4 ms·

They didn't punish the scalpers. They punished the end consumer.

by mplewis 10y ago

kllrnohj 10y ago
You are incorrect. The people that were punished were people that ordered phones on behalf of someone else and had those phones directly shipped to that someone else. Buying something with the sole intention of reselling it for profit is the literal definition of scalper. The words you're looking for are mastermind and pawns. The pawns took the fall (as they usually do), and the mastermind didn't get hit.
- yladiz 10y ago
  So you're arguing that you don't own the phone you purchase outright? Your argument for scalping falls a bit flat: When it comes to (concert) ticket scalping, you don't own the performance, you're purchasing the ability to view the performance at the given time. When it comes to a phone, you're purchasing the phone (not simply the ability to use the phone) and you should be able to do whatever you want as long as its legally allowed.
  - zodiac 10y ago
    I never really understood this distinction... why can't you similarly say that "you should be able to do whatever you want <with your ability to view the performance> as long as it is legally allowed"?
    - yladiz 10y ago
      It's the ownership that's important. You can consider scalping a specific form of the generalized issue of doing something outside of an agreement of something you don't own, e.g. subletting a room on Airbnb if a rental agreement forbids it. If you own a phone (or some other object), unless there is a law that specifically forbids some action, at least in the US you are able to do whatever you want with it, because you're not renting the right to use the phone, you are the owner of the phone. That's why in this case, it's not fair that Google turns off service for purchasing a phone and then selling it to someone else (a reseller in this case) because they person who purchased the phone is now the owner and selling their phone to another entity is not against the law. In fact, there are laws that specifically allow this.
  - kllrnohj 10y ago
    "ownership" has nothing to do with why scalping is frowned upon / policed. Scalping is a problem because the goal of scalping is to buy something that's limited in supply so that it can be resold at a higher markup. It's purely an issue because supply is limited, it has nothing to do with ownership. Concerts are always limited in supply, which is why scalping is prevalent there more than most other things. If tickets were infinite in supply nobody would care about concert scalpers, that wouldn't exist. And the reason this matters to places selling things limited in supply is that scalpers hurt consumer satisfaction and generate negative impressions of the seller due to greedy opportunists that were otherwise outside of their control. Thus why they place limits on how many you can buy until supply is high enough (like in this case how Google had a limit of buying 5 devices - enough for most families, not enough for re-sellers)

They didn't punish the scalpers. They punished the end consumer.

by mplewis 10y ago

They didn't punish the scalpers. They punished the end consumer.

You are incorrect. The people that were punished were people that ordered phones on behalf of someone else and had those phones directly shipped to that someone else. Buying something with the sole intention of reselling it for profit is the literal definition of scalper. The words you're looking for are mastermind and pawns. The pawns took the fall (as they usually do), and the mastermind didn't get hit.

yladiz 10y ago
So you're arguing that you don't own the phone you purchase outright? Your argument for scalping falls a bit flat: When it comes to (concert) ticket scalping, you don't own the performance, you're purchasing the ability to view the performance at the given time. When it comes to a phone, you're purchasing the phone (not simply the ability to use the phone) and you should be able to do whatever you want as long as its legally allowed.
- zodiac 10y ago
  I never really understood this distinction... why can't you similarly say that "you should be able to do whatever you want <with your ability to view the performance> as long as it is legally allowed"?
  - yladiz 10y ago
    It's the ownership that's important. You can consider scalping a specific form of the generalized issue of doing something outside of an agreement of something you don't own, e.g. subletting a room on Airbnb if a rental agreement forbids it. If you own a phone (or some other object), unless there is a law that specifically forbids some action, at least in the US you are able to do whatever you want with it, because you're not renting the right to use the phone, you are the owner of the phone. That's why in this case, it's not fair that Google turns off service for purchasing a phone and then selling it to someone else (a reseller in this case) because they person who purchased the phone is now the owner and selling their phone to another entity is not against the law. In fact, there are laws that specifically allow this.
- kllrnohj 10y ago
  "ownership" has nothing to do with why scalping is frowned upon / policed. Scalping is a problem because the goal of scalping is to buy something that's limited in supply so that it can be resold at a higher markup. It's purely an issue because supply is limited, it has nothing to do with ownership. Concerts are always limited in supply, which is why scalping is prevalent there more than most other things. If tickets were infinite in supply nobody would care about concert scalpers, that wouldn't exist. And the reason this matters to places selling things limited in supply is that scalpers hurt consumer satisfaction and generate negative impressions of the seller due to greedy opportunists that were otherwise outside of their control. Thus why they place limits on how many you can buy until supply is high enough (like in this case how Google had a limit of buying 5 devices - enough for most families, not enough for re-sellers)