I still buy a lot of items from Amazon, but at this point I always check other sources for products >$50.
I have noticed a massive uptick in sponsored listings, which are rarely what I want. The utility of basic search is dramatically worse than it was a few years ago. Can anyone recommend an adblocking browser extension that kills off sponsored listings?
> today: the Amazon shopping experience is so filled with bullshit that it’s actually easier to buy from the producer’s website and pay shipping
This is where I'm at. I only order products from Amazon that are sold by Amazon. Pretty much any legit third party seller will have their own website I can order from.
I still read reviews on Amazon before ordering elsewhere, although they've banned me from leaving reviews and wiped all my past ones for no discernible reason. I guess I left a review on some product that had a lot of fake reviews and I got caught in the crossfire.
> * today: the Amazon shopping experience is so filled with bullshit that it’s actually easier to buy from the producer’s website and pay shipping
I hear this all the time but it’s rarely true for me.
I’ve always searched for alternate stores, promo codes, and other discounts before ordering from Amazon. Many manufacturers have their own web stores, but it’s really rare to find a total price (including shipping) that is actually cheaper than Amazon in my experience.
Many hot products have Minimum Advertised Pricing contracts that mean the sale price is identical across every website anyway, at which point it becomes a game of finding some place with a coupon code that is enough to offset the extra shipping costs of not using Amazon. Most of the time, it just doesn’t work out as cheaper than Amazon.
I think people underestimate just how expensive warehousing, handling orders, and shipping can be. Amazon has optimized logistics to the point that they can charge people a lot for it and still be cheaper than doing it yourself (up to a certain scale which few companies reach)
I'm at the point where I don't buy anything from Amazon without checking the _producer's_ website first. It seems like 90% of the stuff on Amazon is just dropshippers who add $50 to the retail price and arbitrage from people too lazy to do anything but order from one website.
And it seems to be getting easier for companies to sell their own stuff. Most places seem to be using "Shopify" now? Fine with me. The integration is usually seamless and it has worked well every time I've used it.
This mirrors my sentiments exactly. Peak Amazon for me was about 3 or 4 years ago - I would order from Amazon without even thinking about it. Now, you can’t use it unless you know exactly what you want, because their search is unusable, and with the prevalence of counterfeit goods mixed in with all the legitimate stock… It’s become less of a hassle to just order from the manufacturer, if it’s anything I really care about.
Exactly. Try buying something like an SD card or external SSD drive. 99% of the listings are fake. Even if you stick to legit branded products you might have to spend 30 minutes to find the listing with the lowest price because somehow it hides from the search and you can only find it by click through related items on other products.
> easier to buy from the producer’s website and pay shipping
You shouldn't even have to do that and pay shipping. For the last 5 years at least I've had luck going to a more trusted vendor like Best Buy or Target which have comparable free shipping options. And a bonus is that I can go to the store and pick up the item same day if I want. Also Best Buy price matches Amazon, though it's rarely necessary because they all converge on the same prices now anyway.
> I’m sure Amazon will be just fine but it seems like they’ll need to do something at some point
Their e-commerce arm has a lot of competition on the horizon from Costco, Walmart, Bestbuy, Home Depot, and the 2 million shopify stores being run by mom and pops. All of those, aside from Walmart, you can mostly be sure you’re not getting ripped off and know what you’re buying up front.
Bezos based his business model on long term customer trust, and he’s not really there anymore. You see these magazine articles of him hanging out at pool parties with celebrities in his beach shorts and it makes you wonder where the priorities of the company are now.
The only thing I pay Amazon for now is for the TV streaming service, since they have a better back catalogue than Netflix.
For books I'll use bookshop.org, and for anything else I'll shop around for anywhere that isn't Amazon. I really don't care about next day or same day delivery; rarely do I require something so urgently that I can't wait a few days or a week or two.
Amazon itself is total trash these days, and it's getting steadily worse.
That's the mainstream narrative, which lags the actual reality (cutting through socialthink) by a good 5 years. Amazon needed to do something about this 7+ years ago, like introduce trusted supply chains and distill the gensym brands into useful singular results. At this point these problems have become embedded in their operations, and the incentives are such to keep them going while papering over ill effects.
But every large business ultimately relies on cognitive dissonance and reality distortion fields to maintain their relevance. Amazon has been seemingly successful at keeping people buying into their sunk cost fallacy ("Prime"), so momentum wise I'm sure they'll be fine.
