> The image watermark makes it pretty clear it's a 3rd party seller.
Officially, watermarks and text on/in images is not allowed on Amazon, per their policy. (of course, enforcement varies). This means not seeing a watermark is not a good indication it's not a 3rd party seller. Better stated, absence of a watermark does not mean the item is sold by Amazon.
Nearly everything sold on Amazon these days is 3rd parties. I'd wager somewhere in the 95%+ range. Same with "Prime" items (these are just 3rd parties that use the FBA option).
> I do wish Amazon would vet the stuff they permit sale of on their site though.
This is simply not possible at this scale. Not to mention, there's no guarantee a product line that was vetted by Amazon doesn't somehow have it's firmware changed/modified/injected after the validation period.
Essentially, there's no way around these issues. They're not "Amazon" issues per-say, but rather product-line issues in general. Same thing could occur (and might already be occurring) from retail brick-and-mortar stores as well.
Officially, watermarks and text on/in images is not allowed on Amazon, per their policy. (of course, enforcement varies). This means not seeing a watermark is not a good indication it's not a 3rd party seller. Better stated, absence of a watermark does not mean the item is sold by Amazon.
Nearly everything sold on Amazon these days is 3rd parties. I'd wager somewhere in the 95%+ range. Same with "Prime" items (these are just 3rd parties that use the FBA option).
> I do wish Amazon would vet the stuff they permit sale of on their site though.
This is simply not possible at this scale. Not to mention, there's no guarantee a product line that was vetted by Amazon doesn't somehow have it's firmware changed/modified/injected after the validation period.
Essentially, there's no way around these issues. They're not "Amazon" issues per-say, but rather product-line issues in general. Same thing could occur (and might already be occurring) from retail brick-and-mortar stores as well.