5 ms·

+1 the point of their algorithm not putting sellers in the buy box that offer their product elsewhere cheaper is the problem they should absolutely be ruled to

+1 the point of their algorithm not putting sellers in the buy box that offer their product elsewhere cheaper is the problem they should absolutely be ruled to stop that practice by a court. Nobody can make an argument for how that is possibly GOOD for competition and the consumer.

murgindrag 5y ago
As a consumer, I've been !@#$%'ed a few times when I've bought from Amazon and didn't notice it was a 3rd party seller with their own shipping method. One time, I was !@#$% to the tune of a few hundred bucks. Amazon can do more QC if it goes through them.
- the_local_host 5y ago
  I don't know why you're getting downvoted, this is my experience as well. It's to the point where if it doesn't ship from Amazon, I don't buy it. The last thing I accidentally bought from a non-Amazon shipper arrived in a semi-destroyed box, inside a too-small bubble-wrap envelope, apparently shipped from someone's condominium (I guess they bought in bulk and repackaged?)
  - mattmcknight 5y ago
    Absolutely. I'd pay more if I could look at Amazon without any of the third party garbage.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Probably "buyer beware", if you're buying something that expensive then you should look around and not just assume Amazon has the lowest price.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      It is not always that simple. Part of the arbitrage can be generic things from aliexpress bought in bulk and shipped from china over 8-10 weeks. The mark up on amazon is partly the fact that the long ship time has already been done.
  - random42_ 5y ago
    I guess they bought in bulk and repackaged? I know somebody who sells stuff at Amazon as a third-party seller. It’s a common strategy to do exactly that: find items that are selling for more than the local store, buy it from the local store and sell it on Amazon. There’s more to it for selecting which products to sell but this is basically how it works. There are people selling courses teaching these things.
    - rizwank 5y ago
      Retail arbitrage.
    - eigenvector 5y ago
      Search for any Costco-exclusive item on Amazon and you'll find exactly this strategy at work, complete with 300% markups on the Costco price.
      - crooked-v 5y ago
        It's also common for Ikea items, in part because Ikea puts a minimum $50 delivery fee on most items, with no option for parcel shipping.
  - cerved 5y ago
    probably because there's a lot of anal downvoters on HN
- kelnos 5y ago
  I'm confused. You somehow clicked through the order summary and confirmation pages without noticing that the total included unexpected hundreds of dollars in shipping fees?
  - derefr 5y ago
    Sellers can avoid charging you import duties up front, instead saying to the logistics company that the import duties are COD. The logistics company them pays the import duties themselves as a “loan”, sends you the package, and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the “loan” + a “convenience fee.” A few months back, my partner ordered some books from Taiwan. The books — including nominal “shipping” — were $20; the logistics provider’s bill for the “convenience” of handling our import duties for us, when the seller neglected to do so, was $40. The worst thing is that there’s no way under an individual shipping recipient account to declare that you want to pay these fees in advance instead (such that there’s no “loan”) or to reject shipment at point of origin if the shipper tries to pull this on you. This is because the “recipient pays” logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, that do both shipping and receiving, and operate without much cash flow, to allow them to postpone the costs of receiving orders until they’ve sold (and profited on) the same goods to others. It’s supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the "loan" + a "convenience fee". So mail the bill back with a (obviously-)form letter to the effect of "I did not agree to pay this, whoever told you I would has defrauded you, feel free to send me a letter at this address if you want me to testify against them in court."? > the "recipient pays" logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, > It's supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance. Sounds like evidence/precedent that they're using this mechanism intentionally fraudulently, rather than out of a mistaken belief that you'd actually want that.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  Reason I always check the seller first these days,
- Thorrez 5y ago
  I'm my view, the argument isn't that stuff bought on Amazon shouldn't be allowed to be shipped by Amazon. It's that Amazon shouldn't be able to force sellers to set a certain price when they sell on Walmart.com . I don't see any consumer benefit from Amazon forcing sellers to change their Walmart.com prices.
bonzini 5y ago
You could argue that it's good for the customer, in that the customer won't see offers that are less convenient than what is available elsewhere. In practice sellers will just update prices on the other markets.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  Perhaps in the short term. But the capitalist notion of buyer/seller/market, with government as referee, gets wobbly when a seller buys the market. It's almost as though Amazon behaves with impunity toward the market, having already purchased the referee.
varispeed 5y ago
They should also be required to return all fees few years back. If that would bankrupt them, then so be it.

