He never claimed it was a crime, just immoral, and I agree.
If the store provides you a valuable service, like allowing you to try on shoes or giving you significant advice on which product to buy, you should buy the product from them so that they get profits with which to cover the cost of providing that service.
Now, it depends how extensively you used their resources and how much of a markup they want. If you were in the store for something else and all you did is wander around to try to get ideas of what else you wanted, I don't think there's much obligation to buy. But if you're spending 15 minutes talking to a salesman about all of the possibilities (especially if you wanted to ask him the questions, as opposed to him seeing you in the area and approaching you to try to close the sale and upsell you) or extensively trying out the demo units, the store is providing you value and you're using resources that cost them money. As long as the additional markup that the store wants is fair (for an example of unfair markup see the guy who chose not to buy a $40 DVI-HDMI cable that costs <$3 on monoprice), you should compensate them for the value they provided you and buy from them.
there are no clear ethical boundaries here; morality is hardly universal.
I'd like to stay focused here on the so-called immorality. kgermino's choice of words to "steal the stores time" implies theft. I'm not sure if I see eye to eye with this description.
[edit: I'm curious to know why i'm being downvoted here without any followup reply. nothing that I've stated is factually inaccurate - morality refers to personal values, which vary between person to person.]
Does it help to turn it around - you are paying a (probably marginally) higher price in the brick and mortar store in gratitude for the service (advice, time, hands-on experience with the gadget) they are providing. Nothing stolen, but fair compensation provided for information obtained.
> advice, time, hands-on experience with the gadget
Only if I can trust that the advice, time are all beneficial to me and not the store, which I can't, especially if I'm not dealing with a specialty store. More to the point, does the higher price justify the less then trustworthy advice provided?
If brick and mortar stores are only offering questionable advice and a hands on experience in exchange for the same product at a higher price then the online store with lower cost, then they have to compete with that. If they are providing real value, then they'll do fine.
The problem is, no one wants to pay for advice.
The assumption here is that this is just with online stores. Offline stores also compete as well, and not just using price, but real value-added services. If I got to store-x to learn about a product, an then end up purchasing at store-y because they provide greater value, am I doing wrong?
If the store provides you a valuable service, like allowing you to try on shoes or giving you significant advice on which product to buy, you should buy the product from them so that they get profits with which to cover the cost of providing that service.
Now, it depends how extensively you used their resources and how much of a markup they want. If you were in the store for something else and all you did is wander around to try to get ideas of what else you wanted, I don't think there's much obligation to buy. But if you're spending 15 minutes talking to a salesman about all of the possibilities (especially if you wanted to ask him the questions, as opposed to him seeing you in the area and approaching you to try to close the sale and upsell you) or extensively trying out the demo units, the store is providing you value and you're using resources that cost them money. As long as the additional markup that the store wants is fair (for an example of unfair markup see the guy who chose not to buy a $40 DVI-HDMI cable that costs <$3 on monoprice), you should compensate them for the value they provided you and buy from them.