Is Amazon getting too big?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Is Amazon getting too big?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html
208 comments
I'd highly recommend an op-ed the original author published in the ny times. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-f...
It's short and to the point.
It's short and to the point.
here's the non-mobile link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-food...
Some of the arguments from the op-ed also apply to other cloud providers hosting other companies SaaS products - like MS serving own BI and invoicing products when they also sell computing power to competing startups.
It's been a decade since my last class on antitrust law, but the statement in the article that "'consumer welfare,' defined as short-term price effects" seems like it was possibly setting up a straw man. I thought CW accounted for quality and variety as well as price. Am I being too generous to the CW approach?
Isn't the answer to this question if you swap Amazon for any of the big 5 a sound 'yes'?
Amazon owns the commercial aspects of many people and continues to grow in that regard with the Whole Foods acquisition.
Facebook owns all social data and knows what you are sharing with your friends.
Google owns all search data and knows what you're looking for.
Ironically, Microsoft and Apple feel a little bit smaller in this scenario, but Microsoft still owns enterprise infrastructure and knows what your company wants. Apple controls all your devices and knows what you're doing with them.
Sometimes I think Uber could make this group a 'Big 6' and own all your commute data and infrastructure.
Amazon owns the commercial aspects of many people and continues to grow in that regard with the Whole Foods acquisition.
Facebook owns all social data and knows what you are sharing with your friends.
Google owns all search data and knows what you're looking for.
Ironically, Microsoft and Apple feel a little bit smaller in this scenario, but Microsoft still owns enterprise infrastructure and knows what your company wants. Apple controls all your devices and knows what you're doing with them.
Sometimes I think Uber could make this group a 'Big 6' and own all your commute data and infrastructure.
> Apple controls all your devices and knows what you're doing with them.
Except there are a massive amount of android devices and windows PCs in the world. Apple controls a small portion of devices in my opinion. I think they are the smallest whale in the ocean these days.
Except there are a massive amount of android devices and windows PCs in the world. Apple controls a small portion of devices in my opinion. I think they are the smallest whale in the ocean these days.
That's what I meant when they were ironically the smallest players in this club by this measure, both Microsoft and Apple are big players with products and services which are not so intrusive as Google/Facebook/Amazon.
Just consider what would be if Apple had the same market share on devices/PCs/smartphones that Facebook has on social media, it gets scary.
Just consider what would be if Apple had the same market share on devices/PCs/smartphones that Facebook has on social media, it gets scary.
> both Microsoft and Apple are big players with products and services which are not so intrusive as Google/Facebook/Amazon
Haha, funny. That was true with Balmer, Microsoft's current CEO transformed the company to consumers worst nightmare, they are worse than the three you labeled as intrusive - with them you can opt-out, and it's just a website or phone OS, but with Win10, Office365/2016 you and your lawyer, your doctor, your bank clerk cannot opt-out and leak your private data.
Haha, funny. That was true with Balmer, Microsoft's current CEO transformed the company to consumers worst nightmare, they are worse than the three you labeled as intrusive - with them you can opt-out, and it's just a website or phone OS, but with Win10, Office365/2016 you and your lawyer, your doctor, your bank clerk cannot opt-out and leak your private data.
A whale made of pure gold.
Smallest but heaviest.
In what way if you don't mind me asking?
[deleted]
> even former antitrust officials acknowledge that their approval of Google’s purchase of YouTube and ITA Software and Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp look naive in hindsight
Just imagine what it would be like if YouTube were independent all this time (or those others). Either we really could maintain more independent presence on these different platforms better than we do now or Google and Facebook would have figured out how to out-compete and squash them and we'd see the same result as today (except "Google Video" instead of "YouTube" as a name etc).
This is about POWER. That should be the test. Does a merge give excessive POWER. The answer is YES far more often than the Chicago-school jerks want to believe.
Just imagine what it would be like if YouTube were independent all this time (or those others). Either we really could maintain more independent presence on these different platforms better than we do now or Google and Facebook would have figured out how to out-compete and squash them and we'd see the same result as today (except "Google Video" instead of "YouTube" as a name etc).
This is about POWER. That should be the test. Does a merge give excessive POWER. The answer is YES far more often than the Chicago-school jerks want to believe.
Yes, I think the problem here is that in antitrust decisions citizens are being abstracted into consumers but there are lots of ways we are affected by these decisions which may not, or which may only indirectly relate to our consumption.
Kind of interesting that this article is coming from the WP, given their acquisition by Bezos.
