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

Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 272 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#191

Post by ReverseCold »

mintplant wrote: post #168
rubicon33 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. As a long time prime user, it's been the rise in counterfeit goods that has really shook my unwavering loyalty to Amazon. I used to order everything on there, without thinking twice. Now, I'm much more careful about what I buy on there, and often just avoid purchasing on Amazon entirely.

For me it's been shipping issues. At some point Amazon became really unreliable with their delivery date "guarantees". I've had four separate packages simply not arrive at all, and plenty more that were a few days to a week late. Confusingly, the Amazon app seems to mark a package as "delivered" when the estimated date is reached, regardless of its actual status. When you dig into the tracking information, sometimes…

I also have this problem ~25% of the time on 1 day items. The package comes a day later usually.

Especially annoying when, for example, the last part of my PC was set to arrive one day and I had to wait.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#192

Post by ethbro »

jerdfelt wrote: post #109
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm mystified by this personally. I frequently purchase from Amazon, and haven't(to my knowledge) received counterfeit goods. Generally I stick to "fufilled by Amazon" or otherwise first-party sellers, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe I'm not purchasing niche enough products to run into this issue.

Unfortunately, Amazon does not appear to keep different sellers products separate in the warehouse. All it takes is one seller sending counterfeit products to the warehouse for their inventory to be contaminated by counterfeits. This makes "fulfilled by Amazon" more risky in some respects.

If this is true (and I suppose Amazon's the only one who really knows, absent a supplier orchestrating a test), then I can't believe there wouldn't be grounds for a class action lawsuit.

Because, crucial, Amazon also comingles reviews for the same product.

I'd assume they have boilerplate in their legal agreements that waive rights to do so. But it seems blatantly obvious that if I put a novel item on Amazon, attract great reviews for its high quality, get comingled with counterfeits, have my reviews bombed by pissed off customers, Amazon has materially injured my business through no fault of my own.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#193

Post by lowbloodsugar »

zeteo wrote: post #129
dkural wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't start out with that kind of size. He built it from nothing, with strong competitors like Walmart who had more volume for physical goods that could negotiate better deals with UPS and FedEx for years. AWS is beating Google, Microsoft, etc. Those companies had as much free cash flow and more engineering resources. He has good investor relations because he produces great returns. So, yes, your facts are correc…

And how do you account for survivor bias? I don't think the CEOs of Blackberry or Nokia would have agreed that they cared less about the customer than Jeff Bezos. "Customer obsession" is not actual, actionable advice because it's not even measurable. It's nice rhetoric, but other companies were judged on hard metrics of profits and dividends.

Huh? Nokia and especially Blackberry failed to address "Customer obsession" and just stood in slack jawed denial while an innovative company ate their lunch. e.g. [1]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/rim-ceo-quotes-2011-9

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#194

Post by malandrew »

BurningFrog wrote: post #176
mintplant wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's been shipping issues. At some point Amazon became really unreliable with their delivery date "guarantees". I've had four separate packages simply not arrive at all, and plenty more that were a few days to a week late. Confusingly, the Amazon app seems to mark a package as "delivered" when the estimated date is reached, regardless of its actual status. When you dig into the tracking information, sometimes…

You may also have a package thief.

This is what I suspect. I lived in a condo that was often targeted by thieves due to the known affluence of the condo. So many packages and bikes have been stolen from that building despite being a modern building with two FOB controlled doors. If you live in a nice place or neighborhood, package theft is a fact of life.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#196

Post by elevensies »

lutorm wrote: post #186
elevensies wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they handled it poorly, but there is no way that a passenger's wishes will override the pilot or the airline. They probably thought he would come to his senses when the cops showed up, I think that is where they screwed up, IMO they should have disembarked the rest of the plane and then arrested him in-place. Whether or not bumping him is fair, there is no question about who owns the aircraft and has responsi…

There may not be a question of who owns the aircraft, but there are definitely questions of whether they have a legal right to force someone from whom they have accepted money in exchange for allowing them onto their property merely minutes earlier and who has not in any way violated the contract. People seem to think that flight crew somehow have been ordained with god-given authority to suspend the rule of law aboa…

I think that refusing to leave someone else's private property makes the use of force inevitable. I would expect him to be treated essentially the same if he refused after being asked to leave a bar, a movie theater, someone's home, etc.

