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

Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 526 posts

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#371

Post by peterburkimsher »

sagebird wrote: post #239

It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it. On the other hand, if the matter is reversed, Amazon is expected to be a good sport and take the loss — even if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) I’m not going to en…

"If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars" - Uber accidentally overcharged people for their taxi rides, and people are outraged [1].

Will Amazon pay the full price to the original manufacturer (in this case Sony)? I feel like there's a parallel to be made with media piracy in here somewhere. If you could steal a magic Mars bar [2] that didn't deprive someone else of it, why should you still pay for it?

I'm not sure that taking advantage of a glitch like this for cheap physical items is ethical, but I can't really express why. I have no such issues with people using Sci-hub, because Elsevier doesn't pay researchers anything. For music my views are very grey - even though piracy does deprive the artist of income today, I would never have discovered many of my favourite bands if I hadn't been able to listen to their music for free (on the radio or from other sources), and I've tried to compensate for their loss by going to hundreds of concerts, buying T-shirts, and supporting the original artist. When Apple takes a 30% cut and the record company takes 65%, the original artist doesn't stand to lose or gain much through record sales, so it doesn't feel "as wrong". Hardware is a lot more finite though, and I would want to be sure the engineers are actually getting paid before taking a deal that seems like someone is getting ripped off.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49031165

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6vgkDbMcZc

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#372

Post by foldr »

tripzilch wrote: post #358
danbruc wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever. This argument is wrong, there is no attempt to associate morality with a company. It is the customer and only the customer holding the arguably conflicting believes that errors in favour of customers should not be corrected while errors in favour of the company should be corrected. So you…

But there is such an attempt of anthropomorphisation, when you say the company is "expected to be a good sport". You don't say a herd of cows ought to be a good sport. A crying baby ought to be a good sport. That tree is being mean, casting shade. The anthill ought to return my sugar. That is why there is no conflict. Because they are not the same morally and thus not expected to be treated the same.

This argument cuts both ways. If Amazon isn't a moral entity, then there's also no moral violation if they screw you over.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#373

Post by stef25 »

bko wrote: post #320
kartan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. Secondly, companies does not have morals. If you allow big corporations to change prices as they see fit because there is a "mistake". Companies will exploit that to their advantage with psychopathic precisi…

> First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. There's an asymmetry because Amazon can "afford" to double check everything? How? They lists millions of items. You're only in the market for a few. They're good at inventory management, but the scale is crazy which is why this mispricing is happening. Besides, I don't see why them "be…

> There's an asymmetry because Amazon can "afford" to double check everything? How?

When you sell on Amazon and for some reason don't want to sell something out of your inventory by changing the price from $10 to $999999, Amazon will put a "possible pricing error" alert next to it in your dashboard.

Not sure if they do it when the price is too low. Either way it's super easy to detect by comparing to the item's price from other sellers.

It's very easy to introduce errors since most products are batch imported with a clunky spreadsheet, or the API.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#374

Post by ryanmercer »

nickjj wrote: post #348
Freak_NL wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, in these cases (bunk beds and televisions) the orders were never fulfilled. The court ruled that a sales contract is not binding if the buyer can reasonably suspect that the price shown is so absurdly low that an error on the side of the seller is apparent. That is, you can try to order the item, but the seller has no legal obligation of fulfilling it if they can proof beyond reasonable doubt…

> The court ruled that a sales contract is not binding if the buyer can reasonably suspect that the price shown is so absurdly low that an error on the side of the seller is apparent. How can you prove something like that in court in this camera case? For example, let's say you were just getting into photography and were window shopping by browsing around Amazon's site. You run into a camera that has a 4.7 average ra…

>How can you prove something like that in court in this camera case?

Go look at the screenshots in the article it shows the prime savings at checkout:

>Prime Savings -$1,204.52

That is a pretty clear indication that "wow, this is astronomically discounted" which should reasonably clue any adult with their full mental faculties in to "something strange is going on here".

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#375

Post by nickjj »

JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #361
nickjj wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The court ruled that a sales contract is not binding if the buyer can reasonably suspect that the price shown is so absurdly low that an error on the side of the seller is apparent. How can you prove something like that in court in this camera case? For example, let's say you were just getting into photography and were window shopping by browsing around Amazon's site. You run into a camera that has a 4.7 average ra…

Because you can infer that the "-99%" near the price is weird.

The a6000 is normally $550 and was marked down to $95. That's not a big enough discount to infer it was a price mistake. Especially not when Amazon advertises this as one of the biggest discount days of the year.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#376

Post by foldr »

sgift wrote: post #249
Mirioron wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about it from the moral standpoint. Most customers will be able to tell that something is off when camera gear is that cheap.

Amazon is not a person, it's a company. Attributing moral to a transaction with non-person entities is frail itself. Does moral even apply here? What does it mean?

I bet you'd be ready to apply moral concepts to Amazon if Amazon deliberately ripped you off.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#377

Post by tripzilch »

donkeyd wrote: post #316
sagebird wrote: post #239

It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it. On the other hand, if the matter is reversed, Amazon is expected to be a good sport and take the loss — even if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) I’m not going to en…

In the Netherlands, two similar cases went to court and judges have ruled that the selling party does not have to deliver in such a case. Dutch sources here: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisati... https://www.techzine.nl/nieuws/42639/otto-hoeft-goedkope-lcd...

Thanks, I was wondering and half-expected such a thing to be the case in NL.

Note that the customer also has a 14 day window to return their (unopened) bag of M&Ms when ordered online.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#378

Post by stef25 »

tobr wrote: post #337
gwd wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW Audible emails me every month to tell me have a new credit available. Possibly put in place after your experience; but it seems more like just "keeping people engaged in our service" is a better way to sustain subscriptions than hoping people forget about it. And, not to victim-blame here, but I can't quite understand your response to mysterious charges that appear on your card every month. I try to understand w…

> FWIW Audible emails me every month to tell me have a new credit available. Perhaps you actually use your Audible account? As I said, they emailed me during the trial, then stopped. They know a certain percentage of users will be unaware of the charges, and they likely prefer to keep it that way. > not to victim-blame here Thanks, but you did just that anyway. I know I could have been more careful. I was responding…

Not sure how Audible works, all I know is I seem to have a never ending supply of free credits. Been using it for years, every time I finish a book they give me more free credits to buy the next book.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#379

Post by rapind »

jrs235 wrote: post #344
kartan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. Secondly, companies does not have morals. If you allow big corporations to change prices as they see fit because there is a "mistake". Companies will exploit that to their advantage with psychopathic precisi…

>if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) >The same behavior would happen with a company with better public trust and respect. And it’s not like anyone is selling those cameras to donate money to a warehouse worker in need. >I just think it’s amazing how frail people’s morality is, how it goes out the window when certain conditions are met. The parent wasn't…

Shit begets shit. If you're buying from a local mom and pop where the owners are part of your community it's far less likely you would take advantage of the situation.

People still return wallets full of money. How are they morally bankrupt?

Amazon is an example of unfettered capitalism, and are seen differently in the eyes of the consumer. Right or wrong, people just don't care about a megacorps well being (and I don't blame them).

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#380

Post by tripzilch »

nickjj wrote: post #375
JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can infer that the "-99%" near the price is weird.

The a6000 is normally $550 and was marked down to $95. That's not a big enough discount to infer it was a price mistake. Especially not when Amazon advertises this as one of the biggest discount days of the year.

And it's quite possible that a Dutch court would rule different in that particular case.
Post reply on HN