Note: Didn't read due to Pay Wall
Note: Didn't read due to Pay Wall
Why would this be interesting? Are you suggesting Bezos has an editorial influence at WP?
This is OT but another peeve of mine since Bezo's bought the WP. The iOS app blocks articles. I grew up reading it and have even subscribed digitally since being in Boston. I have a login for the site, etc.
But the iOS app is blocking. Grrrrr.
But the iOS app is blocking. Grrrrr.
This is what HN readers and Paul Graham enthusiasts might call a reverse submarine or an insider submarine.
A traditional submarine is when a PR firm supplies journalists with stories that are true, but just happens to favor their clients.
It tries to give biased information a patina of unbiased objectivity (to the extent that the newspaper is considered to be less biased than a press release).
This reverse submarine -- a critique of Amazon published by Jeff Bezos' paper -- tries to give what appears to be a biased news source a patina of unbiased objectivity by running what appears to be a piece that's critical of the thing it's thought to be biased toward.
Bezos can now say, "Hey, look at this Post piece that's critical of Amazon. Clearly, I'm not pulling the strings or censoring articles that make my company look bad."
But bear in mind that we don't know what's under the surface. We know what articles critical of Amazon he has let through, but we don't know what articles critical of Amazon he hasn't let through.
A traditional submarine is when a PR firm supplies journalists with stories that are true, but just happens to favor their clients.
It tries to give biased information a patina of unbiased objectivity (to the extent that the newspaper is considered to be less biased than a press release).
This reverse submarine -- a critique of Amazon published by Jeff Bezos' paper -- tries to give what appears to be a biased news source a patina of unbiased objectivity by running what appears to be a piece that's critical of the thing it's thought to be biased toward.
Bezos can now say, "Hey, look at this Post piece that's critical of Amazon. Clearly, I'm not pulling the strings or censoring articles that make my company look bad."
But bear in mind that we don't know what's under the surface. We know what articles critical of Amazon he has let through, but we don't know what articles critical of Amazon he hasn't let through.
I think that when there is such a large conflict of interests, the best course of action would be ignoring opinion pieces on the parent company/owner altogether.
If it's major news that you cannot avoid publishing, just report the basic facts with no commentary.
Otherwise you cannot really read the piece without entering a similar spiral of thought:
"Is it genuine ?"
"If it's critical, is it to make the point that the paper really is independent ?"
"If it's positive, how can I trust it, considering the source ?"
etc...
If it's major news that you cannot avoid publishing, just report the basic facts with no commentary.
Otherwise you cannot really read the piece without entering a similar spiral of thought:
"Is it genuine ?"
"If it's critical, is it to make the point that the paper really is independent ?"
"If it's positive, how can I trust it, considering the source ?"
etc...
The article is not critical of Amazon. It is highly complimentary of Amazon, and says that it is not monopolistic.
This is more like when a scam university buys up all search engines searching for its name paired up with the word scam, and creates 100 single entry blogs called "Superfake University: Scam or Not?" that all explain at extreme length how it's definitely not a scam although although the outcomes are so good that it seems like one, and drop every synonym for scam or fraud you can find in the thesaurus, paired with the name of the fake university as many times as possible.
This is more like when a scam university buys up all search engines searching for its name paired up with the word scam, and creates 100 single entry blogs called "Superfake University: Scam or Not?" that all explain at extreme length how it's definitely not a scam although although the outcomes are so good that it seems like one, and drop every synonym for scam or fraud you can find in the thesaurus, paired with the name of the fake university as many times as possible.
> The article is not critical of Amazon. It is highly complimentary of Amazon, and says that it is not monopolistic.
You and I definitely didn't read the same article.
You and I definitely didn't read the same article.
This article is in the "Perspectives" section of WaPo, which means the "Opinion" section, in case you are not aware.
> Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences
> Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences
Opinion pieces are still subject to approval by the editor and reflect the broader narrative of the news organization.
Simply compare the opinion pieces in the NYT (more left leaning) to those in the WSJ (more right leaning) -- there is a clear and obvious bias toward the overall publication's bias.
Simply compare the opinion pieces in the NYT (more left leaning) to those in the WSJ (more right leaning) -- there is a clear and obvious bias toward the overall publication's bias.
I think you might be missing the point.
I'm not saying that the piece itself is unbiased. Opinion pieces are not supposed to be unbiased.
I'm saying that the fact that the piece was run gives Bezos the ability to say that he does not exert editorial control over the paper, because if he did, he wouldn't have let such a piece run at all.
