Hacker News Reader

> A set of plastic bumpers inside the marked box. I get it: these hold the relatively gentle device in place while it's shipped. The bumpers are clearly intended for only a single use: they're shaped to fit only the particular device I bought. Why haven't we developed reusable dampeners that can fit a variety of products and used repeatedly?

Because those would be harder to make and more expensive and likely work worse, and the benefit would go to some third party, not the company selling it. You could legislate it, but otherwise I don't see companies spending the extra money and time willingly.

> and the benefit would go to some third party

This is the key. Incentives matter.

People like to think that the market is some state of nature; it isn't. It is shaped by the legal and cultural environment like any other human practice.

If you want reusable hard drive bumpers, modify the environment to make doing so in the best interests of the companies using them.

There are moldable bumpers/foam for this application. The foams can also be made from bio materials such as mycelium (which can actually be grown/entrained to shape) or that puffy corn starch that can replace “packing peanuts.”

Combine with cardboard and paper tape and you’ve got a pretty well compostable shipping container. Landfill neutral.

That's answering a different question, which is how to get away from foam to better materials. The question asked was why aren't they shipping reusable bumpers, which is because there's a market disincentive to, since it costs more, works worse, and doesn't help the company that makes/ships with it.

It would take to long to answer all of those, so let's just look at the first point.

> An unmarked cardboard box. Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse? It should be a Pelican-style container that is used to deliver a shipment, and immediately returned for reuse.

How much does a Pelican case weigh compared to a cardboard box? It probably weighs more than the cardboard box and the purchased item inside. So, you're literally doubling the weight of everything being shipped. Then, you want to return that case to the sender, so now you're not only doubling the weight, but you're doubling the number of items being shipped, and therefore doubling the shipping cost for the consumer.

What's the environmental impact of a cardboard box compared to a Pelican case? I don't know these numbers, but even if we somehow forget about the extra weight, shipping, and fuel, you literally might need to reuse that Pelican case tens of thousands of times before it has a positive impact over a cardboard box. Would it get lost or need to be repaired from damages in tens of thousands of shipments? I almost guarantee it.

That being said, I agree we should be asking more questions and looking for ways to improve recycling.

Almost all of those can be answered by imagining the worst case scenario when your one device is put into a container with everything else. I just made a comment elsewhere in this thread about the same concerns, but in short, your one device could be put under something big and heavy that is leaking fluids. So your thin cardboard with the specs was the packaging put together to inform the consumer what the object is, because making separate packaging for retails shelves vs. online ordering is not realistic. But everything else is preventing damage along the way.

So yes, you are correct - standardized boxes that protect their contents, and all fit nicely together while shipping, and also are returnable would be great. Or... Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc could just handle those outer layers of protection themselves. Hopefully the added cost of doing so is offset by the re-use you get from them. Either way, if somebody set up such a system, there would be no reason all those layers need to get to the final recipient of a package.

> making separate packaging for retails shelves vs. online ordering is not realistic

They do do this on a small scale for some items, that's essentially what frustration free packaging is. According to their blurb page about it they work with manufacturers to get different packaging which sounds like they're not doing the worst case scenario I thought which would be just shucking the retail packaging and adding their own.

> * An unmarked cardboard box. Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse? It should be a Pelican-style container that is used to deliver a shipment, and immediately returned for reuse.

Is the extra fuel required to transport these reusable boxes and to recollect them equal to the amount expended just creating a new cardboard box? Cardboard isn't particularly resource intensive (it can be made from fast growth planted trees). Can your reusable box collapse? If it can't collapse it would take double the amount of truck stops to deliver a single good because it would take exactly as much space to return as it did to deliver.

> * An thinner marked cardboard box advertising the device's features and specs. Why was this necessary? I already know what I ordered: I don't need to be further convinced that this is in fact the right thing.

Amazon does have their 'frustration free packaging' which does essentially what you want. They work with the manufacturer to box things differently for sale through Amazon where there's no need to box and entice customers.

> * A set of plastic bumpers inside the marked box. I get it: these hold the relatively gentle device in place while it's shipped. The bumpers are clearly intended for only a single use: they're shaped to fit only the particular device I bought. Why haven't we developed reusable dampeners that can fit a variety of products and used repeatedly?

Only really works with similarly shaped objects that go into the same sized box. And again there's the energy expended in collecting them to factor in.

> * A plastic bag inside the box, with the device inside it. Why?!

Protection against damage and moisture during transit. Keeps everything clean and fresh. Though I do think the number of different little baggies in many products is excessive.

In a commodity market, "expensive" means "costs energy". You have to look at all the costs.

Are you going to burn fuel to mail reusable bumpers back to the manufacturer?

One USB disk has more environmental impact then a hundred packagings. It packaging where the marginal win is? Buy less stuff.

> Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse?

Because I wouldn't order anything from a service that required me to return the box. Going to a postal office is highly inconvenient for someone working full time. Of course, I could be convinced to just drop off the box at some kind of drop off/pick up station (provided it was not too far out of my normal commute), but that would require a whole new layer of infrastructure.

Some counterpoints (devil's advocate):

* Would you trust a cardboard box that looked like it had been opened? * The thinner box would be for display in a shop. * The other packaging points are for longevity; there's a lot of products that will bounce around shops, warehouses, cross country lines for years until they're sold and used. I don't know who sets the guidelines for packaging but they sure plan for the worst.

There're 1000's of explanations for all of that - I don't know any of them. But there's one reason for all of it.

I'm guessing it's money.