They also recalled a number of good units, which only sowed confusion and anger among buyers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2017/08/14/a...
And it turns out some of the counterfeit glasses did get out to to buyers who thought they were purchasing legitimate units.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-lawsuit-eclips...
Exploding hoverboard case shows how hard it is to beat Amazon in court
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/02/amazon-not-liable-for-explod...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17216972
> [T]here were so many cases of fires and explosions that Amazon had halted sales. [...] Fox's case was filled with testimony and evidence illustrating that Amazon execs were concerned about the hoverboards sold on its site. [...] [A]n Amazon vice president said the company had decided to halt sales of hoverboards and send a 'non-alarmist' email to existing customers [...] Fox received the email the next day. It referenced 'recent news reports of safety issues' and offered 'safety tips' for using the product as well as an option to return the device for a refund. There was no use of the word 'fire' or 'explosion.' Fox testified that if Amazon had said that 'they knew what they knew, I certainly would have gotten it out of my house.'
Only after people let them know they were not safe and not within a reasonable timeframe for people to order replacements.
They’ll invest the resources to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Amazon didn’t get big by being stupid.
Your point stands.
The bogus ones could then have been isolated and recalled, but this is not what happened.
1) Goggles used the existing supply chain. Which, as noted, was designed around the idea that customers would rather have cheaper things from any vendor that things from a specific vendor. Presumably the greenfield / acquired med supply chain is engineered around different desires and regulations.
2) By the time the goggle issue came up, inventory was already in the system. With some presumably co-mingled. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to be the DB analyst who got tasked with untangling that.
The supply chain integrity problems were allowed by Amazon because it benefited their bottom line. If they wanted it perfect, they could have made it perfect.
Remember when the eclipse was happening and they actually did a pretty good job of removing all glasses which weren't safe? They know where integrity counts, and I think when it comes to pharmaceuticals they'll know how to play this game clean. As another user commented: Amazon didn't get this humongous by making silly mistakes like this.