AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#2This article is just a stupid hit piece.
A USB cord is not responsible for detecting short circuits. That's the job of the charger not the cord.
The best cord in the entire universe cannot prevent short circuits.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#3This article is just a stupid hit piece. A USB cord is not responsible for detecting short circuits. That's the job of the charger not the cord. The best cord in the entire universe cannot prevent short circuits.
A short circuit is usually a wiring issue. A poorly manufactured USB cable can certainly cause a short circuit.
Fire investigators are also well versed in the forensic investigation of these scenes. If his expert analysis determined the cord was at fault, there's a good chance it was the cable and not the device.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#4This article is just a stupid hit piece. A USB cord is not responsible for detecting short circuits. That's the job of the charger not the cord. The best cord in the entire universe cannot prevent short circuits.
It is a 5000 word article that talks about multiple classes of products, contextualizes the problem (regulations, competition, history, etc), and discusses possible mitigations.
It is a huge mischaracterization to suggest that this is a hit piece about "USB cords." That was one of half a dozen different electrical products they discussed, and only the jumping off point into a much larger discussion.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#5AmazonBasic == lowest quality cheap Asia-made products
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#6Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of course some Amazon products have caught on fire, Amazon has sold a billion of them. What needs to be provided in this type of reporting is actual estimates of how many of the products may be dangerous, which is of course never provided or even attempted as an estimate.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#7Shopping with Amazon has become increasingly difficult. I can no longer rely on the reviews, and the volume of results that come up for even a simple search make for a lot of searching. Amazon really, really need to stop being the dumpster for cheap and nasty China-manufactured goods. And yes, of course I'm welcome to shop elsewhere if I don't like what's on offer, and that's what I'm increasingly doing. Bezos' loss, but he'll never notice.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#8Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of course some Amazon products have caught on fire, Amazon has sold a billion of them. What needs to be provided in this type of reporting is actual estimates of how many of the products may be dangerous, which is of course never provided or even attempted as an estima…
> Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions
So you're saying articles aren't allowed to criticize manufacturers without proprietary information that only the manufacturer itself has?
A better question might be: Why aren't Amazon publishing the number of units sold relative to number of fires? Instead of putting the journalist trying to cover this with imperfect information into the dock, let's see Amazon defend it.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#9Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of course some Amazon products have caught on fire, Amazon has sold a billion of them. What needs to be provided in this type of reporting is actual estimates of how many of the products may be dangerous, which is of course never provided or even attempted as an estima…
> Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions So you're saying articles aren't allowed to criticize manufacturers without proprietary information that only the manufacturer itself has? A better question might be: Why aren't Amazon publishing the number of units sold relative to number of fires? Instead of putting…
>So you're saying articles aren't allowed to
Nope, I said nothing of what is allowed, and the majority of reports like this will never contain useful statistics regardless. I just said it's not helpful to consumers, because it doesn't actually help them make a better decision when you don't know if the brand is more or less safe than the alternatives.
They could easily write an article about a huge problem someone had with product X. Then consumers instead buy product Y, which could have a higher rate of problems, and the article has done harm instead of good. I can't make a claim about this article, but given they're just written for clicks, it's not like they have the consumer's interests in mind either way.
Re: AmazonBasics Electronics Fire Safety Investigation
#10Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of course some Amazon products have caught on fire, Amazon has sold a billion of them. What needs to be provided in this type of reporting is actual estimates of how many of the products may be dangerous, which is of course never provided or even attempted as an estima…
I disagree with the assertion that this type of article isn't helpful. I would say it's 'not scientific', but not unhelpful.
I don't think Amazon is likely to release those statistics anytime soon, but I'm glad people are talking about this as it may change perception on both sides. Either the consumer sees this article and purchases less 'Amazon Basics' branded products, or someone inside Amazon sees it and decides to do something about it.
Not optimal, but far from unhelpful.