It's very funny to me when I talk to Americans who bang on about the convenience of Amazon and almost can't imagine life without it. From a country where Amazon never existed... life is just fine.
* today: the Amazon shopping experience is so filled with bullshit that it’s actually easier to buy from the producer’s website and pay shipping*
True - After Amazon search doesn't find what I want (it found it yesterday) I've recently taken to using DuckDuckGo site search to bypass Amazon's search issues. Then I bought the TV locally, not even in a big box store. Support your local electronics dealer.
A newcomer penetrates the market with a superior offer. Once it rises to power, it naturally must defend and fortify its position. No longer must the offer be superior, destroying and suffocating new newcomers is simply more effective and profitable.
> The complaint goes beyond existing FTC guidelines, accusing the company of engaging in “lazy loading.” The “sponsored” label lagged in loading against top banner ads, sometimes by up to three seconds on average Internet speeds, according to the group’s analysis. On slower wireless and wired connections, it could take anywhere from seven to 15 seconds.
From what I can see, the search page has the "Sponsored" note in the response (it isn't loaded via JS). Amazon's search page seems to be mostly server-side rendered. Even if I disable my cache and set my browser to throttle to "Slow 3G", the "Sponsored" renders immediately (the "i" image next to it takes a second to load, but loads well before the product images).
It's interesting looking at the HTML because the alt tags on the product image use the phrase "Sponsored Ad" while the visual presented is just "Sponsored".
I certainly understand the criticism that the "Sponsored" text is small (11px regular vs 16px bold) and a light gray rather than black, but it doesn't seem like they're being lazy loaded in a way that would make them appear after the user had already seen the content.
The FTC's guidance says:
> We understand that there is not any one specific method for clearly and prominently distinguishing advertising from natural search results, and that search engines may develop new methods for distinguishing advertising results. Any method may be used, so long as it is noticeable and understandable to consumers.
Honestly, I think this is mostly wrong. Maybe there isn't one way, but surely one could say that 3-4 very specific ways could be codified. Just saying "clearly and prominently" leaves so much room for companies to test which ways will hold up in court, but that consumers won't notice. For example, Amazon can say "it clearly says sponsored" while potentially knowing that putting small grey text next to large bold black text makes the mind ignore the small gray text. Likewise, the "sponsored" note comes after the picture - after the user has already developed an attachment to the product.
To use Twitter as an example, "Promoted" appears below the tweet so that when scrolling, I see the tweet, my mind starts engaging with the tweet, and by the time I continue scrolling to see the "Promoted" notation, it's already done. Even the words "promoted" or "sponsored" don't have the same connotation as "advertisement".
The FTC could easily codify things. 1) Creating a logo and specific text for advertisements - "$$ Advertisement $$". 2) Requiring it to be in the same upper-left placement for all ad blocks. 3) Requiring it to have the same size, contrast, and weight against the background as the most noticeable text in the ad. 4) Mandating a different background color from non-ads by 20% (for example, if the background is black rbg(0,0,0) then a background color of rbg(51,51,51) would work. Likewise, if the background were white rbg(255,255,255), an ad background of rbg(204,204,204) would work. (Someone with a better artistic background could certainly refine that rough guideline - to my eyes, even altering one of the three colors by 20% seems to create significant contrast so you might not need to move all three to still maintain a clearly demarcated background).
That would make it really easy for consumers to distinguish an ad. The problem is that while the FTC's guidance suggests using backgrounds and borders, they only require that it be "clear". That's nonsense. Maybe keep the requirement at "clear" for small companies, but make the requirement the codified version from anyone making over $X in revenue (if you're worried about stifling small companies).
If you don't specify how, companies will make it "clear" while making it as easy to ignore and hard to find as possible - so long as they can stand up in a courtroom and say "c'mon, it says "Ad" right there." If we mandated a specific logo/language, top-left placement, and background color distinction, we'd easily be able to distinguish ads from regular content. But that's the problem. They don't want that.
I remember when Google results looked like this: https://i.imgur.com/KAROEnQ.jpg. The yellow and pink background meant an ad. The right side has ads that are clearly ads since they have a blue background. They're all clearly distinct. Another example: https://i.imgur.com/1iO5wuv.png. All the ads are yellow. It's easy to skip over them and start looking at the first organic result. When ads have the same background color and no border, it's hard to know when the ad ends.
