Citation needed. They want it without the burden of...
>>> So they pay the extra $5 deposit
I highly doubt a large percentage of Amazon customers want environmentally friendly shipping that they have to pay a deposit for and mind a chain of custody.
As I noted, Amazon literally already tried this and it didn't work. So, yeah, it's a problem. And eventually someone will fix it. But you act like Amazon hasn't tried it, and you're ignoring all the chain of custody issues with a deposit system that requires shipping rather than a customer-returns method that worked decades years ago when people shopped locally only.
People on HN are pretty out of touch with the every day person, I think. These ideas sound really good to medium-high net worth individuals, but the average consumer on Amazon is not in that group and really does not care about the environment all that much if it is going to potentially hurt their pocketbook.
Personally, I think it would be great if these reusable packages optionally came in a package that has a digital lock that can only be unlocked through the app (i.e. public key crypto over Bluetooth/NFC). This would make them look like the secure option as well as the green option. It can even operate at a loss and probably still be beneficial by driving more purchases their way.
There's a reason why safes need to be bolted to the floor; a safe that's not bolted can just be taken away and opened somewhere else with appropriate tools.
Suppose you live in a location where you leave the materials out for return pick-up, but scavengers collect them rather than the shipper?
It's not feasible for the customer to stand guard over the packaging. It's effectively discriminatory to impose a financial penalty based on residence (a factor which cannot readily be controlled or changed).
Some alternative means of assuring returns would have to be arrived at.
Tracking, centralised or localised return depots, or other mechanisms, might be possiblities.
Surely Amazon, of all people, is capable of slapping a unique barcode on each one, and crediting that $5 back to the account it belonged to?
Some pallets already have these types of chips embedded, and it has ensured these pallets are returned in most cases (and prevented pallet resale).
The theft is beyond the control of the recipient / customer.
That's my point.
Much the same way as such neighbourhoods are already food and retail deserts either because direct risks of operation are too high, or because insurers and/or banks won't back or support ventures there.
Paul Baran, co-inventer of packet-switched networking, wrote about the underlying problem in the 1960s:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3780.html (footnote, p. 7)
So things will be awesome when the problem is solved.
It's usually money that solves problems.
Amazon customers want environmentally friendly shipping. So they pay the extra $5 deposit, which Amazon gives back when the container is returned.
Those who don't want to return the container have paid for it.
Then of course other companies and industries must become greener because customers demand it. And Amazon already has a solution in place for reusable/returnable shipping containers, so it becomes an even bigger win for Amazon when it sells reusable/returnable shipping container service end to end and manages all the chain of ownership stuff and absorbs the complexity and risk.
As I say, it's a HUGE problem, so a huge win for whichever company implements what I've already set out above. Just needs to happen that's all.
In the future, look for the option "Add $5 for shipping box return collection" on your favorite ecommerce site.
And look to Uber to expand to "UberEnvironment" - their container collection service where they pay people to collect containers and return them to cleaning/reuse centers.
There are so many, many, many delivery startups out there - they'll be able to expand not only to sending stuff to homes but collecting stuff (containers) from homes.