5 ms·

If 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

If 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    It 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 ago
      I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  But if they hadn’t broken the devices, the devices would have continued to work fine.
- fisf 2y ago
  So, 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 ago
It 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).

RHSeeger 2y ago

Because 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 ago
The 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    I 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 ago

If 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 ago
I 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 ago

Because 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 ago
But if they hadn’t broken the devices, the devices would have continued to work fine.
fisf 2y ago
So, 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 ago

It 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).