Kindle 2 Fails Man's Drop Test, Forces Amazon To Pay Him $400 | Hacker News Reader

Kindle 2 Fails Man's Drop Test, Forces Amazon To Pay Him $400

consumerist.com

77 pointsyan40 comments

FWIW: My Kindle2 stopped working a few weeks after I bought it (something weird with the screen). Not sure why it broke, if it was defective or if I dropped it (it was in my backpack with a ton of textbooks so it pretty easily could have suffered shock). I called Amazon, spent less than 7 minutes on the phone with them (including hold time) and they overnighted a new Kindle2 to me. They didn't charge my credit card (and said they wouldn't unless they didn't receive the broken one back within 30 days).

This was one of the top3 customer service experiences of my life. I was and continue to be a huge fan of Amazon, primarily for their customer service.

Just thought I would share my experience... :)

I, too, have had nearly nothing but good experiences. I bought my sister a present about a week ahead of when I needed it. It got lost in the UPS maw. I worked with UPS who were helpful, they went crazy trying to find it, but could not. So I called Amazon, they sent me a new item overnight without charging my credit card, and only charged me for the difference in what I had initially paid for shipping and the overnight cost (which seemed more than reasonable to me given that it was UPS' fault). So I got that package in time to give my sister her gift. A few days later, the UPS package showed up at my door, I sent it back to Amazon, and never got charged for that return shipping.

In fact, the only frustration I've ever had with Amazon has been about my Kindle: when I lost it, they wouldn't deactivate it for me. I'm still very bitter about this, and there was a thread on here a while back about that practice. I would think their flagship product would receive flagship support (especially since I'm now a "Prime" member), so who knows.

It appears that the quality of their customer service depends on the willingness of customers to stand up for themselves when they are wronged.

It's people like this gentleman who've led to your highly responsive experience.

I had a similar experience with Direct TV. They installed my dish without permission from my building management, I got a takedown notice, and didnt want to pay the 430 dollar termination fee. Turns out they could not install without permission and they did. This is beside the fact that they totally fucked up my order. And their service sucks ass.

I called multiple times and sent 5 emails, each getting closer and closer to a lawsuit. $400 from someone willing to fight is less pricey than a day or two in court. They just don't want to give this to anyone, if you are willing to fight you will usually get what you deserve.

In this case, the guy already had laws listed and probably just made it clear that there will be a day in court. Its cheaper to take the $400 hit.

Non Kindle experience - shipped a gadget as a gift to a friend. Got the address wrong, called them before the delivery but after it had shipped out. They tried to change the address, but couldn't, so they shipped out another one to the right address for no extra charge.

Amazon definitely rocks.

"Admittedly, if everyone did this it would cease to work, but..."

If there's enough people who need to do this to the point that it would no longer work, there actually would be a class action lawsuit.

Strange thing is, this story makes me more likely to buy a Kindle or Amazon product because I know that if push comes to shove, they will back their product.

I'm not sure this counts as backing. The guy threatened a class action lawsuit, and they backed down. This could also mean either it was cheaper to pay $400 than defend against such a suit or that there was merit in the suit and the guy could have gotten a lot more.

He credibly threatened a lawsuit. That is, he made it apparent in his letter that he was familiar with consumer law through the information he presented to them. I doubt a letter that said "I dropped my Kindle, send me $400 or I sue" would have the same effect.

Good point, that is an important distinction. In the end tho, I think the equation is still the same:

if Pr(d|r)*Cost(d) > $request then pay him

Where d is dealing with the guy, r is the reasonableness of his request, and pr is the probability function.

There are also signalling aspects to paying and going to court.

Please explain further.

The comment by dschobel explains most of what I meant:

"It's a calculated risk. Some companies refuse to settle for certain classes of litigation in the hope that it will deter people from bringing frivolous suits down the road even if it means paying more in legal costs up front."

On the other hand, not going to court with a customer also sends a signal.

I see, thanks!

True, but having to threaten a lawsuit in order to get a refund hardly counts as the company "backing their product".

