Hacker News Reader

Comment by csomar | Hacker News Reader

> And of the things returned, we were equally impressed with our customer-base, and their guilt and owning up to the damage.

I thought the renters would be paying for it?

View on HN

They still probably lose out on some revenue until a replacement is in stock. Having a working lens is always better for business than getting reimbursed to buy a replacement lens. (That's the nature of the business, though.)

He mentions in the article they rented out “thousands” of lenses. I’m guessing the few lenses they have to repair because of this is barely over their normal repair load.

LensRentals do all possible repairs internally, so I suspect that the downtime on an expensive lens like that is minimal if possible. Roger mentioned on the photography subreddit that the aperture replacement was a $200 part and 3 to 4 hours -- it only took so long because it was that tech's first time replacing that part.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6xg8a7/lens_re...

The renters are paying for it. Next sentence:

> Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect

Still, lots of people might feign ignorance.

You can feign ignorance. It doesn't change the fact that the lens has a burn hole on it now.

Deny, deny, deny.

It's like denying you murdered somebody when you sent the police the murder weapon with your fingerprints in the victim's blood. Unless you're OJ Simpson, you're going to jail.

lens? what lens?

Ah, yes, the Shaggy defense [1]. It's is rarely is successful in practice though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_defense

Reply on news.ycombinator.com