Innula Zenovka Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I am not sure that page is the one LL would have used. That page looks to me as if it's designed for individuals and bookstores rather than publishers, and it's certainly not intended for electronic publishers since all the shipping options are for physical goods as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 i do more digging (: + am pretty sure that the same rules apply to both digitals and physicals Amazon have a Gold Box programme for special offers the Amazon limit of one per amazon customer can only be done with Lightning Deals seems like. other Gold Box offers are quantity limit based only. buy as many you want until they run out Gold Box http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_sib?ie=UTF8&nodeId=914590 Lightning http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200417170 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 ps dont know how long a Lightning period can be set up for maybe the clock ran down and it flipped automagically by a bug (seems unlikely tho. is amazon after all and they been in this business since forever) or maybe someone in linden flipped it to Goldbox when they made the blog post bc of the contract they had with Amazon. like must sell/give X amount according to the terms in period specified could be was not any mistake at all by anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 pps i think is the last one now. there was no mistake at all by anyone amazon or linden bc i go back to my original confusion like how do you stuff something like this up? with a company like Amazon who has been doing this kind of marketing since forever. they pretty much invented it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 and the final word goes to Peter Gray from linden via Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/2013/01/07/linden-lab-explains-removal-of-amazon-special-offer/ + tl;dr u all a buncha feefing swhines (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Innula Zenovka wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Crim Mip wrote: Amazon miscoded the deal. I asked once before. Where is there any evidence that Amazon "miscoded' this? I could be completely wrong but my take on this is that Linden Lab set this up using Amazon tools not realizing there was a loophole that people could exploit because of the way Second Life maintains its accounts. My take on it is that LL didn't read the fine print. I could be wrong but at best unless I am missing something which is completely possible it may have been a big oversight by someone at LL. Isn't the fact that the offer was on the Amazon website and attempted to access your credit card details as held on Amazon's secure server evidence enough that Amazon did the coding? I certainly hope Amazon aren't in the habit of allowing third parties, be they LL or anyone else, to code parts of the Amazon website that connect with Amazon's customers' credit card details. I didn't say that Amazon didn't do the coding. 16 has established for us that Amazon has ready made templates. If Amazon had custom coded this for LL, it might be a different story. We don't know if LL used a ready made template or if it was custom coded. Regardless, just like the SL TOS holds LL harmless within the bounds of the Law, I'd put high odds that Amazon's TOS does the same. LL chose a template not realizing there was a weakness that could potentially allow people with multiple SL accounts to exploit the offer. Assuming that Peter Gray's statement on Tateru's blog is accurate, "This offer was terminated early due to repeated attempts to circumvent the one-per-customer limit," I doubt that he would admit it if it had happen, but he does say "attempted to," not that they succeeded. I could compare this to something in SL. If I rez a no copy object after a rolling start has been announced and it is gone after the restart, who is responsible for it's loss? Linden Lab wrote the code. But it was still my mistake, even if I was unaware of this potential consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but which ready-made Amazon template should I use if I want to offer an electronically-delivered product for free, and I want to limit the offer to one per customer (as opposed to one per recipient)? I don't see how the offer could have been put together without Amazon's cooperation, and we just don't know whether the account details of the sender were supposed to be checked by Amazon or by LL. I'd have thought, Amazon, since it's Amazon's customers who are ordering the item but I don't know. I agree that it's astonishing neither side spotted the potential problem, but I think Amazon should have seen it coming, too. To use your analogy, yes, it's your responsiblity if you lose no-copy stuff by rezzing it during rolling restarts, but LL do at least warn you not to. It's an odd sort of offer, to my mind. Partly, of course, it's aimed at someone who thinks, "Oh, I've been meaning to try SL, and here's a good way to do it," and I suppose I could spot the offer and tell my friend, whom I'm trying to persuade to try SL, about it. But I would also have thought that they'd want me to be able to send it to my friend as a gift, rather than get her to order it. That would be the most effective way, I think, since my friend wouldn't have to do anything other than set up an account, and will probably do that just to be polite to me, even if she never uses it again. But in that case, it starts to get open to abuse really quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Innula Zenovka wrote: Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but which ready-made Amazon template should I use if I want to offer an electronically-delivered product for free, and I want to limit the offer to one per customer (as opposed to one per recipient)? I don't see how the offer could have been put together without Amazon's cooperation, and we just don't know whether the account details of the sender were supposed to be checked by Amazon or by LL. I'd have thought, Amazon, since it's Amazon's customers who are ordering the item but I don't know. I agree that it's astonishing neither side spotted the potential problem, but I think Amazon should have seen it coming, too. To