[yaseer]

This doesn't seem unreasonable for a limited supply product, to prevent price scalping.

If you saw these terms for a console launch or graphics card launch, you wouldn't complain.

It's probably not enforceable, but the idea isn't crazy.

EDIT: I was referring to the resale clause. Just saw the remote deactivation point too, which really is awfully dystopian.

[mongol]

I think it is unreasonable. A remote deactivation of your car if you sell what you paid full price for? I think at least they should be willing to buy it back from the customer.

[yaseer]

Oh man, I didn't read the remote deactivation part - that really is crazy!

Preventing resale isn't so unusual, but having your property violated definitely is.

[cptaj]

Your rights are always slowly taken away for very civilized and reasonable reasons.

[olalonde]

It seems to me the correct solution to price scalping is to raise prices.

[dspillett]

That has image consequences, making them look too expensive for more people compared to the competition. It isn't as simple as “the price the market will bear right now”, they have to consider the longer term effects of putting people off.

The obvious answer to that is of course “then just make more, if there is enough to go around the scalpers won't make any/enough profit” but that has its own problems: the production processes are not yet scaling that way, perhaps due to quality issues caused by trying to speed up, perhaps due to limited amounts of specialist production-line equipment for the affected models, perhaps due to issues getting enough raw materials at a faster rate for the “right price”, perhaps a mix of all of the above (plus a little intentional generation of artificial product scarcity in the market).

Assuming I'm right about process (and material sourcing) scaling issues being a significant part of the problem, charging more because the existence of scalpers indicates that (at the current production levels) they can would be like [artist of the moment] charging much more per place at concerts, or the events like the London Marathon charging double/triple/more for the base entry price instead of using a balloted entry system. They can't simply make more places available, and the two-tier system (the haves can have, the have-nots can't afford) resulting from higher prices would cause image souring and affect future interest & sales (and for those that genuinely care about the art/atmosphere/event at least as much as the money, may offend the economic morals of the artist/organisers too). The target end result is to be a mass production vehicle, not a low volume collectors item.

[rwmj]

Or make more product.

[rsynnott]

> Just saw the remote deactivation point too, which really is awfully dystopian

I'm fascinated to see what happens if they actually try this. Hard to imagine it standing up in court.