If the goal of the FTC is that ads should be easily noticeable (and skip-able) by consumers, there are extremely clear and easy things to mandate. Instead, the FTC simply says it must be "clear".
Heck, even if you don't want to mandate how, I think the FTC should come up with examples. For example, take the two Google search images I posted. Let's say the FTC said "you must distinguish your ads as clearly as those two images. Any ad that is not as clearly distinguished as the ads in the examples is illegal." While Amazon/Google/Twitter/Facebook might argue that their labeling is "clear" they couldn't argue it is "as clear as the examples." The FTC should set a standard and then go after companies that don't meet the standard. Just telling someone it must be "clear" means that they only have to make it clear if you're actually examining the content in a courtroom, not if you're scanning/reading like a normal user.
There's so much manipulation on Amazon (both of Amazon's own doing and gaming on part of sellers) that I've more or less given up on buying from there completely. Mix in all off-brand Chinese crap polluting the store, and it's just a miserable experience.
These days, Amazon is most useful to me just as a price ceiling. I go to brick-and-mortar stores and have them price-match Amazon if the online listing is cheaper.
This. For all the economic hoovering Amazon does, it's amazing to me how much the shopping experience sucks. Search results are inundated with sponsored placements, knock-offs abound, countless fake reviews, they're always pushing 3rd party sellers, and lastly I still don't understand Prime's 2 day shipping guarantee (except when it doesn't).
Best Buy has been nice lately. I pretty much only buy well reviewed (by a third party, like Wirecutter) and known items unless it’s a random thing I don’t care about or something very commodity, like a network cable. Ive also been trying to spread my $ around to other stores, like Target, etc. Amazon still wins because it’s so easy some of the time though.
Honestly the buying experience on Amazon is truly dreadful right now. If you are browsing for anything that’s not a name brand you have to sift through pages of garbage 5 star reviews from people paid with Amazon gift cards by the seller. If you look at the 1 star reviews you’ll see the sellers of items will pay people in Amazon gift cards to review the product, and pay to take down negative reviews. If I need to purchase anything I’ve given up on using them and simply go to Best Buy, Target Walmart, etc. Though it seems Walmart is trying to follow in Amazon’s footsteps with third party sellers for its website.
I have also noticed an absolutely massive increase in products having 5 star review averages as reported by Amazon, then you scroll down to the top reviews, and it's almost pages of 1 star reviews reporting complete failures of the product. Their algorithm is basically worthless or obviously manipulated if the majority of top reviews are 1-star and yet the item has a 4.5 or 5 star average.
I've stopped buying on Amazon for many things, using it mainly for repeat stuff I know that works, and I've been trying to find things at other big box stores like Best buy or Target, as you mention, or directly from the manufacturer. Amazon isn't really cheaper other than faster shipping for legitimate items from main brands anyway. In several cases, I've found Amazon to actually be more expensive for some items.
In my experience the search on the Amazon site is terrible. If I want something, I search there and can browse 100 pages of low quality unrelated items. But I do a Google search and I see results from Amazon that are exactly what I need.
Did search technology stall and get outsmarted by the spammers? I'm confused how big tech search from Amazon and Google is so bad. I'm waiting for some startup to challenge Google as their progress has stopped
I agree, searching for products on Amazon and actually finding what you're looking for is a pain, then you still have to try and figure out if it's a quality product or if it's from a reliable seller.
I shop on NewEgg these days when I can because their power search is much better for the things it is actually implemented well for. For the things it isn't implemented well for you're not really any better off though.
P.S.: If anyone can direct me to a reliable brand for 3-6ft USB 3 A-to-A M-to-M and M-to-F cables that can actually handle SuperSpeed without dropping half the packets, I'd be obliged.
I have noticed this as well. I have sometimes searched for the exact product name only for Amazon to return no or unrelated results, when Google finds it just fine.
> The FTC has long held that ads are deceptive if they imply information is being shared by an independent or impartial source, when it’s actually originating from a business trying to sell a product, said Jessica Rich, a former director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. Such practices could lead consumers to make uninformed decisions about their purchases.
I'd love to see this provision torpedo the "Amazon's Choice" labels.
I don't see how "Amazon's Choice" labels would run afoul of that.
According to Amazon, "Amazon's Choice highlights highly rated, well-priced products available to ship immediately".
I don't see anything that implies that this is coming from an independent or impartial source. It's right in the name itself that it is coming from Amazon.