I'm not saying that the piece itself is unbiased. Opinion pieces are not supposed to be unbiased.
I'm saying that the fact that the piece was run gives Bezos the ability to say that he does not exert editorial control over the paper, because if he did, he wouldn't have let such a piece run at all.
In your logic, is their any way Bezos can demonstrated the editorial independence of the Washington Post?
There isn't and there doesn't need to be, because newspapers should be read as evidence rather than as authority.
Like any publication, the WP is what it is. It has particular staff, history, reputaiton etc, all of which make it strong in some ways but weak in others, including bias. Bezos' ownership of the paper is yet one more layer on all that.
There is, and never was, any alternative to reading stuff with your bullshit detector turned on.
Like any publication, the WP is what it is. It has particular staff, history, reputaiton etc, all of which make it strong in some ways but weak in others, including bias. Bezos' ownership of the paper is yet one more layer on all that.
There is, and never was, any alternative to reading stuff with your bullshit detector turned on.
Even if the answer is "no", that doesn't mean we should fall back to assuming WaPo is fully editorially independent. Just as our (current) inability to prove P != NP doesn't mean we should assume P = NP.
Easy to get around with a bookmarklet.
javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window...;
E.g: https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washing...
javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window...;
E.g: https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washing...
Your link didn't work for me, still paywalled.
If you are on iOS, hitting reader mode solves this for many sites (WoPo, NYT).
open it in Incognito Tab
> Note: Didn't read due to Pay Wall
Do you use an adblocker?
Do you use an adblocker?
In my opinion, yes. Back in the mid-90's I used to get a mug or something similar from Amazon at the end of the year as a thank you for my business. But then we fast forward to last week when I placed an order that was being shipped by THEIR shipping arm, was somehow lost, and their customer service still tried to tell me they couldn't help if the shipping company lost something - even though THEY were the shipping company. Had to escalate to get a refund, and this is the 4th order just this year that hasn't made it. Granted the other three were other shipping companies - but FedEx claimed they never actually got the package, which given this experience I'm inclined to now give them the benefit of the doubt.
As good as Amazon is, and for all the work they've put in, maybe in 10 years it's all commodity?
There's products that have data attached to it, price, availability, product information. Big deal?
Then there's logistics, also a commodity. Travelling salesman and Knapsack problems are solved and thus the product will arrive at your door the next day. Big deal?
In the end, maybe Amazon is just a middle man, an inefficiency?
There's products that have data attached to it, price, availability, product information. Big deal?
Then there's logistics, also a commodity. Travelling salesman and Knapsack problems are solved and thus the product will arrive at your door the next day. Big deal?
In the end, maybe Amazon is just a middle man, an inefficiency?
Amazon definitely has to stay on its game to stay #1.
When Wallmart opens up in town the local shops to under and you have no choice.
When Amazon forces other businesses to close - you still have a lot of online retailers to choose from. It isn't difficult to buy from Target or BuyNLarge etc.
Which is why they try hard to hook you with Prime, Kindle, Fire etc. If Prime was outlawed, Amazon would be in trouble in a few years I expect.
When Wallmart opens up in town the local shops to under and you have no choice.
When Amazon forces other businesses to close - you still have a lot of online retailers to choose from. It isn't difficult to buy from Target or BuyNLarge etc.
Which is why they try hard to hook you with Prime, Kindle, Fire etc. If Prime was outlawed, Amazon would be in trouble in a few years I expect.
There is something to be said for this, because:
* Technology is making it easier for direct sellers to be found (Google shopping etc)
* Its constantly getting cheaper to have an online web store for direct sales.
* There are already online stores which I prefer over Amazon due to free shipping and faster delivery (outside U.S.)
* Technology is making it easier for direct sellers to be found (Google shopping etc)
* Its constantly getting cheaper to have an online web store for direct sales.
* There are already online stores which I prefer over Amazon due to free shipping and faster delivery (outside U.S.)
Regulators will have trouble finding anti-trust cases against amazon for the same reason they'll have trouble finding against conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway. Both get their price setting ability from being conglomerates rather than monopolies. Size benefits both because one business unit can support other business units for less than their competitors pay and cross selling becomes much easier, both of which allow them to price competitors out of the market. If regulators could wrap their heads around the dangers of a conglomerate like Berkshire Hathaway, they'd be able to see the dangers of Amazon.
Addressing conglomerates requires new legislation. In Israel, such a law was passed [1] a few years ago, in an unprecedented unanimous vote (something that essentially never happened since the establishment of the state).
