all i have to say is that this whole google direct via mail thing just reminds me how cool it is to have an apple store at almost every mall/shopping center in beautiful SOCal… I cant stand buying crap online because you have to return it the same way you bought it. The good news is that at least childish and whining costumers will not come and complain at the retail store cuz now we will be able to say “go talk to google!” gotta love this!

Imagine you are selling these things. There’s all kinds of hassles and perils.

There’s people who damaged the phone, but they hide the fact and try to return it within the two weeks or by making a warranty claim.

There’s people who want to return it with no consequences to them, meaning no cost. Why should that be the way things work? Why should the company bear the cost of handling the return, including paying salary and benefits for 10 to 20 employees to handle returns and warranty claims.

Why should the company have to eat the “damage” because under the law a company cannot sell a returned phone as new, it has to call it a refurb or it can only be used to replace a warranty claim phone.

Why should the company eat all those costs (“damages”), especially when one is simply changing his or her mind.

Also, while we all like to focus on our own situation, assume Google gets 5000 returns from people exercising his or her two-week return privilege, and an additional 2000 from people in California returning phones within 30 days. I think those numbers are really low. In any event, that’s 7,000 phones.

7,000 x $530 = $3.7 million in returns. I think a company is entitled to take steps to lessen the impact of that number, including restocking fees and or imposition of an ETF.

Lastly, if a company could not take steps to defray the impact costs from returned items, Google would do what any company would reasonably do, pass on the cost to us, specifically by increasing the retail price of the N1 to absorb the cost of returns to the company.

Thanks :)