I find myself wondering if "Amazon's Choice" really implies an independent or impartial source. When I'm seeing it, I know it's coming from Amazon and they would like to sell me a thing. They're certainly not pretending it's the choice of anyone other than them, the company that wants to sell me things at a profit.
I'm torn between considering this terrible as an end-user, and being happy that this is painful enough that there might finally be enough oxygen in the room for actual competitors again.
I'm really impressed, and quite happy, that The Washington Post is writing such an article when Mr Bezos himself owns it. Great to see this is not a deterrant
We have a couple of online retailers in the UK (John Lewis, Argos) where you can search for a product and get maybe 20 - 30 results, mainly leading brands and some own-brand versions. It's a much better experience, however, you often find many of these items are sold out or not available in the colour (for example) that you want - which is frustrating.
Amazon always seem to have stock of the same thing in addition to multiple knock-offs and me-too versions. No surprises they get most of the business.
I don't even mind the sponsored placements in my search. I'd just like a search for X to give me a page full of X, not random junk bearing no relationship to X.
As much as I like dunking on Amazon and Bezos, I can't help but wonder if this could be applied to brick and mortar stores where you go in and ask for help finding something and they pitch you the product that's best for their sales commission
The search results that are ads say "Sponsored" on them. Everything else are not ads. I'm not understanding how that's deceiving. It's similar to Google Shopping.
[+] [-] hairofadog|4 years ago|reply
* 2010: this is amazing! You can get anything right away! And I don’t buy anything without checking Amazon reviews first
* 2015: it seems like Amazon is an unstoppable behemoth that might be doing harm in the world, but it’s just so easy to order stuff, so… sorry, world!
* today: the Amazon shopping experience is so filled with bullshit that it’s actually easier to buy from the producer’s website and pay shipping
I’m sure Amazon will be just fine but it seems like they’ll need to do something at some point.
[+] [-] stickfigure|4 years ago|reply
Random example I bought a few weeks ago, a dive light:
Amazon, $80: https://smile.amazon.com/DL07-Flashlight-Underwater-Recharge...
Manufacturer, $55 (free shipping too): https://wurkkos.com/products/wurkkos-dl07-mulit-color-led-fl...
I still buy a lot of items from Amazon, but at this point I always check other sources for products >$50.
I have noticed a massive uptick in sponsored listings, which are rarely what I want. The utility of basic search is dramatically worse than it was a few years ago. Can anyone recommend an adblocking browser extension that kills off sponsored listings?
[+] [-] duxup|4 years ago|reply
Now it feels like wal-mart where price is all that matters and quality isn’t even a consideration.
So much stuff that is $2 cheaper but just garbage…
And the more expensive stuff just is priced more but still garbage.
Sometimes I feel like I have to buy two or three things from Amazon before I find one that isn’t terrible or counterfeit.
[+] [-] mcovey|4 years ago|reply
This is where I'm at. I only order products from Amazon that are sold by Amazon. Pretty much any legit third party seller will have their own website I can order from.
I still read reviews on Amazon before ordering elsewhere, although they've banned me from leaving reviews and wiped all my past ones for no discernible reason. I guess I left a review on some product that had a lot of fake reviews and I got caught in the crossfire.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
I hear this all the time but it’s rarely true for me.
I’ve always searched for alternate stores, promo codes, and other discounts before ordering from Amazon. Many manufacturers have their own web stores, but it’s really rare to find a total price (including shipping) that is actually cheaper than Amazon in my experience.
Many hot products have Minimum Advertised Pricing contracts that mean the sale price is identical across every website anyway, at which point it becomes a game of finding some place with a coupon code that is enough to offset the extra shipping costs of not using Amazon. Most of the time, it just doesn’t work out as cheaper than Amazon.
I think people underestimate just how expensive warehousing, handling orders, and shipping can be. Amazon has optimized logistics to the point that they can charge people a lot for it and still be cheaper than doing it yourself (up to a certain scale which few companies reach)
[+] [-] pkulak|4 years ago|reply
And it seems to be getting easier for companies to sell their own stuff. Most places seem to be using "Shopify" now? Fine with me. The integration is usually seamless and it has worked well every time I've used it.
[+] [-] projectileboy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dntrkv|4 years ago|reply
In the real-world, people love the product just as much. The only complaints I hear are about the working conditions.
