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

391–400 of 526 posts

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

#391

Post by bufferoverflow »

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…

That's not true. If you read the SlickDeals forum thread, most people expected Amazon to cancel all these orders. But it looks like they just didn't. And neither did they ask the buyers to return the items.

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

#392

Post by mikeash »

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…

I’m pretty sure everyone expects them to cancel these orders. The reason this is getting so much attention is because they actually honored the price, at least for some customers. Nobody forced them to do that.

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

#393

Post by [deleted] »

foldr wrote: post #372
tripzilch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#394

Post by harshaw »

girvo wrote: post #159
the_reformation wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when literally losing thousands of dollars to honor a price advertised to customers, HN manages to spin's Amazon's actions as somehow duplicitous.

Oh no, Amazon's profit margin! Being less flip: it's a massive corporation, which by default don't really care about consumers happiness directly, just that which is necessary for us to part with our many. I find it hard to have sympathy for said corporation -- especially considering the power that they now wield over modern western society. And it wouldn't be the first time a corporation is duplicitous, that's for s…

Having just spent time overnight dealing with customer pain I can assure that we do care about customer happiness and talk about it every day.

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

#395

Post by tripzilch »

foldr wrote: post #372
tripzilch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but it is undesirable. Which is why we have legal and financial incentives and regulations, to force corporations to behave.

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

#396

Post by EGreg »

foldr wrote: post #372
tripzilch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you will find, one day, is that morality is just the name we give to the system of similar humans dealing with one another.

Everything else is attempts to extrapolate from that.

Many things that are punished if an animal does to a human, are accepted by the billions if humans do to animals.

Many times an adult has a responsibilty a child does not.

The Amazon example is one of the latter kind.

Besides morality there are legal systems. As you get more and more kinds of things, it is expedient to represent corporations as legal entities, but often they are held to a higher standard than just random people. Since a corporation can employ many people and machines, to prepare every sale, they are held to a higher standard for transactions, taxes, reporting, quality of product delivered, and so on. They also have deeper pockets and can take the hit.

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

#397

Post by XorNot »

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…

Amazon is a limited liability corporation. It can lose money and go bankrupt without an ability to recover debts from the actual people running it.

There is absolutely no relevant moral equivalency here.

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

#398

Post by foldr »

tsbertalan wrote: post #383
foldr wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right, and it's not morally wrong for a mosquito to bite you, and no one would say that the bug "should have known better", but we do our best to prevent it anyway. Both entities will go precisely as far as we allow them to.

When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. They only say it when it's convenient for them (i.e., when they want to take advantage of Amazon rather than vice versa).

To compare a company's actions to those of a mosquito strikes me as quite silly. Amazon is run by people who make conscious choices and who are responsible for their actions.

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

#399

Post by _rs »

londons_explore wrote: post #287
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…

I rent cars from a rental company that seems to have a pricing mistake and the prices are $0 for a week's car rental. Sometimes at busy periods, the price goes up to $0.25. I've been doing it for 3 years now, and every time the member of staff at the desk looks at the price and goes "whoa - that's a good deal!". There's no fake names, hacking, or free trials involved - anyone can get the deal by clicking the right bu…

To give some idea of scale, is that a smaller company, or a nationwide chain? Could you say which country?

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

#400

Post by foldr »

EGreg wrote: post #396
foldr wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What you will find, one day, is that morality is just the name we give to the system of similar humans dealing with one another. Everything else is attempts to extrapolate from that. Many things that are punished if an animal does to a human, are accepted by the billions if humans do to animals. Many times an adult has a responsibilty a child does not. The Amazon example is one of the latter kind. Besides morality th…

It's good to know that you've got morality all figured out :)

I don't see any reason why it should be ok for people to knowingly rip Amazon off. There are worse things (by far) that someone can do, but there's no real justification for doing it.

Post reply on HN