It’s common for car companies when they enter a new market. It removes uncertainty from the second hand market.
By doing that, you know upfront what the value of your used hardware will be at the time you decommission it. It removes a lot of the risk for buyers in a volatile market.
The hyperscalers signing these contracts have decent legal departments. Think about Oracle for example - I'm pretty sure they know every trick there is about beneficial contract drafting.
I don't think they need some special protection against this kind of contract.
so are buybacks. you choose to sign the contract. there's no way they didn't have an escape clause, although likely it meant not using the cloud provider anymore
Fraudulent, I wouldn't say so. Anti-consumer or anti-competitive? Sounds like.
It’s common for car companies when they enter a new market. It removes uncertainty from the second hand market.
By doing that, you know upfront what the value of your used hardware will be at the time you decommission it. It removes a lot of the risk for buyers in a volatile market.
The hyperscalers signing these contracts have decent legal departments. Think about Oracle for example - I'm pretty sure they know every trick there is about beneficial contract drafting.
I don't think they need some special protection against this kind of contract.
Would you call a trade-in a fraudulent tactic?
Trade ins are fine. A contractual commitment to not buy hardware sounds like illegal restraint of trade.
Trade-ins are voluntary.
so are buybacks. you choose to sign the contract. there's no way they didn't have an escape clause, although likely it meant not using the cloud provider anymore
4 replies →
The Grift Economy places all legalities on the marks and their inability to form legal fights.
Sounds like capitalism at its finest.
Good old "win-win-lose"