Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by crazygringo 1826 days ago
The article is cherry-picking for sensationalism. Those aren't representative, obviously. And the "there's no rhyme or reason" is the author's (entirely unsupported) opinion, not a fact.

Amazon is a for-profit business. It's not intentionally dumping MacBooks it can resell profitably.

Obviously neither of us knows in this particular circumstance, but one would assume they were damaged enough to not be resellable, that a mistake was made somewhere, or a third-party seller using FBA requested them disposed of for some reason (e.g. an ancient used model there was no more demand for).
1 comments
viraptor 1826 days ago
It's not that's obvious to be honest. We already know that expensive brands will destroy their stock rather than lower prices / allow donations.

This happens with electronics (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2019/06/04/france-ba...), clothes (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bad1ef2e4b09d41eb9f7bb0), food (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-dest...), etc.

link
crazygringo 1826 days ago
Amazon isn't a luxury brand.

And if there are any luxury brands Amazon sells (are there even?) where the brands demanded Amazon return returned items to the brand for destruction... well then it's the brand that's responsible, not Amazon.

Again, Amazon's just out there to make money. It's not going to destroy swathes of merchandise it can easily otherwise make money off of. That kind of goes against the whole profit motive.

link