murgindrag 5y ago

As a consumer, I've been !@#$%'ed a few times when I've bought from Amazon and didn't notice it was a 3rd party seller with their own shipping method. One time, I was !@#$% to the tune of a few hundred bucks. Amazon can do more QC if it goes through them.

the_local_host 5y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, this is my experience as well. It's to the point where if it doesn't ship from Amazon, I don't buy it. The last thing I accidentally bought from a non-Amazon shipper arrived in a semi-destroyed box, inside a too-small bubble-wrap envelope, apparently shipped from someone's condominium (I guess they bought in bulk and repackaged?)
- mattmcknight 5y ago
  Absolutely. I'd pay more if I could look at Amazon without any of the third party garbage.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Probably "buyer beware", if you're buying something that expensive then you should look around and not just assume Amazon has the lowest price.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    It is not always that simple. Part of the arbitrage can be generic things from aliexpress bought in bulk and shipped from china over 8-10 weeks. The mark up on amazon is partly the fact that the long ship time has already been done.
- random42_ 5y ago
  I guess they bought in bulk and repackaged? I know somebody who sells stuff at Amazon as a third-party seller. It’s a common strategy to do exactly that: find items that are selling for more than the local store, buy it from the local store and sell it on Amazon. There’s more to it for selecting which products to sell but this is basically how it works. There are people selling courses teaching these things.
  - rizwank 5y ago
    Retail arbitrage.
  - eigenvector 5y ago
    Search for any Costco-exclusive item on Amazon and you'll find exactly this strategy at work, complete with 300% markups on the Costco price.
    - crooked-v 5y ago
      It's also common for Ikea items, in part because Ikea puts a minimum $50 delivery fee on most items, with no option for parcel shipping.
- cerved 5y ago
  probably because there's a lot of anal downvoters on HN
kelnos 5y ago
I'm confused. You somehow clicked through the order summary and confirmation pages without noticing that the total included unexpected hundreds of dollars in shipping fees?
- derefr 5y ago
  Sellers can avoid charging you import duties up front, instead saying to the logistics company that the import duties are COD. The logistics company them pays the import duties themselves as a “loan”, sends you the package, and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the “loan” + a “convenience fee.” A few months back, my partner ordered some books from Taiwan. The books — including nominal “shipping” — were $20; the logistics provider’s bill for the “convenience” of handling our import duties for us, when the seller neglected to do so, was $40. The worst thing is that there’s no way under an individual shipping recipient account to declare that you want to pay these fees in advance instead (such that there’s no “loan”) or to reject shipment at point of origin if the shipper tries to pull this on you. This is because the “recipient pays” logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, that do both shipping and receiving, and operate without much cash flow, to allow them to postpone the costs of receiving orders until they’ve sold (and profited on) the same goods to others. It’s supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the "loan" + a "convenience fee". So mail the bill back with a (obviously-)form letter to the effect of "I did not agree to pay this, whoever told you I would has defrauded you, feel free to send me a letter at this address if you want me to testify against them in court."? > the "recipient pays" logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, > It's supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance. Sounds like evidence/precedent that they're using this mechanism intentionally fraudulently, rather than out of a mistaken belief that you'd actually want that.
markus_zhang 5y ago
Reason I always check the seller first these days,
Thorrez 5y ago
I'm my view, the argument isn't that stuff bought on Amazon shouldn't be allowed to be shipped by Amazon. It's that Amazon shouldn't be able to force sellers to set a certain price when they sell on Walmart.com . I don't see any consumer benefit from Amazon forcing sellers to change their Walmart.com prices.

bonzini 5y ago

You could argue that it's good for the customer, in that the customer won't see offers that are less convenient than what is available elsewhere. In practice sellers will just update prices on the other markets.

smitty1e 5y ago
Perhaps in the short term. But the capitalist notion of buyer/seller/market, with government as referee, gets wobbly when a seller buys the market. It's almost as though Amazon behaves with impunity toward the market, having already purchased the referee.

varispeed 5y ago

They should also be required to return all fees few years back. If that would bankrupt them, then so be it.