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

Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 363 posts

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#131

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

p1necone wrote: post #20
ethanwillis wrote: post #9

The merchants must navigate a largely automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent process in which Amazon serves as judge and jury. Their emails and calls can go unanswered, or Amazon's replies are incomprehensible, making sellers suspect they're at the mercy of algorithms with little human oversight. This is something our modern society was and is not ready for. Bureaucracy and the bureaucrats that administered it is a…

I've had a similar experience with Uber customer support. Their navigation thinks there's access to my house from a road that isn't actually connected, so delivery drivers consistently go the wrong way. But emailing customer support just got me seemingly automated responses saying "we're sorry the location pin was not in the right place" which isn't even the problem that I'm having.

Same situation here. I've submitted screenshots and details to Uber support, nothing has changed.

Now I send a text to each driver, watch the map like a hawk and call them if it looks like they're going the wrong way. Works most of the time.

When it doesn't, I get refunds, Uber can keep eating those costs until they fix their routing.

I've also started using their competitors more often, and bypassing these apps entirely and ordering directly from restaurants that employ their own drivers.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#132

Post by kortilla »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #97
Areading314 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Walmart is the textbook example of a monopsonist being able to extract steady profits while creating a race-to-the-bottom for prices among their suppliers. Great for end customers, but harmful nonetheless.

Great for end customers at first, but then what are you left with.

Still great? Walmart prices are still low/lowest where I live.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#133

Post by DoreenMichele »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #125
DoreenMichele wrote: post #78

Yeah, you know, when people keep saying "You aren't as far from being homeless as you imagine you are" this is what they mean. Just because your life has not come unraveled overnight doesn't mean it can't for reasons beyond your control having nothing to do with personal virtues or lack thereof. We really need to get universal health care in the US, among other things, to limit how far people can fall when something…

While fatal disasters can happen to anyone, this story isn't a case of getting in trouble regardless of personal virtues. The man put all his eggs in one basket, creating a single point of failure. When that failure actually happened, he was hosed. How would the story play out if he kept part of his inventory outside of the "Fulfilled by Amazon" system, or even outside of Amazon altogether? He wouldn't lose all of it…

That amounts to Monday Morning Quarterbacking and blaming the victim.

The way to become rich is to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. -- Andrew Carnegie

When it works, it works. When it doesn't, it doesn't.

Paul Graham has said that a successful startup "does everything right and also wins the proverbial lottery" (or something along those lines). In other words, you can do everything right and something can happen out of the blue that no one predicted and you are screwed. If you actually get rich, you did everything right and luck was with you instead of against you.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#134

Post by Symbiote »

laurent92 wrote: post #91
anakaine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they fail here in Aus. Something something tall poppy syndrome. Local retail first.

Retail prices are very high in Australia. I specifically remember only finding mountaineering carabineers, at $35 AUD at the time (23 EUR at the time) when they’re 8 euros in France. Same goes shoes, tshirts or kettles. Maybe the absence of large-chain competitors plays a role in cost of life being quite high. Then again, as a country, Australia would be free in deciding that it should only be affordable to people wh…

There is absolutely no way I'd buy such critical equipment as a carabiner from Amazon, with all the problems they have with counterfeit goods.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#135

Post by fredophile »

ethanwillis wrote: post #110
fredophile wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't tell they're fake by inspection how did the complaining customers identify them as fake?

There's a few assumptions here. I'd say the assumptions are that 1. Amazon knows the fakes, if they exist, came specifically from this seller. I doubt this because of their comingling problems. 2. That the threshold of complaints required to initiate this type of action is a reasonable one. And furthermore that the complaints are valid. It could be a matter of a few 3rd party competitors, it could be the original who…

I think you accidentally replied to the wrong comment.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#136

Post by kriro »

Areading314 wrote: post #64
bredren wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart was long known for its strong arming of its suppliers. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there glad to see Amazon beating them. https://www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-dont-know

Yes Walmart is the textbook example of a monopsonist being able to extract steady profits while creating a race-to-the-bottom for prices among their suppliers. Great for end customers, but harmful nonetheless.

