250
Bankruptcy Took Down the Redbox Machine. If Only Someone Could Take Them Away. (www.msn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
48 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
[–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The store doesn't want to pay for disposal because it's not their crap. And redbox isn't going to pay for it because they're bankrupt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Stores need to start collecting a disposal deposit for these kiosks. Whatever it costs to dispose of the store should collect twice that and place in escrow and if the kiosk owner fails to remove it the store can get the money and dispose of it. I say twice the amount because depending on how long they stay there costs could go up and the trouble for making the store do it should get a bonus. If the kiosk owner removes it themselves then they get the deposit back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did the stores not profit off of the machines being there for all of these years?

    I can't imagine redbox wasn't paying these stores some kind of rent or commission, otherwise why would the store let them just post up their business on their property?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent