6 ms·

Well I didn't say it was a huge deal necessarily. Just not totally clean. Perhaps fraud was a bad choice of words and I changed it. And I agree it's a very inte

Well I didn't say it was a huge deal necessarily. Just not totally clean. Perhaps fraud was a bad choice of words and I changed it. And I agree it's a very interesting hack. I don't necessarily agree that a shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. I think that they should meet whatever the agreement was. If the agreement is "we'll try super hard not to break stuff" and they're clearly not holding up their side of the bargain when it comes to bikes, then sure, changing the picture is fair game. If the agreement is "we'll pay for anything that breaks", then they should determine how careful they want to be, since they're footing the bill for it. Making that determination for them by changing the picture, I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up.

c22 10y ago
I think it's ethically questionable to carelessly break things people are waiting for just because the thing is perceived to have low monetary value. The shipping company may have to eat the dollar cost of the item, but the cost to the sender and receiver in time and hassle is non-negligible.
- 21 10y ago
  I don't think it's about the monetary value. Your typical bike is more expensive than your typical TV (but your average shipping guy might think all bikes cost like the super-market ones) I think it's just the perception that bikes are "rough" and that they can take a beating. Which is true, but only when fully assembled and driven on road/terrain, not when you bang at it from the side.
khedoros 10y ago
> I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So: Does their agreement say that the bike company will accurately represent their product on their packaging? If the bike company's holding up their end of whatever agreement they have, then there's nothing the least bit questionable about what they're doing.

c22 10y ago

I think it's ethically questionable to carelessly break things people are waiting for just because the thing is perceived to have low monetary value. The shipping company may have to eat the dollar cost of the item, but the cost to the sender and receiver in time and hassle is non-negligible.

21 10y ago
I don't think it's about the monetary value. Your typical bike is more expensive than your typical TV (but your average shipping guy might think all bikes cost like the super-market ones) I think it's just the perception that bikes are "rough" and that they can take a beating. Which is true, but only when fully assembled and driven on road/terrain, not when you bang at it from the side.

khedoros 10y ago

> I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So: Does their agreement say that the bike company will accurately represent their product on their packaging? If the bike company's holding up their end of whatever agreement they have, then there's nothing the least bit questionable about what they're doing.