[sellyme]

> The windows EULA (End User License Agreement) clearly states that the agreement can be refused by the end user, and that windows can be returned to the manufacturer. In real life, however, manufacturers typically say that they can't refund the windows license and tell the user to contact microsoft directly. I can't say I really blame manufacturers for doing that [...]

I can. If companies want to profit by being a middle-man between the OS developers and the consumer, then they also inherit the responsibility of actually dealing with said consumer. If Microsoft wants to be a pain in their arse and make it harder for them to actually fulfil their obligations as a merchant, maybe they should stop doing business deals with a company that's actively hostile to them.

It's the same thing as tech stores that try to foist you over the the hardware manufacturer if you buy a faulty component from them. You don't get to put your fingers in the pie and then claim that you have no responsibility to ensure the quality of an item you're advertising and selling.

[young_unixer]

That's what Amazon does.

You buy things from their website and pay using their payment platform. The website doesn't make it obvious that you're actually buying from a third party ("sold by: X" is in small letters and gets lost between all the other details). And Amazon lump items from different vendors together in the same product page.

I literally bought like 3 items on Amazon before realizing that not all items were sold by Amazon themselves.

When it turns out that items are counterfeit, they try to offload a great part of their responsibility onto the legal system, because they see themselves as the victims of counterfeit, not as facilitators [1]. Luckily, some judges are not buying their excuse [2].

(Even if buy items "sold by Amazon", you can get a counterfeit product [3].)

[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-establi...

[2] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/amazon-liable-for-defe...

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24174276

[3] https://twitter.com/nostarch/status/1183095004258099202

[gnicholas]

I find Amazon’s system very confusing. I recently bought a Magic Keyboard for my iPad Pro ($100 off!) [1] on Amazon. The purchase page didn’t show a return policy, and at the top it said “visit the Apple Store”. This made it seem like the device was being sold by Apple.

But of course there’s no way Apple would take a return in store if I purchased via Amazon.

So I chatted an Amazon rep to see what the return policy would be for that item. She looked at the link and said “because this item is sold and shipped by Amazon, there’s a 30 day return period, and return shipping is covered.” I had the rep email me a chat transcript just in case her interpretation turned out to be wrong.

This system makes no sense to me. What does it mean when you see the “visit the Apple Store”? I thought this indicated that this was the seller?

I should note that I wouldn’t buy most Apple peripherals through Amazon, but I’m pretty sure no one is making knockoff Magic Keyboards just yet...

1: https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Keyboard-11-inch-iPad-Generatio...

[amscanne]

Brands often have a “store” on Amazon, which is a dedicated landing page. You’re likely the victim of confusion between that and “The Apple Store (tm)”.

[gnicholas]

Oh I’m aware this isn’t the Apple Store (as in the physical buildings). I just don’t understand what the brand store is if this item is considered to be sold by Amazon (as the rep said). Is it just a collection of items sold by Amazon and others that are manufactured by one company? I assumed that the company was involved in the selling.

For example, I would be more likely to trust an item is legit if it supposedly comes from “the Apple Store” on Amazon, as opposed to some random Amazon seller. But if it’s just a collection of items from various different sellers, then it’s pretty much meaningless to me.

EDIT: can someone explain the downvotes here? I'm just replying to the comment above, describing what confuses me about this. If this is super obvious to other people, then what does "visit the Apple Store" on Amazon mean?

[judge2020]

Ships from Amazon.com

Sold by Amazon.com

These two indicate who holds the stock and who delivers the product. All prime-eligible items are shipped by Amazon.com (although some other shipping methods provide 'prime free shipping', without a 2-day guarantee), while Amazon also will wholesale buy and sell items themselves if they're high-volume enough, which is indicated by 'Sold by Amazon.com'.

