Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon, the Brand Buster

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#101

Post by ikeboy »

CPLX wrote: post #50
jasongill wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Receiving a counterfeit item must happen so very rarely, considering the (millions?) huge volume of these sales per day, and Amazon is obviously swift to fix the issue (much to the chagrin of sellers swept up by the zero tolerance rule) that I really doubt most consumers would ever receive a counterfeit item in this way. It seems more likely that consumers would buy the "cheaper" option from an FBA seller (perhaps un…

You're wildly off base here. The chances of getting a counterfeit item in some product categories is basically 100%. Go ahead, try to buy a real pair of Apple iPhone corded headphones on Amazon. That assignment is quite literally impossible.

https://www.amazon.com/Apple-MMEF2AM-AirPods-Wireless-Blueto...

Here, buy from Amazon direct and you'll get a real one.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#102

Post by ikeboy »

CPLX wrote: post #50
jasongill wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Receiving a counterfeit item must happen so very rarely, considering the (millions?) huge volume of these sales per day, and Amazon is obviously swift to fix the issue (much to the chagrin of sellers swept up by the zero tolerance rule) that I really doubt most consumers would ever receive a counterfeit item in this way. It seems more likely that consumers would buy the "cheaper" option from an FBA seller (perhaps un…

You're wildly off base here. The chances of getting a counterfeit item in some product categories is basically 100%. Go ahead, try to buy a real pair of Apple iPhone corded headphones on Amazon. That assignment is quite literally impossible.

Or buy https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B01M0GB8CC/ref=olp_tab_new?i... from datavision self fulfilled, they're the only seller on a ton of apple stuff and I assume they're authorized

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#103

Post by C7H8N4O2 »

something2 wrote: post #72
mmt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As sibling comments pointed out, the main problem is for the manufacturer/brand and for the buyer. An unscrupulous seller (of, for example, couterfeits) would benefit significantly and so would not disable the option. That Amazon themselves don't disable this option (for "shipped and sold by Amazon.com"), except, effectively, for their own brand, is the suspect anti-competitive practice.

Amazon also has something called Brand Registry. Essentially, if you can prove you own a brand, you can prevent other sellers from selling the same item. That's how most larger brands protect their listings.

Amazon's brand registry enables a verified brand to take control of a listing page (edit photos/text/title).

That's pretty much it – no power to limit other sellers.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#104

Post by Zak »

mmt wrote: post #95
Zak wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be surprised if most people don't still have a use for AA and AAA batteries in a decade. A relatively light user should manage a charge cycle every couple of years, and NiMH batteries have a useful life longer than 10 years.

I think that something you're forgetting is that, though, as you mention, self-discharge has come a long way (as has charger technology, which I'm not sure has been mentioned), that doesn't mean every single product on the market actually benefits from these advances. A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good. Oh, and where are we on the capacit…

Capacity for LSD AA is about 2000 mAh; capacity for higher self-discharge is about 2500 mAh.

That is lower under extremely light loads than the best alkalines, but crosses over at a bit over 12 hours constant runtime since load has a relatively small effect on NiMH capacity, but a huge effect on alkaline capacity.

> A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.

Alkalines can leak corrosive electrolyte and destroy devices. This is a fairly well-known issue, but it doesn't seem like "always use rechargeable batteries so you don't ruin your stuff" is a widespread meme among the average consumer. I wonder why that is.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#105

Post by Zak »

mmt wrote: post #97
Zak wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those devices must have very short runtimes on alkalines. Even a 0.2A load on an alkaline AA puts it under 1.2V for most of its discharge capacity[0]. That's not an especially high load; it's the amount that will drain it in 11 hours of use, but if the device quits at 1.2V, it will only run for 4.5 hours. It would not surprise me to learn that the designers of a consumer electronic device did a bad job, but I'd descr…

> it will only run for 4.5 hours That seems plenty long for something like a TV remote, if "run" includes the amount of time that buttons are depressed. > It would not surprise me This is inconsistent with your original comment that claims "a little surprise". Consumer behavior responds to actual products, not someone's standard of engineering design.

I was surprised by the consumer behavior until I learned that it's motivated by a common design flaw. I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists, but I did not anticipate it specifically. Clear and consistent now?

TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it. A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.

None of which matters if the device won't actually run on NiMH.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#106

Post by nicodjimenez »

alfredallan1 wrote: post #26
nicodjimenez wrote: post #14

I think this article is a little misguided. Sure, commodity products such as Duracell or cheap clothing companies might be in trouble, but such companies were weak brands in the first place. Their main appeal was low cost, good enough, and Amazon is just doing the whole low cost, good enough thing better than anyone. But high end brands like Apple, Nike, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, are not going anywhere, that's for sure!

Not immediately, no. 10 years back, Duracell seemed a very strong brand. All it is going to take for LVMH, etc. to start getting replaced is a new generation of online shoppers seeing Amazon house brands right next to these and subconsciously associating them together as brands of equal value.

Not going to happen. High end conspicuous consumption products are well protected against Amazon. You can be a low end brand or a high end brand but you cannot be both.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#107

Post by akvadrako »

tpm wrote: post #92
akvadrako wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but who needs those?

You may not need them, but often enough you will have to pay the duty and VAT before the customs release your package, thus erasing the price difference. As for the warranty, customers usually do need it.

I understand the concern, but never needed to pay that and I have over 70 orders there. They always say it's a sample or gift worth under 5 euro.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#108

Post by akvadrako »

mantas wrote: post #75
akvadrako wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but who needs those?

Those who pave streets you walk on and fine you when you're speeding... So uh... How about Aliexpress?

I think this is valid point in general, but I don't think it has much bearing on a discussion about Amazon, which doesn't contribute very much to taxes.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#109

Post by mmt »

Zak wrote: post #105
mmt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will only run for 4.5 hours That seems plenty long for something like a TV remote, if "run" includes the amount of time that buttons are depressed. > It would not surprise me This is inconsistent with your original comment that claims "a little surprise". Consumer behavior responds to actual products, not someone's standard of engineering design.

I was surprised by the consumer behavior until I learned that it's motivated by a common design flaw. I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists, but I did not anticipate it specifically. Clear and consistent now? TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it. A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that woul…

> I was surprised by the consumer behavior until I learned

I guess the history is relatively tough to research these without having lived through it, since that's before the popularization of the web.

An interesting more modern use case is Apple's wireless keyboards when they used AAs. I'd suggest you check that out.

> I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists

I'd strongly suggest you consider the complexity, cost, and efficiency tradeoffs involved in RF (and other analog) silicon design, especially in miniaturized consumer products, before characterizing certain decisions as flaws.

Sometimes, worse is better.

> TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it.

That's my point. What they notice is how often they have to change (or recharge) the batteries. Historically, with rechargeables, that's been way too often.

To be fair, anecdotally, I've noticed this with some cheaper/off-brand alkalines, as well.

> A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.

I think "often" is, at best, an exaggeration. Do you have published numbers to back that up?

My impression based on personal experience is that during the normal, useful life, it is vanishingly rare. I've only ever had leakage damage occur from fully-discharged (usually through self-discharge after over a year of disuse), and that was replaced by the battery manufacter, one of the advantages of paying more for brand-name.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#110

Post by tpm »

akvadrako wrote: post #107
tpm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not need them, but often enough you will have to pay the duty and VAT before the customs release your package, thus erasing the price difference. As for the warranty, customers usually do need it.

I understand the concern, but never needed to pay that and I have over 70 orders there. They always say it's a sample or gift worth under 5 euro.

Well, I and many others did. The customs officers don't have to believe what's written on the package.
Post reply on HN