4 ms·

This is pretty obviously intended to prevent essentially scalpers from selling the early units for massive profit. Not sure why people are mad about this? South

This is pretty obviously intended to prevent essentially scalpers from selling the early units for massive profit. Not sure why people are mad about this? South Africa man bad?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
carstenhag 3y ago
Because after paying in full for it, it's your decision what to do with it. Compress it into a steel cube, sell it, drive it.
- jterrys 3y ago
  Right. Have you considered perhaps that there's entire industries out there plagued by organizations that use automated tools to muscle out consumers from access of general goods with with no intent of using those products themselves and only act as an artificial intermediary to resale said goods and inflate the price for their own benefit? This plagues concert tickets, shoes, clothing, computer parts, sometimes evening necessary goods like cleaning wipes and toilet paper. Are those people just good hard working honest capitalists that create a market opportunity and deserve to use their products as they damn well please too?
  - ryaneager 3y ago
    Yeah, that’s a problem the FTC should solve and not the companies selling goods. An individual should not be restricted on reselling their own goods.
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      Okay but the FTC isn’t solving it so you expect a company who thinks this is a problem to do nothing? Anyway how would the FTC solve it? Instead of having a contractual agreement between individual parties, you would prefer the government to ban something? This would for sure end up restricting free exchange more than one-off agreements like this.
  - carstenhag 3y ago
    Scalping is a big problem, sure. But in this case, I don't see the problem. Tesla could (and perhaps does?) limit selling 1 or 2 Cybertrucks to each person. Of course you could ask your friends to reserve one for you, but this is a lot of hassle and more involved than buying a lot of toilet paper/oil.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
If you jail everyone, you'd have jailed all criminals, too. Therefore you could say "pretty obviously intended to stop criminals". But punishing everyone because of a malicious minority defeats the point of your entire action. They could've just as easily prevented scalping by saying "you can sell your CyberTruck, but for not even a dollar more than the purchase price." Curious how that's NOT what they said, isn't it?
makeitdouble 3y ago
How would you feel if all your popular goods had this kind of strings attached to them ? Buy a PS5, and you better like it because reselling it after the return window will be an arm and a leg. Same for your Roomba, you regret not buying a competitor after a few weeks ? tough luck it's in your closet for the rest of the year and you'll fork the money in full for any other purchase. etc.

This is pretty obviously intended to prevent essentially scalpers from selling the early units for massive profit. Not sure why people are mad about this? South Africa man bad?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

carstenhag 3y ago

Because after paying in full for it, it's your decision what to do with it. Compress it into a steel cube, sell it, drive it.

jterrys 3y ago
Right. Have you considered perhaps that there's entire industries out there plagued by organizations that use automated tools to muscle out consumers from access of general goods with with no intent of using those products themselves and only act as an artificial intermediary to resale said goods and inflate the price for their own benefit? This plagues concert tickets, shoes, clothing, computer parts, sometimes evening necessary goods like cleaning wipes and toilet paper. Are those people just good hard working honest capitalists that create a market opportunity and deserve to use their products as they damn well please too?
- ryaneager 3y ago
  Yeah, that’s a problem the FTC should solve and not the companies selling goods. An individual should not be restricted on reselling their own goods.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Okay but the FTC isn’t solving it so you expect a company who thinks this is a problem to do nothing? Anyway how would the FTC solve it? Instead of having a contractual agreement between individual parties, you would prefer the government to ban something? This would for sure end up restricting free exchange more than one-off agreements like this.
- carstenhag 3y ago
  Scalping is a big problem, sure. But in this case, I don't see the problem. Tesla could (and perhaps does?) limit selling 1 or 2 Cybertrucks to each person. Of course you could ask your friends to reserve one for you, but this is a lot of hassle and more involved than buying a lot of toilet paper/oil.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

If you jail everyone, you'd have jailed all criminals, too. Therefore you could say "pretty obviously intended to stop criminals". But punishing everyone because of a malicious minority defeats the point of your entire action. They could've just as easily prevented scalping by saying "you can sell your CyberTruck, but for not even a dollar more than the purchase price." Curious how that's NOT what they said, isn't it?

makeitdouble 3y ago

How would you feel if all your popular goods had this kind of strings attached to them ? Buy a PS5, and you better like it because reselling it after the return window will be an arm and a leg. Same for your Roomba, you regret not buying a competitor after a few weeks ? tough luck it's in your closet for the rest of the year and you'll fork the money in full for any other purchase. etc.