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

431–440 of 526 posts

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

#431

Post by sagebird »

paulintrognon wrote: post #275
Sherl wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that you or me need to pay for those costs(losses) somehow?

We are aleardy paying /have already paid for those. The margin Amazon makes is (way) bigger than the losses they just had. So all the previous buyers that gave Amazon money and contributed to those margins "paid" for those cost, I think.

Dollars don’t really maintain identity when they are grouped into accounts and later withdrawn. There are different ways to do accounting, fifo, lifo etc, it’s mostly a construction ( though it is necessary to be consistent), not exactly “real”.

I would be less concerned about who paid for it, and more concerned on who would receive an effect as a result.

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

#432

Post by skizm »

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…

The only reason they will "let you undo it" (buying something for $500 instead of $5) is because goodwill is hard to buy and doesn't cost them anything in this case. It isn't like the company is "being moral" or anything like that, it's just marketing. Same with eating the cost here. They might have some legal recourse to get the items back or the money, but at the of the day, some amazon analysts are doing a math problem and trying to determine if they will lose more money (from bad press) than they will by just eating the cost. Morality doesn't come into either of these situations.

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

#433

Post by [deleted] »

def_true_false wrote: post #419
danbruc wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you start going down this line of arguments, then you also have to take into account the abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most, and that sort of thing. Also Amazon could easily add - in case it does not already exist - a policy to its terms and conditions that explicitly states that…

> abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most How is this considered abuse at all? The EU even mandates a 14 day return window for online shopping since you don't get to try stuff on or see the item like you would in a physical store.

[deleted]

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

#434

Post by DINKDINK »

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…

>asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement.

What does morality have anything to do with the market expectation of "When I shop with firm X I want to have a good experience"?

If a consumer has to always second guess whether or not a seller will try to clawback their goods because they miscalculated their asking price, that's a horrible consumer experience. If I want to contract with a firm (say a credit provider such as a credit card network) that will defend me if I signal I'm going to default on a payment because I'm unhappy with a price, the market can sort those needs, desires, actions properly.

I'm pretty sure the free advertising Amazon is getting from this "gaff" (Was it a gaff? was it guerilla marketing?) and the customer loyalty they gain if they provide "When you shop with the Amazon firm you have a great experience" will be worth it.

Markets don't survive because they adhere to a mosaic of subjective beliefs about morality, they survive because people uphold their commitments.

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

#435

Post by moate »

readhn wrote: post #388
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…

"Companies are not human beings" I beg to differ... Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).

"Human beings" =/="personhood".

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

#436

Post by shawnz »

oarsinsync wrote: post #413
shawnz wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The customer taking advantage of a mistake to receive an unfair deal and Amazon not paying taxes are more or less the same behavior. Disagree. Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfill their fiduciary duty. You might say that tax avoidance isn't in the spirit of the law but then why don't lawmakers implement mitigations for it? Because they don't want to,…

> Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfil their fiduciary duty Any precedent where shareholders have successfully sued a company for failing to exploit legal tax avoidance strategies would be appreciated. Otherwise, "forced and obligated" feels a bit of a stretch.

Forced because of their competitors. Obligated for legal reasons.

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

#437

Post by michaelt »

ryanmercer wrote: post #374
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…

>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".

I have Steam sales offering me games with 90% off, Groupon offering me 88% off a gym membership, and a local perpetually-going-out-of-business menswear shop offering me 90% off everything. Amazon themselves advertise used books priced from £0.01!

Admittedly, many camera enthusiasts probably knew the market rate for this sort of equipment - but the fact something has a 90% discount doesn't automatically prove it's mispriced.

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

#438

Post by myko »

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…

> how morality is shit these days.

This sort of implies morality was better in the past. Do you believe that?

I am not suggesting today's morality is good but it seems like an improvement over the history of humanity to me.

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

#439

Post by gamblor956 »

shawnz wrote: post #436
oarsinsync wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfil their fiduciary duty Any precedent where shareholders have successfully sued a company for failing to exploit legal tax avoidance strategies would be appreciated. Otherwise, "forced and obligated" feels a bit of a stretch.

Forced because of their competitors. Obligated for legal reasons.

Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments.

The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.

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

#440

Post by merpnderp »

rapind wrote: post #379
jrs235 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 do…

What is unfettered capitalism? The "unfettered" part leads me to believe this is a pejorative. Wikipedia redirects to economic liberalism, which is just free markets in opposition to planned economies. Is there anyone even remotely serious who thinks planned economies are superior? Is there a planned economy in the world that isn't in tattered ruins, impoverishing its people in the most hideous and evil fashion, while literally stealing its pittance of wealth for a few dozen autocrats in charge of the government?
Post reply on HN