3 ms·
I do agree, but I don't think it was undeserved. They had a chance to replace a device that was considerably less durable than advertised, but refused to do so.
by _dan 17y ago
I do agree, but I don't think it was undeserved. They had a chance to replace a device that was considerably less durable than advertised, but refused to do so.
Judging by other reports in this thread (and other good things I've heard about Amazon's customer service), there's a decent chance they would have replaced it if he'd feigned ignorance and claimed it "just stopped working" - which means he told the truth from the outset.
His offer of a $400 settlement seems like a very reasonable number (I assume he had to pay to replace the ebooks he'd bought for it, plus the time without the device, and the $200 he'd paid for the replacement).
The only mistakes were on Amazon's part: selling an unreasonably delicate product, presenting evidence that supposedly proved its durability, and failing to replace it when it didn't live up to their claims.
A replacement device plus $200 seems very fair to me.
- madair 17y agoCompanies try to make tough products. They want to show that they tried for and tested for such things. All you're asking for is more fine print. Fine print makes America stoopid. (Don't stick your head in this bucket, you might drown.)
- pyre 17y agoNo offense, but if a company advertises a product as 'can survive a 4ft drop unharmed!' but it completely breaks after I accidentally drop it 2ft... Something is seriously off. It has less to do with fine print and more to do with trust in advertising.
- paulbaumgart 17y agoIf he mentioned how long he'd owned the Kindle before he broke it, I didn't catch it. But, assuming it was a while, I can imagine over time it becoming less fall-proof as it gets knocked around. The Kindles dropped in the videos were presumably brand new.