Agreed. And to think I was downvoted for my screed against puffery: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=887482

It's a calculated risk. Some companies refuse to settle for certain classes of litigation in the hope that it will deter people from bringing frivolous suits down the road even if it means paying more in legal costs up front.

He asked for probably very close to the most he could get without a counteroffer. Most likely Amazon's lawyers are full-time and don't bill by the hour, but they have better things to do than send letters back and forth three times before finally agreeing to pay the guy $200 or $300 or whatever.

That said, it is kind of bad etiquette to rub it in someone's face publicly when they submit to your demands. The guy gets his new kindle, $200 for his hassle, and 15 minutes of internet fame, but maybe at a slight cost to his long term reputation. If I was thinking of working with someone and googled them and saw this, I'd avoid doing any sort of business with them if possible.

That sounds more like a shakedown than anything. Shame so many people laud it.

Sleazy is the word I'd choose.

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.

Companies 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.)

No 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.

If 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.

You either stand up for yourself in life or you get eaten for lunch.

See: Wall Street.

I hope people realize that these costs are embedded in the final price of the product. The only person who wins is Mr.Gowder.

No, I'd say it's embedded in Amazon's stock price. They presumably already sell the Kindle hardware for a loss.

That subsidized price being determined by a calculation of how low it may be and still return a sufficient lifetime profit given the recurring revenue thereafter; should litigation costs rise, the price at which it is offered will adjust to maintain the same rate of return.

Paul Gowder isn't complaining about Amazon forgetting to tell him that his coffee is hot. Good for him, flexing his rights over something reasonable.

*E: I hereby disown this comment :)

He did nothing wrong. Just pointing out that Amazon doesn't really care. Some way or the other, you (the customer) is paying for it.

I see. I misunderstood you then. Yeah, it's a little like when taxes are raised (not sales tax). The consumer pays for it.

If you went back and read about the McDonald's hot coffee case, I suspect you'd find that reasonable too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaur...

It's bad news for both Amazon and consumers that the device is relatively fragile (I assume he's not lying about the severity of the drop). Either the price stays high because Amazon pays out many replacements, or the price can stay low for those who baby the device, and high for those who drop it.

What. Electronics are fragile. Nobody owes you $200 if you drop them.

Misleading advertising is considered unfair competition in the state of California [1]. If you are advertising that it can withstand a certain amount of force, and it can't, then you are certainly owed that $200.

[1]: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc...

Well OK, but speaking as somebody who got a quick free replacement when my kindle had a problem that actually was Amazon's fault, I still think it's sort of lame. In my opinion Amazon was demonstrating that the kindle is relatively durable, which I think is true after owning one for a long time. This guy dropped a bag with a kindle and a macbook in it. Like somebody in the comments there pointed out, that's not really what was in Amazon's video. For all we know, he dropped a macbook on a kindle, got $200 and a replacement, and that's 'epic'.

I agree with you. When I read the thing, my first thought was: "oh great, we're applauding somebody who is pushing this lawsuit-happy society?".

He dropped it, too bad for him, be a big man and buy a new one. I wouldn't be surprised if his credit card company could have even swallowed the costs as part of the CC benefits.

Additionally, I feel like Amazon is "one of the good ones" in terms of customer satisfaction and customer support. Going the legal way on them is doing a disservice to everyone else.

There was a comment in the blog "when do we believe everything in advertisement".

There are laws against false advertising. You can't do it, major fines and lawsuits. Otherwise I'd sell toothpaste claiming it cured cancer. Prove me wrong, and if you do, good for you, you win a death by cancer.

accidently V3 was at bottom of my backpack (a thin tube of nylon w/ no padding) and i stacked up a bunch of groceries on it, droped it off my shoulders onto green line floor etc, also its fallen off 4 foot tables onto hardwood, no probs

OpenInkpot is kinda slow w/ PDFs tho, probably going todowngrade to factory Firmware

$200 for "...diminution of utility and value of the device as well as of the e-books I have purchased for that device, in light of the fact that the replacement device, too, can be expected to be far more fragile than advertised and prone to destruction under the slightest stress."

Brilliant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com