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

471–480 of 526 posts

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

#471

Post by ryanmercer »

XorNot wrote: post #404
ryanmercer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

Am I missing something here? A $1200 markdown isn't impossibly large.

It's a 1200$ markdown on a 1300$ item.

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

#472

Post by cloakandswagger »

FiberBundle wrote: post #340
bko wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is a corporation, essentially a legal structure meant to encompass a group of investors. Investors range from its founder Jeff Bezos to small investors holding Amazon shares in pension funds and 401ks. You too can buy one share of Amazon for ~$2000 or invest in a low cost ETF that would own Amazon. The value of the stock is driven partly by expectation of future earnings. If Amazon were to lose future earnings…

I don't think Amazon's stock going to $0 would necessarily entail wealth destruction. The money doesn't just disappear, people who have sold at the high have profited. Wealth destruction only happens when credit is involved.

If you're confused by the downvotes, it's because the stock market is not a zero-sum game. This is a common misconception about equities. The stock market can both create and destroy wealth because it is not a zero-sum game.

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

#473

Post by ryanmercer »

michaelt wrote: post #437
ryanmercer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 mis…

Software which is infinitely reproducible for (effectively) free once it is made, is a lot different than high end lenses and very complicated cameras with costly electronics and worked optical glass.

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

#474

Post by la_barba »

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.

A friend of my wife is a studio photographer (in the US) and she was banned from several high end stores because she used to buy tons of clothes for a model shoot, and then return them when done. Occasionally she would keep one or two items she liked. I would tend to agree that this is abuse. I think now she rents them ...

> 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.

Hmm, I think the product must be unused and unworn for you to return it. I might be misremembering though..

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

#475

Post by Verdex »

la_barba wrote: post #462
Verdex wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. Wi…

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction.

The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money.

I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise didn't hold it against him. He was much more polite than a person with a gun has to be. And I could afford gas at $4 a gallon (as it was at the time) where he couldn't (credit cards showed him immediately going an filling up at a gas station).

If a rich guy had mugged me, I think I would have been a bit more upset about the experience.

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

#476

Post by yathern »

nahtnam wrote: post #134
acid__ wrote: post #123

I got in on this! I got a Sony A7R II and a 24-70 2.8 II I'd always wanted but could never justify the purchase of. ($~3k value for $200) A few observations: - Despite the extraordinary deal we got, my friends (who also made a purchase) and I all have our joy offset by a feeling of regret that we didn't order more. Greed! - Despite the fact that I couldn't justify the purchase before I owned them, I now definitely do…

Damn! I got the A6000 for $100, but I wish I got the A7R instead :( I guess that falls under observation 1

I just bought one two weeks ago.... I could've gotten it so much cheaper, or gotten a better camera haha

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

#477

Post by [deleted] »

zaroth wrote: post #429
oarsinsync wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, but I do note in an app every time I make a transaction, and on which account it was charged to. At the end of the statement month, I can compare totals, and if they match, I don't need to review anything else. Maintaining any kind of budget requires tracking spending, so this isn't really a big deal if you practice any kind of proactive financial management.

It sounds like you are saying you essentially keep your own personal ledger of every charge you make, and then reconcile the total against the statement each month. When I did this using MS Money or Quicken years ago, it took so much time to reconcile each month that I eventually gave up. And that was with automatically downloading transactions! The idea that you could do this in a notes app and actually end up with…

[deleted]

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

#478

Post by ajhurliman »

Verdex wrote: post #475
la_barba wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction. The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money. I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise…

I think if you had actually experienced both situations you would be less shaken by the robbery from a rich person because you might have had less confidence that they would actually shoot you.

This doesn't change the post hoc moral reasoning, but it night have incurred less impact on you.

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

#479

Post by hombre_fatal »

ironSkillet wrote: post #7

My favorite ecommerce glitch was a guitar center coupon for $50 off being usable an unlimited number of times. I didn't push my luck and only applied it a few times. Surprisingly they honored it and I got a bunch of miscellaneous guitar accessories for free.

When Bing launched, they had a deal that you get 15% off retailer orders if you buy an item after landing on that page from the Bing search results.

Ebay was one of their partners. I Bing'ed "1oz gold coin," clicked into Ebay listings, and bought a bunch of gold for 15% off that I immediately resold.

They quickly added more restrictions to the promotion.

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

#480

Post by TallGuyShort »

JangoSteve wrote: post #460
TallGuyShort wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

And that seems perfectly reasonable to me[1]. One of the main examples in the article actually shows they got to the point of shipping, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of outrage at any response (or even a response) from Amazon.

[1] edit: and I'll admit I hadn't actually read the contract myself. I do when (a) I think there's actually a reasonable chance I'll walk away from the transaction rather than just risk losing $15 because I'm not satisfied, and (b) when the company bears some cost due to the complexity of the contract - like when they're standing there waiting for me to say I've read and understood it. I think it's problematic that almost no one reads what they're agreeing to, and everyone knows that, and we're all just okay with it. No idea how we fix that, but so long as we're talking about asymmetries in these transactions, the effort companies put into these contracts that they know perfectly well almost no one is reading scares me more than handling of price discrepancies.

Post reply on HN