Technology

59577 readers

4403 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

251

Bankruptcy Took Down the Redbox Machine. If Only Someone Could Take Them Away. (www.msn.com)

submitted 1 month ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They’re not just taking up store space. Retailers say the machines interfere with remodeling plans and expose them to potential safety hazards and liabilities. Some kiosks are hardwired into stores’ electrical systems. Outdoor machines are bolted into the concrete foundations and contain a coolant that is supposed to be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ech@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Profit doesn't incur ownership or liability for property that's not theirs.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, but any smart business would retain some of the revenue they got from the red box for scenarios where they may have to deal with shit they didn't expect.

In other words, the revenue they gained from having a red box on their property for 10 years probably more than covers the insurance claim they can file to get it taken care of.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Their profit from the device was all worked out ahead of time in the contract, and no business is going to freely lessen their return out of a contract. What the person you responded to was suggesting is making the removal of the equipment a non-issue instead of just assuming a business will throw away money.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I assume business would insure against scenarios like this, whether that's through securing cash as they suggested or if that isn't an option (which seems to be the reality of the situation) through things like, escrow accounts, insurance, and cash on hand.

You say the businesses wouldn't just 'throw away money' yet here we are, the businesses, by not 'throwing away money' are stuck with these machines to deal with.

I understand that the person was saying that the business should have collected a deposit, but they didn't, so my question is, why are these businesses caught out by this? Why didn't they prepare for the risk they assumed by subletting their property, if they didn't collect a deposit, they should have sequestered some cash to handle this scenario.