I don't agree Walmart would make for a textbook example. I'd argue they were/are not even a monopsonist with regard to their suppliers. They might be a strong regional force but they have failed (or chosen) to move out of their regional power position. That's not a bad thing and in fact is a strength. I'm pretty sure they were cited as an example of good strategy for exactly that in "Competition Demistified" but don't have the book with me right now.

However, in the day and age of modern logistics I'd argue that their suppliers could have sold to other customers in other states.

Ultimately I suppose it depends on how we define a market (ultra regional or wider) and how high the transaction costs (+other extra costs) of the suppliers would be to move to another customer. The classical example in "The Economics of Imperfect Competition" was the labor force in a small town (mining iirc., once again not at my bookshelf). I suppose that would give precedent to the fact that small markets "count". However most studies on the topic I am aware of are about labor not supply/demand structures. And I'd argue it is "easier" for a supplier to move their wares to another customer than for a (specialized) worker to move to another company (uproot family etc.).

Additionally some of the suppliers of Walmart are in pretty strong negotiating positions themselves (Unilever etc.).

At least there's enough doubt in my mind to say Walmart's supplier relations are "a textbook example of a monopsonist".

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#137

Post by didibus »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #26
shajznnckfke wrote: post #16

There are a lot of complaints about allegedly fake merchandise on Amazon and people asking for a crackdown. This is what the other side of that story looks like. The old solution of Amazon mostly ignoring the fakes and just compensating people who complain avoids this scenario.

>The old solution of Amazon mostly ignoring the fakes and just compensating people who complain avoids this scenario. Being a proper retailer and sourcing goods from reputable sources, performing quality control, and then reselling them to the public without the commingling nonsense also avoids this scenario.

Not really though, cause then as a small retailer, you still have no way to compete. Nobody is going to buy "real" Hugo Boss from some random fishy small website.

So Amazon is both a blessing and a curse to small retailers I feel.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#138

Post by BorisTheBrave »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #133
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While fatal disasters can happen to anyone, this story isn't a case of getting in trouble regardless of personal virtues. The man put all his eggs in one basket, creating a single point of failure. When that failure actually happened, he was hosed. How would the story play out if he kept part of his inventory outside of the "Fulfilled by Amazon" system, or even outside of Amazon altogether? He wouldn't lose all of it…

That amounts to Monday Morning Quarterbacking and blaming the victim. The way to become rich is to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. -- Andrew Carnegie When it works, it works. When it doesn't, it doesn't. Paul Graham has said that a successful startup "does everything right and also wins the proverbial lottery" (or something along those lines). In other words, you can do everything right an…

Yes, it's a high risk strategy. Most people are more risk averse than that and don't follow this sort of strategy. Thus, they do not become bankrupt, or rich, in the same way as this man.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#139

Post by didibus »

adinisom wrote: post #75
shajznnckfke wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does comingling have to do with it? Apparently Amazon was able to destroy this seller’s merchandise specifically, so it doesn’t sound like there was a problem identifying it among commingled inventory. I’m getting the impression from the comments here that a lot of people just have an axe to grind about commingling even if there’s no clear connection to the issue at hand (people do seem to bring it up on all sor…

Comingling means the buyer can't vet the seller so it's entirely on Amazon to ensure the goods aren't counterfeit. As you say, Amazon was able to identify the merchant specifically but wasn't able to determine whether the goods are genuine. If the goods weren't comingled, this would be less Amazon's problem and the goods wouldn't be in Amazon's warehouse so at least the seller would still have his inventory if Amazon…

Actually Amazon knows precisely what items was shipped and if it came directly from the merchant or if they used some other merchants for the delivery (aka comingled). So when a buyer complains about an item, they know if it is the merchant's item or some other merchant's item.

Comingled doesn't mean that they just bunch them all up in some bin and then can't tell which is which and where they were from. It means that if some warehouse closer to the buyer has a similar item, they'll ship that one, because shipping will be cheaper and faster coming from the closest fulfilment center.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#140

Post by LoSboccacc »

we had a similar experience moving item off smaller platform. it's a constant barrage of counterfeit claims, even if we sold 1 (one) item, we racked up 10 complaints in a month.

it's a very profitable model to keep small competitors operations out of the system, so of course it's abused to hell and back.

Post reply on HN