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

451–460 of 526 posts

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

#451

Post by jtuente »

tripzilch wrote: post #365
bko wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own the stock and can sell it for $2000. If the value of the stock drops to $0 and I can no longer get $2000 for the stock, it would be no different than me losing $2000 cash

Except you did't have $2000 cash because you invested it in Amazon, whose value dropped to $0.

Cash is simply the physical form that the government has deemed legal tender that must be accepted for payment. In the case of countries like 1920s Weimar Republic, that cash can lose value due to hyperinflation in currency trading markets.

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

#452

Post by stronglikedan »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #450
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 don't believe the asymmetry here is because of morals or entitlement. Amazon is the one that advertizes the price. Once it's advertised and a transaction has been completed, that's a contract. That contract includes the possibility of returns because they compete in the retail space, where there is an asymmetry in that the company has had ample opportunity to evaluate the product and price it accordingly, but the c…

Different strokes. I'm sure they were hoping you were one type of person, but willing to take the loss if you weren't.

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

#453

Post by ip26 »

sosuke wrote: post #443
ip26 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah normally I don't care about this or that hot deal, but as a fellow birder seeing the 800mm was a gut punch. (I don't think anyone handholds that one, at least not long)

I've been kicking around ideas on how to save up for one of those L lenses. At $20 a month it would take me about 7 years to save up for the 100-400 model. Maybe getting something used from a lens rental service might be a better shot.

If you're on a tight budget a past-generation model is the most bang for your buck, perhaps the 400mm f/5.6 or an older 300mm f/2.8 plus a teleconverter. I had a 100-400 for a while and I wound up shooting exclusively at 400mm, so it was kind of a waste of weight & cost.

Also, glass is more important than body, but you might be able to get more stops for your money with an updated body, e.g. if your current body is only good to 400 or 800 ISO. IMO on a budget you should get the best f/5.6 setup you can and then look for a body with high ISO.

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

#454

Post by jtuente »

dnial02 wrote: post #339
air7 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting to compare this to religious morals: "Thou shall not steal" has nothing to do with the the victim, only the actor. In secular morality, things are more nuanced and the wealth/likeness/actions of the victim help determine how "bad" the act was. Amazon being large/rich changes things compared to a small m&p shop. See also: Jack and the Beanstalk, Robin Hood.

Interestingly, when I see the wikipedia page, the Jewish interpretation is nothing to do with stealing property, but by stealing person(kidnapping). So the correct translation from Jewish tradition is thou shall not kidnap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_steal

> Nevertheless, this commandment has come to be interpreted, especially in non-Jewish traditions, as the unauthorized taking of private property (stealing or theft), which is a wrongful action already prohibited elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that does not ordinarily incur the death penalty.

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

#455

Post by Vraxx »

foldr wrote: post #398
tsbertalan wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsi…

Also, that comparison is made specifically because companies have no morality and so if we want them to behave in any sort of way approximating our morals, they must be regulated to do so. Those comments are advocating a change in the way companies are treated in order to get them to behave in a more expected manner.

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

#456

Post by jtuente »

gwd wrote: post #333
air7 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting to compare this to religious morals: "Thou shall not steal" has nothing to do with the the victim, only the actor. In secular morality, things are more nuanced and the wealth/likeness/actions of the victim help determine how "bad" the act was. Amazon being large/rich changes things compared to a small m&p shop. See also: Jack and the Beanstalk, Robin Hood.

> "Thou shall not steal" has nothing to do with the the victim, only the actor. But in the context in which "Thou shalt not steal" was written, the punishment had to do with the victim: If you stole something, you had to pay back at least twice as much.

> If you stole something, you had to pay back at least twice as much.

"you" refers to the actor, not the victim. In that context, it also does not specify that it must be restituted to the victim.

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

#457

Post by cr0sh »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #450
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 don't believe the asymmetry here is because of morals or entitlement. Amazon is the one that advertizes the price. Once it's advertised and a transaction has been completed, that's a contract. That contract includes the possibility of returns because they compete in the retail space, where there is an asymmetry in that the company has had ample opportunity to evaluate the product and price it accordingly, but the c…

I had basically the same thing happen to me several years ago, but on hamburger; $1.49/lb for 5 lb? Nope - $1.49 each!

After a cartload at one store; went to another - same. It was system-wide. So I went to a couple more over the next couple of days (I had a large chest freezer at the time).

Finally, about the third day in the discrepancy was noticed and the signs/system changed.

Best "mistake deal" I've gotten so far - but nothing like this camera deal at Amazon.

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

#458

Post by nkrisc »

bko wrote: post #338
throwawaylolx wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This would be wealth destruction no different from simultaneously reaching into every person's wallet and removing some amount of cash and burning it. Unrealised profits are very much different than physical cash.

I own the stock and can sell it for $2000. If the value of the stock drops to $0 and I can no longer get $2000 for the stock, it would be no different than me losing $2000 cash

You'd still own the stock even if it was valued at $0. You didn't lose anything.

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

#459

Post by jtuente »

msiyer wrote: post #349
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…

Morality has no place when dealing with a corporation. Legality is the only thing that counts. >> If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it If it is technically possible, then it is the seller's mistake and the customer deserves a refund. The seller may choose to not undo. The customer may choose to sue them. It is a PR nightmare in today's world.…

> Once the sale is made, it is legally over.

No the sale isn't the final step, delivery of the product is. In this case, Amazon has not delivered the product therefore the transaction is not complete.

To borrow from a sibling post, the chickens in his cart could be considered delivered and paid for making it legally untenable to reverse the transaction.

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

#460

Post by JangoSteve »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #450
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 don't believe the asymmetry here is because of morals or entitlement. Amazon is the one that advertizes the price. Once it's advertised and a transaction has been completed, that's a contract. That contract includes the possibility of returns because they compete in the retail space, where there is an asymmetry in that the company has had ample opportunity to evaluate the product and price it accordingly, but the c…

> They still made the contract - and it was even their lawyers who wrote the contract and spend hours poring over it. If I order truck loads of landscaping material to be delivered to my house and I later learn that it wasn't such a great price, you better believe I'm now stuck with that material and the bill.

At first, I thought you were talking about the general social or implied contract between a retailer and consumer, in the general sense. But if you're talking about the explicitly written contract that the lawyers wrote, which is the Conditions of Use, then the allowance for pricing mistakes is right there in the "Pricing" section of the contract, including a description of what happens in such events:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8...

> With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item.

Post reply on HN