I'm not aware of any situation where you can legally be involuntarily strip-searched without being arrested. Maybe by customs but I'm not sure.

Personally, if the flight crew instructed me to strip naked or leave the plane, I would just leave. I can't foresee any situation where I would physically fight the staff for my seat, or recommend anyone else to do so.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#197

Post by petra »

jonnathanson wrote: post #162
petra wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Amazon isn't "customer focused" when it comes to strategic threats - for example Android - and Amazon's response - the Fire phone, Their App Store. So the question is - are low cost goods, coming pretty directly from chinese manufacturers, often counterfeited and sold at a low price a strategic threat to Amazon ? They might, if you look at alibaba, but also on the tendency of capitalistic markets to stabilize on…

As consumers we also have to acknowledge some complicity here. In most categories of products, time and again, American consumers have chosen price and convenience over quality.

Not so sure:

When buying something(say a white good) - how do i know how long it would last and whether it's worth the price ?

And that's information companies hold, but don't share. And it's intentional.

And if Americans could have found product with double the life and only 30% increase in costs - it's a great deal. And it's definitely techically possible, for many products.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#198

Post by Nomentatus »

plandis wrote: post #76
x2f10 wrote: post #66

I might be shunned for beating the dead horse, but while he talks about 'True Customer Obsession', he allows counterfeit goods erode his customer's trust in Amazon. I'd argue Amazon's 'process as proxy' in dealing with counterfeits is the careless return process. 'Oh, it's counterfeit? We're sorry! Here's your money back!' does not solve the issue. Sure, thanks for the $10 back, but now I must think twice (or thrice!…

You're 1.) implying that Amazon isn't actively trying to fix it (otherwise they would be "walking the walk") and 2.) that it's a widespread issue (all I've heard about counterfeit products are from a few HNers)

It's not just counterfeits as in IP violations, but useless goods. It's not at all rare to be burned.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#199

Post by krapp »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #121
devopsproject wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the only barometer that should have some weight is the ease or difficulty that Amazon has in attracting and retaining top talent They have terrible retention. One of the worst and in many years the absolute worst. A few years back workers were passing out from working in 100 degree temps. They were disciplined for performance and instead of installing air conditioning, they lined up ambulances and paramedics to…

To be clear their retention is only bad in the fulfillment centers. Those are generally low skill, low pay, seasonal employees meant for short term stints - of which there is a near infinite supply. For their core engineering, BD etc... teams in Seattle, retention is great.

>Those are generally low skill, low pay, seasonal employees meant for short term stints - of which there is a near infinite supply.

Low skill, yes, low pay, God yes, seasonal - not usually. At least where I am, they aggressively hire for full time positions, and clearly intend for non-temporary employees to consider it as a career. Retention is poor because of the environment and the workload.

And theft. Apparently there's a lot of theft. But that's bound to happen when you surround people with expensive merchandise, work them like dogs and refuse to pay them a decent wage.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#200

Post by bmelton »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #137
dmode wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once tried to purchase a pair of sunglasses from Amazon. That space is littered with counterfeits. The product page proudly proclaimed "Sold by Prada", but if you look carefully it is fulfilled by some shady company. Then you read the comments and realize that this item is not a original Prada item.

> Then you read the comments and realize that this item is not a original Prada item. There is a very interesting discussion in Roberto Saviano's Gomorrah of how major fashion brands produce clothing: First, the brand (e.g. "Calvin Klein") decides what they want - color, cut, material. They go to a bunch of shady Italian clothing manufacturers (the book is about the Italian mafia) and hold an auction to determine the…

> Have I been cheated? Of what?

In theory, you've been cheated of the certainties that tend to go along with brand identity. Calvin Klein, as a brand, is associated with a certain amount of quality, of durability, of accuracy in fit, etc. You've been theoretically cheated of those assurances.

In practice, you may not have been cheated of anything. Generally speaking, the trendline for clothing manufacturers is a rise towards a peak, and then a gradual descent from there. Looping back around to the article, Bezos would refer to them as "Day 1" companies while they're still proving themselves, ensuring quality and fitness, and "Day 2" companies thereafter, once they've attained enough brand recognition that they can coast on their laurels. In many cases, quality goes down, fit and finish suffer, and, of course, margins go up.

Post reply on HN