

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    give it away for nothing

    and pay £5,000 postage. Or whatever the "early adapters" (chuckle) are willing to pay. Or 100 bitcoins ;)

  35. theloon

    Sale of Goods Act trumps Google bs

    Nice of Google to open themselves to an instant UK legal challenge. you can't be prevented from reselling something you own, and control over that item can't be extended in the way Google is looking to do..

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. El Andy

      Re: Sale of Goods Act trumps Google bs

      You can sell the physical object, you can't necessarily transfer the right to access the services required to make it functional. And Google have no legal requirement to let you do so.

      1. Arly

        Re: Sale of Goods Act trumps Google bs

        This poster obviously has no understanding of U.S. intellectual property law and the "First Sale Doctrine" which bars post sale restrictions on the sale or transfer of the goods to another party.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Easy fix

    Make the eBay auction for a letter promising to gift you a Glass or something. That way you're not selling the Glass itself.

  37. madestjohn

    What?!! ... You didn't think just because you paid for it that you actually owned it, did you?

  38. Kai Lockwood
    Devil

    Mind control

    Exactly what is a bone-conduction transducer and do I get to switch it off?

    I must say this sound like a Dr. Who episode.

  39. This post has been deleted by its author

  40. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Mushroom

    Self destruct?

    Let's have some fun with this.

    "Your mission, should you choose to accept it...(complete sentence)"

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Easy!

    Corneal transplants.

    In your face Google!

  42. Felix Krull

    They probably don't want to see their shiny toys going for $1.95 once people find out they're completely useless.

  43. Buster
    Trollface

    They are not providing a service stupid - you'er doing that....

    ....and paying for it. What users are doing is financing Googles data gathering service. Google is gathering all the data on the demographic that is dim enough of pay $1500 for Google Glasses and selling it on to other vendors who would kill to get data on anyone who can so easily parted from wads of dosh. Not only that Google will harvest GPS data linked to video and images together with what catches the user attention at those locations. All this data can be use directly by Google to improve and extend their services, such as streetview and inside of locations travel video and images, and also feed up to date information on user response to street advertising and point of sale displays.

    This data is more valuable if it is tied in to all the other personal demographic and personal information they will harvest when they link up all the information gathered by face recognition of you friends, family and everyone you meet. So when you autoblog video of the cute kid in the park that then trends and is used to advertise ...well everything after all that what the web is about.... just be sure that the cute kid is not a ward of court because the terms and conditions of use will make you responsible - Google will make sure of that.

    But then maybe Google wil just get video of people pointing an laughing and goog-glasses being hastly put out off sight,

  44. Keith 21
    FAIL

    Do No Evil

    Anyone remember the days when Google tried to claim that their company motto was Do No Evil?

    And laughably, the idiots who actually believed them?

  45. KirstarK

    ignoring the fact that these are the dev editions.....

    For sales: 1 Bean $2000.

    Special this week. Buy one bean and get a Google Glass given as a gift :)

  46. ForthIsNotDead
    Meh

    I wouldn't worry too much...

    ...all the owners will end up in hospital by:

    1) Walking into lamp-posts

    2) Tripping up/down kerbs

    3) Walking into fountains

    4) Walking under a bus

    5) Saying "Hey, check out my Google glasses" and being punched in the face.

  47. STEVENSON-KAATSCH
    IT Angle

    Breaking Glass... Ha,ha,ha!

    Much as I enjoy their on-line offerings... aren't these guys just a wee bit up their own bottoms.? ! For pity's sake, this is just a cheapened down bit of old military tech for us mere mortals. When you purchase something, it's YOURS ! You haven't rented it, you've BOUGHT it ! I am not going to buy or rent the thing because I got a LIFE. There isn't the spare time to geek my silly self all day watching b@ll@cks in front of the far more interesting reality going on around me. I'm sure a clever chap in China will retro-engineer the thing, dodge around the patents and copyright and swamp the market to the kids ( who,bless their little cotton socks, know no better ). Anyway, enough time wasted on this nonsense ... Good night and sleep the sleep of the righteous .

  48. opaque

    It's not hidden, you know what you are doing when you buy it, the bit I find odd is the whole only buying one, no resale through THEM as there would surely be a market for that at some point. Some people will want to buy more than one, some people will break them etc so I'm guessing there has to be a returns thing somewhere.

    A lot of what we 'own' we don't own these days, but unless you want to do anything out of the norm with it noone really cares. You get the use which is why you spend your money in the first place.

    Noone is forcing you to buy any product.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You seriously don't want one of these!

    Not many comments about how seriously fucked up this device is anyway. The joke is that people are signing up to this brain sucking device voluntarily!

  50. Enrico Vanni
    FAIL

    This product will tank because you will look stupid wearing it.

    That is all.

  51. Simon Westerby 1
    Pint

    Meh - don't sell it, jsut sell something else and include it as a gift,,,

    Beer because its friday, and i need beer goggles not google glasses!

  52. Nameless Faceless Computer User
    Thumb Down

    wow - here's a neat gadget I want but will never buy, own, or use. Have I finally reached the end of the Internet?

  53. teebie

    "Stop The Cyborgs"

    There's an organisation devoted to shutting up Kevin Warwick? One one of them?

  54. Bob AMG
    Terminator

    Apple Seed Ex Machina

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZkag7M_i5A

    If you havent seen this film its all about google glasses and how they control the owners that ware them.

  55. Corporate Earth

    If it is successful it will be only a matter of time before its hacked and alternative glasses available. People are only buying these to show off anyway, if you have a smart phone there isn't much reason to spend a fortune on these.

  56. Trokair 1
    Flame

    Really?

    This may be the first time I've heard something from Google that raised the "pitchfork and torch" mentality in me to a boil. Its like saying you can buy a car but nobody but you is allowed to put fuel into it. What a con. I hope this program does down in flames.

    1. cortland
      Flame

      Re: Really?

      -- I hope this program does down in flames. --

      Depends on the battery, doesn't it?

  57. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is for initial development, i.e. beta testing, units. Not final production models. Get the facts right.

    No different than an NDA or OS licence.

  58. jon 13

    Only google is big, rich, evil, stupid and self-absorbed enough to think anyone believes it can enforce such a blunt idea.

  59. Smittey

    Exploding glasses

    That's a shame.. I was really hoping it would be a bit more Mission Impossible-esque.

  60. vagabondo

    strangest feature?

    "Perhaps its strangest feature is its bone-conduction transducer, which generates sound by sending vibrations through bones in the ear."

    Isn't this the normal means of hearing in vertebrates? The bones in the middle ear transmit vibrations to the cochlea, then via hairs to the nerve endings, and the brain.

    1. graeme leggett

      Re: strangest feature?

      Didn't Slippery Jim use them in the Stainless Steel Rat books?

  61. Juillen 1

    For the early ones...

    It may well be to help prevent the spate of muggings and other assaults that went with the early iPhones and other "cool" gadgets that were the big status symbol of the moment..

    If you turn its resale value to zero, you stop people mugging people for the glasses so they can sell them for 50 quid down the local pub (or sell them on an auction site etc.)..

  62. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It is easy to "sell" it all while following the wishes of Google. You sell it for free but postage and handling is $1500.00.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019