[+] [-] kingcharles|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdulli|4 years ago|reply
You shouldn't even have to do that and pay shipping. For the last 5 years at least I've had luck going to a more trusted vendor like Best Buy or Target which have comparable free shipping options. And a bonus is that I can go to the store and pick up the item same day if I want. Also Best Buy price matches Amazon, though it's rarely necessary because they all converge on the same prices now anyway.
[+] [-] johnwheeler|4 years ago|reply
Their e-commerce arm has a lot of competition on the horizon from Costco, Walmart, Bestbuy, Home Depot, and the 2 million shopify stores being run by mom and pops. All of those, aside from Walmart, you can mostly be sure you’re not getting ripped off and know what you’re buying up front.
Bezos based his business model on long term customer trust, and he’s not really there anymore. You see these magazine articles of him hanging out at pool parties with celebrities in his beach shorts and it makes you wonder where the priorities of the company are now.
[+] [-] ljm|4 years ago|reply
For books I'll use bookshop.org, and for anything else I'll shop around for anywhere that isn't Amazon. I really don't care about next day or same day delivery; rarely do I require something so urgently that I can't wait a few days or a week or two.
Amazon itself is total trash these days, and it's getting steadily worse.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] twofornone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|4 years ago|reply
But every large business ultimately relies on cognitive dissonance and reality distortion fields to maintain their relevance. Amazon has been seemingly successful at keeping people buying into their sunk cost fallacy ("Prime"), so momentum wise I'm sure they'll be fine.
[+] [-] mdoms|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] landmass|4 years ago|reply
True - After Amazon search doesn't find what I want (it found it yesterday) I've recently taken to using DuckDuckGo site search to bypass Amazon's search issues. Then I bought the TV locally, not even in a big box store. Support your local electronics dealer.
[+] [-] the_gipsy|4 years ago|reply
A newcomer penetrates the market with a superior offer. Once it rises to power, it naturally must defend and fortify its position. No longer must the offer be superior, destroying and suffocating new newcomers is simply more effective and profitable.
[+] [-] mdasen|4 years ago|reply
From what I can see, the search page has the "Sponsored" note in the response (it isn't loaded via JS). Amazon's search page seems to be mostly server-side rendered. Even if I disable my cache and set my browser to throttle to "Slow 3G", the "Sponsored" renders immediately (the "i" image next to it takes a second to load, but loads well before the product images).
It's interesting looking at the HTML because the alt tags on the product image use the phrase "Sponsored Ad" while the visual presented is just "Sponsored".
I certainly understand the criticism that the "Sponsored" text is small (11px regular vs 16px bold) and a light gray rather than black, but it doesn't seem like they're being lazy loaded in a way that would make them appear after the user had already seen the content.
The FTC's guidance says:
> We understand that there is not any one specific method for clearly and prominently distinguishing advertising from natural search results, and that search engines may develop new methods for distinguishing advertising results. Any method may be used, so long as it is noticeable and understandable to consumers.
Honestly, I think this is mostly wrong. Maybe there isn't one way, but surely one could say that 3-4 very specific ways could be codified. Just saying "clearly and prominently" leaves so much room for companies to test which ways will hold up in court, but that consumers won't notice. For example, Amazon can say "it clearly says sponsored" while potentially knowing that putting small grey text next to large bold black text makes the mind ignore the small gray text. Likewise, the "sponsored" note comes after the picture - after the user has already developed an attachment to the product.
To use Twitter as an example, "Promoted" appears below the tweet so that when scrolling, I see the tweet, my mind starts engaging with the tweet, and by the time I continue scrolling to see the "Promoted" notation, it's already done. Even the words "promoted" or "sponsored" don't have the same connotation as "advertisement".
The FTC could easily codify things. 1) Creating a logo and specific text for advertisements - "$$ Advertisement $$". 2) Requiring it to be in the same upper-left placement for all ad blocks. 3) Requiring it to have the same size, contrast, and weight against the background as the most noticeable text in the ad. 4) Mandating a different background color from non-ads by 20% (for example, if the background is black rbg(0,0,0) then a background color of rbg(51,51,51) would work. Likewise, if the background were white rbg(255,255,255), an ad background of rbg(204,204,204) would work. (Someone with a better artistic background could certainly refine that rough guideline - to my eyes, even altering one of the three colors by 20% seems to create significant contrast so you might not need to move all three to still maintain a clearly demarcated background).
That would make it really easy for consumers to distinguish an ad. The problem is that while the FTC's guidance suggests using backgrounds and borders, they only require that it be "clear". That's nonsense. Maybe keep the requirement at "clear" for small companies, but make the requirement the codified version from anyone making over $X in revenue (if you're worried about stifling small companies).