The whole 'Visit the <Brand> Store' is a way to go to a page that only shows products sold under that brand/company. For example, this Corsair ql120[0] has "Visit the Corsair store" under the product name which shows all Corsair products. Amazon generally limits the amount of off-Amazon linking done, although it's not strict and it's not off-limits in product images or the description.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z9SQX7M

[gnicholas]

Thanks — I can see that it says who sells/ships the item just above the protection plan up-sell area, which I typically don't look at. It's useful for me to know that the "visit X Store" link at the top doesn't necessarily mean that Company X is actually involved in inventory selection/shipment, which is what I would have assumed based on having seen pages like the olight page, which seem to have been designed by olight. [1]

1: https://www.amazon.com/stores/OLIGHT/OLIGHT/page/098E844F-88...

[qazxcvbnmlp]

“Visit the Apple store” is a link. You can click on it and see.

[sellyme]

I suspect that Amazon's argument is that they're more akin to eBay than they are to a supermarket. "We're not selling the product, we're only selling the floorspace" kind of thing.

That's a lie, but it is certainly a blurrier line than the one for traditional retailers. I don't think it's a coincidence that Amazon has been very slow to enter markets with strong consumer law like Australia.

[leetcrew]

amazon's return policy is pretty good though AFAIK? 30 days no questions asked and they pay the return shipping. pretty sure the transaction gets reversed immediately, or at least as soon as the first scan on the return shipment. not a lot of retailers beat that.

[sellyme]

Sure, their return policy is good if you bought an item and later decided it doesn't suit your needs - that's an issue that's often entirely your own fault, and they're happy to refund you in the hopes of keeping a customer. That's usually going to be a win-win.

But if you've been sold an item under false pretenses, their return policy isn't a "policy", it's a legal requirement. I'm not charitable enough to use the terms "pretty good" to describe any process where step 1 is defrauding the customer.

Amazon sell counterfeit items but want to avoid the legal responsibility of doing so.

[ransom_rs]

I feel like this is different because Amazon does tell you what happens, and they can technically argue that you are responsible for understanding what you are buying (the ethics of hiding this information is very questionable). On the other hand, the EULA is specific language that is legally bounded.

[IgorPartola]

It’s even more confusing than that. If you buy an item “sold by..” but fulfilled by Amazon, you deal with Amazon for returns, right? But if it’s shipped by the vendor then yeah you are right.

[centimeter]

I've never gotten a counterfeit sold by amazon, but I have gotten used items sold as "new" by Amazon (not by a third-party seller). In one instance, the item was not only used, but a piece of safety-critical equipment in an extremely dangerous condition that could easily have resulted in dismemberment or death if used.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

It is pretty amazing how Microsoft has gotten away with this, which probably had few comparables in the business world when OEMS first started pre-installing Windows on personal computers. Gates' entire fortune rests on the success of it.

I have always thought there is this underlying assumption that generally no person would ever purchase a computer that had no OS pre-installed. (Obviously that is not true, there are exceptions, e.g., pre-Microsoft and even today, with development boards.) If people were happy to install their own choice of OS (if there were choices), then could Microsoft have been so successful.

Computers have given rise to middleman-based businesses the likes of which have never been seen before.

What we are seeing with the internet perhaps mirrors the PC. As with the PC, where it was assumed that generally no person could do anything useful with "just a PC" without a pre-selected, pre-installed OS, there is an underlying assumption that generally no person could do anything useful with "just an internet connection" without a pre-selection of some certain "tech" companies.

It is nigh impossible to purchase computers and connect to the internet without the presence of middlemen and pre-made selections.

[passivate]

We have several "Windows PCs" at work, but my coworkers see them as "PC that I use to operate X instrument", "PC that lets me do Y". While people obviously do recognize the Microsoft logo and brand on them, mentally they're just tools. I think most people view computers as a means to an end - to get something done.

[Animats]

It is nigh impossible to purchase computers and connect to the internet without the presence of middlemen and pre-made selections.

Who are you buying from? I get computers from Central Computer, which has five stores in Silicon Valley. They charge $30 extra to install Windows 10, $64 for Windows 10 Pro, and $0 for Linux.

