powerhouse wrote:Thanks for all the replies. The discussion here is certainly interesting, and I like the suggestions on how to replace Google, which might avoid the problem.
BUT, I fail to see replies that actually discuss the issue at hand.
You didn't ask for that but i did tell you the only alternative I know to bypass entering into an agreement you apparently don't like with Google or any other company. Create your own domain and run it from your own server. Even then you will need an agreement with an ISP unless you want to become one of those too.
I'm talking about Google penalizing users and by doing so inflicting immense damage on them, without Google having any legal standing or authorization.
They do have legal standing. Go back and read what your agreed to when you set yourself up with all those services.
If I took a photo and stored it on Google Drive, can Google really just prevent me accessing it, or worse, delete it? Well, sure they can and they have done so with those poor bastards who dared to disagree with their sales terms. But didn't Google perpetrate a criminal offense?
Be precise here. What criminal offense did they perpetrate. It is THEIR servers you are using. If you don't follow the agreement, they can reclaim or block access to THEIR server. (odd, it seems that I and others here have said something about an agreement the end user accepts multiple times)
If I park my car on the street, at a place where parking is allowed, can the city just confiscate the car, or burn the car, just because I didn't pay last months municipal tax? Under which circumstances can the city (or anyone else) take hold of my property, and what legal steps would they have to take to do so?
Some argue that the Google terms of service explicitly state that Google has the right to do this or that.
Yes, they (in that case the government) can take your car or other physical property (usually the same property you are supposed to be paying taxes on) in certain circumstances and most places I'm familiar with (Israel may be different, if so see if any companies that offer those Google services are based in Israel). Though they can't burn the car (because in this case the car now belongs to the tax payers), after certain procedures and time spans are met, they can sell it or use it.
Well, if that was the case, I will happily change my terms of business to something like:
"Payment is to be made in cash upon completion of the service rendered. If the customer fails to pay up in full, his/her car, house and other property will become the sole property of Powerhouse."
Yes you could make that agreement and if the reasonable cost of that service was close to being equal to the value of the physical property you are using as collateral it might even hold up if you use the correct legal approach. Of course if they entered that agreement and you didn't bother to find out the bank already had a lien on that property, you will lose because the customer didn't have the legal right to enter that agreement.
I could add that I will shoot the miscreant and so on. If I publish these conditions, are the customers really bound to them?
Now you are just being as ridiculous as the title of the thread indicates. No, this is not legally enforceable in any country I know of and in absolutely no way does it even parallel to Google's terms of service. Well, even your other examples don't hold water but this really goes off the deep end.
The mere act of Google imposing unreasonable terms on the buyers of their Pixel phones
What unreasonable terms? Note, YOU said unreasonable and not just terms you don't like.
might - in some countries - be illegal.
Name one where they were selling the Pixel phone to a customer?
As far as that goes, name one country where this is so and Google operates.
Who is Google to tell me what I should do or not do with their bloody phones? As long as I don't perpetrate any law in the country I am, I can do what I like with that phone. And if I don't like the phone, of course I can resell it.
Sure. Even in the US you can do that. But if you sell the phone to a retailer and they find out, they can shut off the account associated to the initial sale of the phone. You agreed to that when you bought the phone (d'oh, the annoying agreement comes up again).
And if I like it very much, I can purchase phones for the entire family, can't I. Google may not be required to deliver, but once they do, they must comply with the laws applicable in the respective country. Since when do US citizens have no rights?
We do have less rights now than we did 30 or 50 years ago but nothing in this thread has even shown a glimpse of that. Doing so would get the thread locked and/or deleted because it would violate the rules on politics that you agreed to when you became a member of this site. (Uh oh, that word agreement comes up again but this time it relates to behavior in the very forum you are posting in. Yep, your post here is subject to an agreement.)
So yes, you can purchase the phones for the whole family (and the article even states that). But in all countries I am familiar with a manufacturer is allowed to set rules at the point of sale as to what is okay for the further distribution of their product.
An example is certain potentially hazardous chemicals. Some companies have a mandatory 2 or 3 points of sale at distribution and wholesale levels before reaching the direct consumer and quantities allowed or certain licenses for resale at different levels.
If there are countries that don't have these laws to protect the manufacturer by allowing establishment of supply chains I'd like to know who they are. All capitalist societies I know of do this and a true communist nation not only allows it, but they regulate it at a government level.
Google went way too far.
How? You have still failed to make your case.
The least Google could do to get out of this mess is to retreat from its act of retaliation, and to fire the people that were responsible.
On what grounds?
Is this more of the fad I am seeing lately of preaching tolerance by showing intolerance? If so I find it disturbing that it is spreading outside of this nation's borders. (okay, that was a bad joke but don't take that to mean the rest of the post is)
This would be a clear sign and help restore confidence. The other options don't look so bright, including the possibility of some nasty legal charges.
What legal charges? Again, name the law that is violated.
Would they get your confidence back if they went on a message board and trolled people by making outlandish and unreasonable claims that don't equate to the situation at all in hopes that someone would calmly and reasonably point out the flaws in their "argument" before pointing out they are aware it was all just a troll attempt?