use your analogy, yes, it's your responsiblity if you lose no-copy stuff by rezzing it during rolling restarts, but LL do at least warn you not to. It's an odd sort of offer, to my mind. Partly, of course, it's aimed at someone who thinks, "Oh, I've been meaning to try SL, and here's a good way to do it," and I suppose I could spot the offer and tell my friend, whom I'm trying to persuade to try SL, about it. But I would also have thought that they'd want me to be able to send it to my friend as a gift, rather than get her to order it. That would be the most effective way, I think, since my friend wouldn't have to do anything other than set up an account, and will probably do that just to be polite to me, even if she never uses it again. But in that case, it starts to get open to abuse really quickly. To be clear I am no expert on how Amazon works, etc, etc, and I 'd be clueless as to where to look, etc. Also, I have never read the Amazon TOS as it applies to either Merchants or Consumers, but we all know that Terms of Services are **always** written in the business' favor. That being said, what we primarily have here are assumptions. LL's blog post does not say, "We have arranged this special promotion with Amazon," just simply, "It’s a new year, and we have news: Second Life is now available on Amazon!" Whether or not it took special arrangements we do not know. So personally I think my assumption is more likely, that LL messed up. But without more facts I can't prove my position any more than the other side can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 now that we heard from linden then i think is safe to say that linden messed this up even if was a technical API something something went wrong. like Innula say it wasnt tested with thieving in mind. so Nobody Linden did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuhai Ling Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 This has been a fun discussion to watch! I did not expect it to develop into a debate on who messed up first but such well-articulated comments really make it interesting to read! Here is the Linden Lab response from the link above: Peter Gray, spokesperson for Linden Lab, tells us why the offer was pulled. “This offer was terminated early due to repeated attempts to circumvent the one-per-customer limit, but we saw great demand for the deal and hope to be able to offer similar special promotions in the future...” After reading that, I had to laugh... for a long time! Of course Linden Lab would not say they messed up their own Amazon.com sale but the quote makes them sound like they are equating the "great demand" for their product to the vehicles and not the L$1000! I hope they make similar offers again too if they are not aware of what part everyone wanted! In fact, if they ask for my advice, I say take out the middle man and just credit all of us L$1000! That would prevent the embarrassment of looking like a Linden newbie (no offense to new residents) and make everyone happy! Waiting for the next "sale" now with anticipation... :matte-motes-big-grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenbro Utu Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Crim Mip wrote: LL makes a fair amount of revenue from the sales of Ls and remember L's can be turned back into cash. I mused about this in another thread. Does LL actually put Lindens into the Exchange to sell? It has always been stated that buying and selling of Lindens on Lindex occurs between residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Yes, but the Lindex is a currency exchange, and the house always takes a percentage on each transaction. That's where they make their money. Take a look at https://secondlife.com/my/lindex/describe-transaction-fees.php . You pay $0.30 per transaction to buy L$ and 3.5% of the dollar amount of any sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenbro Utu Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorry to appear dense, but was your "Yes" to the question of whether or not LL sells Lindens on the exchange. I know they make a cut of each transaction, but do they directly profit from Lindens which they collect through either group fees, search fees or marketplace sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 That's a good question, but I can't believe that LL would collect transaction fees on the Lindex and not collect them for an equivalent transaction elsewhere. After all, since L$ have no official value, per TOS, they are only worth something as they are traded between residents. Any time LL facilitates a trade, they have the opportunity to charge a service fee for doing it. I suspect that they take advantage of the opportunity any time you are buying or selling L$, regardless of whether you are on the Lindex web page. And of course, you know that they collect 5% on Marketplace sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Kenbro Utu wrote: Crim Mip wrote: LL makes a fair amount of revenue from the sales of Ls and remember L's can be turned back into cash. I mused about this in another thread. Does LL actually put Lindens into the Exchange to sell? It has always been stated that buying and selling of Lindens on Lindex occurs between residents. They used to, Supply Linden was a currency trader. However quite a few months before LL removed the economic stats, there was no evidence of Supply Linden making any sales, they seemed to have tailed off. As LL don't publish the stats anymore, we don't know how such sales are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Rolig Loon wrote: And of course, you know that they collect 5% on Marketplace sales. They don't collect on marketplace sales, that's a sink, those Linden Dollars are destroyed. Now by destroying them, it may mean they can sell Linden Dollars directly, but the marketplace commission is an indirect source of income for LL, it needs the other shoe to drop to complete the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Nuhai Ling wrote: In fact, if they ask for my advice, I say take out the middle man and just credit all of us L$1000! ... and make everyone happy! i am vote you for easter bunny ok and can i have 2000 please?? so i can be twice as happy or 3000 even (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now