Google screwing over users
-
Did the users screw themselves by talking to an unauthorised reseller?
Do people seriously buy from websites like this still?...I have no sympathy.
-
I don't have any sympathy for the users who accounts were locked out. The terms of service are there for a reason. If you don't read them it is only on you.
Understand the contracts you are signing, it is your responsibility.
Sure it sucks, but it's on you for not understanding the terms. Hire a lawyer.
If I were someone with a ToS for work I provided, and the client broke the terms I'd use my legal power to get people to stop doing it. It's harming me.
-
Accounts have been restored.
-
This statement right here
I find it hard to understand why Google only allows you to download your data if your account is active. They claim the data belongs to you, but if you violate any of their terms you will lose the ability to retrieve your data.Um, its the same as if you are fired from your job, they don't let you continue to use your domain credentials jackass. You've been cut off. Like a new born from mothers milk!
-
they were disabled because of this" Around 200 people purchased the phones via Project Fi and shipped them directly to a reseller in sales tax-free state New Hampshire, according to bargain-hunting site Dan's Deals. The phones were then resold to others, and the small profit split with the buyers."
source: https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/17/google-blocks-pixel-phone-resellers/
so yeah, it is expected to be disabled. you violated the t&s. You knowingly violate sales tax laws and expect to not get punished. Go cry and throw a hissy fit with someone who cares.
-
Why would NextCloud condone illegal activity?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Google screwing over users:
Why would NextCloud condone illegal activity?
They aren't. What gives you that idea? His blog post is about putting all your eggs in one basket (that you do not control).
Hence reading between the lines, it is about how NC is better for you.
-
Ignoring the fact that Googles actions are to stop people evading tax law, making it sound as if Google on a whim, off it's own bat, decided to be difficult.
The reseller and customers were exploiting a loop hole for years, that loop hole got plugged. Every other company would do the same thing and has.
"Don't mess with the google" - The over-all tone of the post is anti Google even down to the title, Instead of warming me to NextCloud, it pushes me away.
The article should read.
"Tax dodging reseller is clamped down on by Google after years of abuse, offending users lose their GSuite accounts as Google makes an addition to their terms of service"
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Google screwing over users:
"Tax dodging reseller is clamped down on by Google after years of abuse, offending users lose their GSuite accounts as Google makes an addition to their terms of service"
Then no one would read the article because you gave all the info in the title - remember everything is click-bait these days.
-
@JaredBusch said in Google screwing over users:
Hence reading between the lines, it is about how NC is better for you.
It's pretty bad that you have to read between the lines.
This is a blog post, it's allowed to be slanted. Why not just point exactly what your point is - NC doesn't suffer this potential problem that Google, the 100 LB gorilla just proved it was willing to use, does suffer.
Then toss in the idea of backups being pretty easy as and extra bonus.
-
Google reverses its ‘digital death sentence’ for Pixel phone resellers
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/18/google-reverses-its-digital-death-sentence-for-pixel-phone-resellers/ -
I don't at all see the issue with Google's actions here, I actually side with them (the closure of the accounts that is). The fact that they back-tracked is a whatever moment for me.
Google wants to sell their phones through value added partners, the Verizon's of the world. Not some obscure website, and then have to deal with whatever issues arise from those sales.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Google screwing over users:
I don't at all see the issue with Google's actions here, I actually side with them (the closure of the accounts that is). The fact that they back-tracked is a whatever moment for me.
Google wants to sell their phones through value added partners, the Verizon's of the world. Not some obscure website, and then have to deal with whatever issues arise from those sales.
Eh? I don't see Google caring who sells their product, as long as it's all on the legal side. Sadly, in these types of cases, it's probably Verizon making a stink to Google because this takes away from Verizon sales.
I'm still confused by the Verizon Pixel ads - they still say available only only at Verizon, but you can clearly buy them at google.com and use them on nearly any carrier, so that seems like deceptive advertising. Sheeple will see that Only at Verizon and not bother to check google.com for purchasability and they won't get the phone.
-
Hmm, did you click the link about the terms of service in my blog? While Google has the right to do this, they might have "you give your firstborn to us by using GMail" in their terms of service for a year before anyone will notice, I bet. This reselling was OK for years. If they had a problem with it, they could've said something last year, or the year before, or the year before that or that and so on. Immediately and without any warnings shutting down people's entire digital lives is harsh and over the top, I certainly stand by that. What's legal isn't always what is right and vice versa.
Besides, it is ridiculous that they disallow you to sell a legally bought device to someone else. Nobody should have the right to tell you what to do with the hardware you paid for - that's an entirely different problem but one I'm also quite pissed off about. The industry is pushing all that sh** on us with their terms of service. Where is the time you bought something and then OWNED it?!?!!? What is next, you can get sued or go to jail for making changes to your car without consent from the company which sold it to you. Oh, wait, that is not 'next' but already happening.
Sorry for the rant
-
I'm completely on board with your RANT.
You ask why Google didn't enforce this in past years - because they didn't care. The Nexus phones weren't available (as far as I know) from any specific carrier - and even if they were, they weren't being advertised with any exclusivity like the new Pixel is with Verizon). This is why I think this action is not really coming from Google, but instead is Verizon putting pressure on Google to uphold their TOS so Verizon can squeeze more customers.
Google also most likely has a financial incentive here as well. I'm sure Verizon paid them millions for the exclusivity, so Google doesn't want to give it back, or be seen as a acting in bad faith for future business partners.