If you don't specify how, companies will make it "clear" while making it as easy to ignore and hard to find as possible - so long as they can stand up in a courtroom and say "c'mon, it says "Ad" right there." If we mandated a specific logo/language, top-left placement, and background color distinction, we'd easily be able to distinguish ads from regular content. But that's the problem. They don't want that.
I remember when Google results looked like this: https://i.imgur.com/KAROEnQ.jpg. The yellow and pink background meant an ad. The right side has ads that are clearly ads since they have a blue background. They're all clearly distinct. Another example: https://i.imgur.com/1iO5wuv.png. All the ads are yellow. It's easy to skip over them and start looking at the first organic result. When ads have the same background color and no border, it's hard to know when the ad ends.
If the goal of the FTC is that ads should be easily noticeable (and skip-able) by consumers, there are extremely clear and easy things to mandate. Instead, the FTC simply says it must be "clear".
Heck, even if you don't want to mandate how, I think the FTC should come up with examples. For example, take the two Google search images I posted. Let's say the FTC said "you must distinguish your ads as clearly as those two images. Any ad that is not as clearly distinguished as the ads in the examples is illegal." While Amazon/Google/Twitter/Facebook might argue that their labeling is "clear" they couldn't argue it is "as clear as the examples." The FTC should set a standard and then go after companies that don't meet the standard. Just telling someone it must be "clear" means that they only have to make it clear if you're actually examining the content in a courtroom, not if you're scanning/reading like a normal user.
[+] [-] the_snooze|4 years ago|reply
These days, Amazon is most useful to me just as a price ceiling. I go to brick-and-mortar stores and have them price-match Amazon if the online listing is cheaper.
[+] [-] ryandvm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitexploder|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ItIsWhatItIs2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmitc|4 years ago|reply
I've stopped buying on Amazon for many things, using it mainly for repeat stuff I know that works, and I've been trying to find things at other big box stores like Best buy or Target, as you mention, or directly from the manufacturer. Amazon isn't really cheaper other than faster shipping for legitimate items from main brands anyway. In several cases, I've found Amazon to actually be more expensive for some items.
[+] [-] UglyToad|4 years ago|reply
I'm usually good at finding the opt out link but had no luck with this. Surprised it's legal to be honest.
[+] [-] hvgk|4 years ago|reply
Actually whenever you go shopping know what you want before you go to Amazon. That helps.
[+] [-] nunez|4 years ago|reply
Review-gaming will always be a problem for websites with high-enough traffic.
[+] [-] JohnWhigham|4 years ago|reply
I've started to just browse big box retailers now. They at least have a merchandising team dedicated to sourcing quality products.
[+] [-] hateful|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] space_rock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] power78|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnIdiotOnTheNet|4 years ago|reply
I shop on NewEgg these days when I can because their power search is much better for the things it is actually implemented well for. For the things it isn't implemented well for you're not really any better off though.
P.S.: If anyone can direct me to a reliable brand for 3-6ft USB 3 A-to-A M-to-M and M-to-F cables that can actually handle SuperSpeed without dropping half the packets, I'd be obliged.
[+] [-] bmitc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|4 years ago|reply
I'd love to see this provision torpedo the "Amazon's Choice" labels.
[+] [-] tzs|4 years ago|reply
According to Amazon, "Amazon's Choice highlights highly rated, well-priced products available to ship immediately".
I don't see anything that implies that this is coming from an independent or impartial source. It's right in the name itself that it is coming from Amazon.
[+] [-] Kalium|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jklinger410|4 years ago|reply
Maybe the EU will do something about it, but of course, those changes will not make it to US consumers.
[+] [-] TruthWillHurt|4 years ago|reply
So many sticker brands, ads and house brands..
[+] [-] m12k|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nocommandline|4 years ago|reply
.... Amazon’s search results are full of ads ‘unlawfully deceiving’ consumers, new complaint to FTC claims....
[+] [-] mikkelam|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] excalibur|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dazc|4 years ago|reply
Amazon always seem to have stock of the same thing in addition to multiple knock-offs and me-too versions. No surprises they get most of the business.
[+] [-] summerdown2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyford|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nunez|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tantalor|4 years ago|reply
I don't see this in practice. Does this actually happen?
[+] [-] errcorrectcode|4 years ago|reply