4 ms·
That's one way to frame it. Another is Sol-ark incurs costs of developing, marketing and supporting their official devices and the contract manufacturer is able
by greenthrow 2y ago
That's one way to frame it. Another is Sol-ark incurs costs of developing, marketing and supporting their official devices and the contract manufacturer is able to sell their own version in the Chinese market. Greedy people who don't want to pay Sol-ark for all the costs they incurred bought grey market devices that Sol-ark has repeatedly warned are in contract violation in this market. The manufacturer, not Sol-ark, has now bricked those devices, and people are blaming Sol-ark anyway because they want to continue to justify their actions.
- int_19h 2y agoIf the people are buying directly from manufacturer, why should any costs that Sol-ark has incurred be their concern? They aren't using the official devices, so they aren't enjoying any advantages of that, either.
- RHSeeger 2y agoBecause those costs were incurred with the plan to recoup the cost from sales in the US, and (presumably) those people are bypassing the licensed sale/use; which ruins that plan. Your question is really no different than asking why it's not legal for me photocopy books and ignore copyright.
- vlovich123 2y agoThe problem is they already took the money and basically broke it after the fact. Typically there’s all sorts of legal protections protecting against something like that.
- int_19h 2y agoWhy should we as a society enable plans and business models that hinge on taking away consumer freedom to get the product from the most competitive supplier instead of the one who wants to milk an artificial monopoly?
- RHSeeger 2y agoIt was my understanding that the company they bought it from didn't have the rights to sell it in the US. As such, there's no real difference between buying from them and buying from someone that stole it and sold it to you. Now, you can argue that country-specific licenses shouldn't be allowed; but they currently are.
- int_19h 2y agoI think most people can see the obvious ethical difference between actually stealing something vs breaking an exploitative license like that, and react accordingly.
- greenthrow 2y agoIf I can just break into your house can I just take your stuff? It's not my problem you worked to earn it.
- int_19h 2y agoI fail to see how the device purchased from Deye by someone can in any way, shape or form be considered Sol-Ark's house and stuff.
- tw04 2y agoBecause the manufacturer doesn’t want to support people in the US market, which is why they bricked the devices. Why should the manufacturer be concerned you tried to skirt the region restrictions they were very upfront exist?
- freeone3000 2y agoBut if they hadn’t broken the devices, the devices would have continued to work fine.
- fisf 2y agoSo, companies like the free market when it suits them, but want regional monopolies (without providing any value) when it benefits the consumer. Interesting.
- anon84873628 2y agoIt does make one wonder why these exclusivity agreements exist. If Sol-Ark is adding value and competitive differentiation, wouldn't that justify the price premium over the basic Deye product? Especially if Deye is not willing to offer its own support/warranty to customers? Why does Sol-Ark need to create a more monopolistic landscape? Not being judgemental, genuinely curious. (Well, I know why Sol-Ark wants it. I guess the question is why we allow it).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- seany 2y agoGrey market is a term that needs to be erased from the lexicon.
- jjeaff 2y agoUnfortunately, it is an accurate and necessary term. Because while you might think that you are free to buy and resell anything you want without problem, the courts have made the issue much more grey than black and white. see the Omega v Costco lawsuit for an example.