[npteljes]

This would be logical, but due to some business practices, Windows bundles often costed less than the alternatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#...

[fest]

I wouldn't be surprised that OEMs are actually net positive on Windows and all the trials of antiviruses and games they're bundling with PCs.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

All I want is a BIOS or equivalent. Software necessary to initialise the hardware. I do not need Linux installed.

[toast0]

> It is pretty amazing how Microsoft has gotten away with this, which probably had few comparables in the business world when OEMS first started pre-installing Windows on personal computers.

They had plenty of experience doing similar things with MS-Dos; and they had a consent decree to tell them where the line was. (and I think they crossed the line again anyway)

[type0]

> > The windows EULA (End User License Agreement) clearly states that the agreement can be refused by the end user, and that windows can be returned to the manufacturer. In real life, however, manufacturers typically say that they can't refund the windows license and tell the user to contact microsoft directly.

I did just that, called MS and they had very politely asked me to f*ck off or contact the manufacturer again, the license was issued to the small family company where this was a very unnecessary expense (so there were no consumer protection laws applicable to this). In practice this is all empty promises, now I just furiously refuse to deal with Windows and Microsoft because of their dishonesty.

[harikb]

> maybe they should stop doing business deals with a company that's actively hostile to them

Remember, at one point they were considered a monopoly on PC operating systems. It is not like PC vendors had an option. Not signing on to the cartel was not an option.

[fabianhjr]

Anti-trust enforcement? At least back then it seemed like a possibility, nowadays seems inconceivable.

[pydry]

It's almost as if the OP is deliberately missing this point.

[p2t2p]

They addressed it in Russia btw. Now it is the law that whoever accepts the payment carries the responsibility. So shit like

> manufacturers typically say that they can't refund the windows license and tell the user to contact microsoft directly

won't fly anymore.

[tinus_hn]

Same in Europe, you have to make sure the product conforms to the description so if it is broken you have to react or take it back.

I don’t think this has ever been tested with respect to licenses though.

[gambiting]

Retailers in EU(and EEA and UK) have to take the product back if you don't agree with the licence, the problem is that this is not what customers usually want. People want to buy a laptop, disagree with the licence, and get money back just for the licence. Instead retailers will(or should) offer you a refund for the entire device, which is not what most people want.

[tinus_hn]

I’d like to buy a phone and then get a refund for the screen, microphone, camera, battery, speakers, case, antennas and the modem. And the software too please.

Of course this only worked because Microsoft put this in the license and they have taken it out long ago. You can’t return Windows for a refund anymore.

[gambiting]

No, you can't return it, but at least in EU you are 100% allowed to take that licence and sell it on, no matter what the EULA says.

[tinus_hn]

> Retailers in EU(and EEA and UK) have to take the product back if you don't agree with the licence

> No, you can't return it, but at least in EU you are 100% allowed to take that licence and sell it on

You’re contradicting yourself.

PS license is spelled with an s

[laumars]

Many OEMs did try to ship PCs without Windows and Microsoft abused their monopoly to “encourage” OEMs and retailers back into the fold. This was one of the cases brought up in the Microsoft anti-trust investigations.

[kalleboo]

> maybe they should stop doing business deals with a company that's actively hostile to them

Microsoft was a monopoly, and was happy to abuse that position (see: United States v. Microsoft Corp.), OEMs had no choice.

[anticristi]

I'm also confused about this. My parents bought a "cloud-based" Smart Thermometer. The start-up behind it went out-of-business and the device got bricked. My parents asked for a refund from the distributor and they complied.

Why would it be any different with Microsoft? I understand that it's "cooler" to storm the office of a big corporations, but it's really the middleman that need to take responsibility here.

[matheusmoreira]

They want all the benefits but no responsibilities. Their contracts and terms are written with that explicit aim. There's no obvious way to fight it either. People end up getting used to it...