5 ms·

They lost my 15$ package and even though they promised refund and a gift card, they never came through. Now I don't use amazon anymore than I really have to.

jacquesm 5y ago
I don't understand that. The 'than I really have to' bit, is Amazon now so entrenched that you can't get around them anymore?
- ghaff 5y ago
  If I were to decide that I wasn't going to use Amazon starting tomorrow, I'd be spending a whole lot more time checking a bunch of online stores, paying for shipping, driving around, etc. So, yes, they are for a lot of things. While I certainly ordered from them pre-pandemic, the pandemic has brought home to me how many things I can just order rather than put on a shopping list and drive around to stores to find and purchase.
  - rvba 5y ago
    It is sad to read that people want a monopoly for a minor convenience. Same with steam (that takes a big money cut and their buggy launcher is awful)
    - ghaff 5y ago
      People don't "want a monopoly." But they do want to order things in a way that is by no means a "minor convenience." Just going back to when Amazon was getting started, finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Today, not spending an hour running errands is not really a minor convenience. Again, I'm good with there being more competition--and, in fact, I order things from multiple places--but Amazon is often the easiest choice.
      - ectopod 5y ago
        > finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Or you could just ask your local store to order it for you and you would have it in a week. It's not like this was an unusual situation.
        ghaff 5y ago
        There was a time when that was definitely not the norm. You looked a book up in a big Books in Print volume and an order could take quite a long time to come in. Yes, the situation improved over time with certain big city bookstores and then Barnes and Noble prior to Amazon. But I can certainly remember a time when getting things generally that weren't in local stock took considerable effort and time.
        beezle 5y ago
        I would be fine ordering from a local store and waiting but not if they are going to charge me full price as if they had to keep stock on the shelves.
        ectopod 5y ago
        Back in the day (round these parts anyway) books were always full price [1]. Nowadays, I'm not going to pay full price to wait for a week either, but there are alternatives to Amazon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    If you don't care too much about the price, the time difference is low: you spend some time looking at an online retailer (maybe typing in your address), but you save the time you would waste searching Amazon for the correct listing amongst all the knockoffs, sent-from-Hong-Kong etc. If you care a lot about the price, you already need to consider other shops, since Amazon isn't necessarily the cheapest anyway. I have ordered one thing from Amazon in the past five years, where the manufacturer only sold to consumers through Amazon.
  - lightcatcher 5y ago
    I've found Walmart.com to be about as good as Amazon for my online shopping (in the US). I particularly find Walmart to be a lot better for some dry goods like cereal and Clif bars. They can mix delivery from their warehouses and from local stores. This is not me shilling Walmart. I've been pleasantly surprised by it in the last year, and find it to be a real competitor to shopping at Amazon.
- yosito 5y ago
  It's a lot easier than not using Google anymore. But the one thing that's hard for me to buy without Amazon is best seller ebooks. There just aren't that many alternative ebook sellers apart from indy books.
- Freestyler_3 5y ago
  Sometimes they have something that I want but other stores that offer it are even shadier and then I use amazon because I know that even though they have crappy customer service, at least they have it. Ordered something twice this year from amazon.

jacquesm 5y ago

I don't understand that. The 'than I really have to' bit, is Amazon now so entrenched that you can't get around them anymore?

ghaff 5y ago
If I were to decide that I wasn't going to use Amazon starting tomorrow, I'd be spending a whole lot more time checking a bunch of online stores, paying for shipping, driving around, etc. So, yes, they are for a lot of things. While I certainly ordered from them pre-pandemic, the pandemic has brought home to me how many things I can just order rather than put on a shopping list and drive around to stores to find and purchase.
- rvba 5y ago
  It is sad to read that people want a monopoly for a minor convenience. Same with steam (that takes a big money cut and their buggy launcher is awful)
  - ghaff 5y ago
    People don't "want a monopoly." But they do want to order things in a way that is by no means a "minor convenience." Just going back to when Amazon was getting started, finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Today, not spending an hour running errands is not really a minor convenience. Again, I'm good with there being more competition--and, in fact, I order things from multiple places--but Amazon is often the easiest choice.
    - ectopod 5y ago
      > finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Or you could just ask your local store to order it for you and you would have it in a week. It's not like this was an unusual situation.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        There was a time when that was definitely not the norm. You looked a book up in a big Books in Print volume and an order could take quite a long time to come in. Yes, the situation improved over time with certain big city bookstores and then Barnes and Noble prior to Amazon. But I can certainly remember a time when getting things generally that weren't in local stock took considerable effort and time.
      - beezle 5y ago
        I would be fine ordering from a local store and waiting but not if they are going to charge me full price as if they had to keep stock on the shelves.
        ectopod 5y ago
        Back in the day (round these parts anyway) books were always full price [1]. Nowadays, I'm not going to pay full price to wait for a week either, but there are alternatives to Amazon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement
- Symbiote 5y ago
  If you don't care too much about the price, the time difference is low: you spend some time looking at an online retailer (maybe typing in your address), but you save the time you would waste searching Amazon for the correct listing amongst all the knockoffs, sent-from-Hong-Kong etc. If you care a lot about the price, you already need to consider other shops, since Amazon isn't necessarily the cheapest anyway. I have ordered one thing from Amazon in the past five years, where the manufacturer only sold to consumers through Amazon.
- lightcatcher 5y ago
  I've found Walmart.com to be about as good as Amazon for my online shopping (in the US). I particularly find Walmart to be a lot better for some dry goods like cereal and Clif bars. They can mix delivery from their warehouses and from local stores. This is not me shilling Walmart. I've been pleasantly surprised by it in the last year, and find it to be a real competitor to shopping at Amazon.
yosito 5y ago
It's a lot easier than not using Google anymore. But the one thing that's hard for me to buy without Amazon is best seller ebooks. There just aren't that many alternative ebook sellers apart from indy books.
Freestyler_3 5y ago
Sometimes they have something that I want but other stores that offer it are even shadier and then I use amazon because I know that even though they have crappy customer service, at least they have it. Ordered something twice this year from amazon.