I'd speculate the odds of passing a similar act in the US could be rounded to zero.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_Anti-Concentration_...
I'd speculate the odds of passing a similar act in the US could be rounded to zero.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_Anti-Concentration_...
Thanks for the link. This was a great read. Hope other countries follow this lead.
Amazon does have a monopoly in ebooks. I believe they are using that market power in anti-competitive ways. This is against the Sherman act today.
> This is against the Sherman act today.
There's no such thing as what you're claiming. Whether their actions are in violation of anti-trust law is overwhelmingly a subjective finding that can't be determined ahead of time in the manner you're claiming. It's a subjective decision reached through a long, typically drawn-out government process, involving trial/s, judges, DOJ prosecutors, witnesses, etc.
There's no such thing as what you're claiming. Whether their actions are in violation of anti-trust law is overwhelmingly a subjective finding that can't be determined ahead of time in the manner you're claiming. It's a subjective decision reached through a long, typically drawn-out government process, involving trial/s, judges, DOJ prosecutors, witnesses, etc.
Amazon has been around for 20 years, and the only thing it has used it market power for is to crash prices, which is good for consumers.
Amazon is directly responsible for ebooks being so cheap today. The publishers and Apple wanted prices for ebooks to be high.
If Amazon's monopoly power results in low prices for me forever, then I say bring it on.
The ONLY purpose of monopoly laws is as a consumer protection. And if prices are permanently low, like they are in the ebook space, that is GOOD for consumers, not bad.
In another 20 years, those "inevitable" price increases aren't going to come either.
Amazon is directly responsible for ebooks being so cheap today. The publishers and Apple wanted prices for ebooks to be high.
If Amazon's monopoly power results in low prices for me forever, then I say bring it on.
The ONLY purpose of monopoly laws is as a consumer protection. And if prices are permanently low, like they are in the ebook space, that is GOOD for consumers, not bad.
In another 20 years, those "inevitable" price increases aren't going to come either.
The ONLY purpose of monopoly laws is as a consumer protection.
No, it's about protecting the marketplace. Consumer protection is a second order effect. Here's a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the Sherman Act:
The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
As you can see, the court concluded that anti-trust law is about policing market failures, and specifically about the destruction of competition.
No, it's about protecting the marketplace. Consumer protection is a second order effect. Here's a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the Sherman Act:
The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
As you can see, the court concluded that anti-trust law is about policing market failures, and specifically about the destruction of competition.
I agree partially with what you say. It actually changed my feeling towards it a bit and had to pause for a second.
There's another player being squeezed in a theoretical e-book dumping. Writers. Amazon doesn't do for them what publishers do(editing to marketing), and taking out the competition could benefit consumers at the expense of the writers.
There's another player being squeezed in a theoretical e-book dumping. Writers. Amazon doesn't do for them what publishers do(editing to marketing), and taking out the competition could benefit consumers at the expense of the writers.
That's a fairly bold prediction. Why is it ok to apply your logic to Amazon but not other monopoly situations?
Monopolistic behavior, like buying out a competitor when there are very few players, CAN be bad for consumers, and should be stopped.
But price dumping to drive out competitors is fantasy boogieman strategy that basically never works. There has to be huge barriers to entry, for it to work. Because if there aren't, then a competitor can just jump back into the market when the prices rise again. It is just not a profitable strategy for a monopoly to engage in.
Price dumping just result in lower prices for consumers.
But price dumping to drive out competitors is fantasy boogieman strategy that basically never works. There has to be huge barriers to entry, for it to work. Because if there aren't, then a competitor can just jump back into the market when the prices rise again. It is just not a profitable strategy for a monopoly to engage in.
Price dumping just result in lower prices for consumers.
Price dumping is a great way to destroy competition and has worked effectively in the airline industry (presumably this fits into your high barrier to entry category). The ebook market is presumably easier to enter but far from easy.
The airline industry is f'ed up because of geographic barriers to entry and local monopolies.
IE, even though there are a dozen or so big players in the airline industry, there is often only 1 carrier going from X to Y.
Other examples would include the telecom/internet cable industry, electricity/water.
IE, even though there are a dozen or so big players in the airline industry, there is often only 1 carrier going from X to Y.
Other examples would include the telecom/internet cable industry, electricity/water.
That is the definition of price dumping.
Out of interest, what is Amazon’s share of the (presumably US) ebook market?
As of the beginning of this year, Amazon sells over 83% of ebooks in the US. [0] This is up from only 74% in 2015. [1]
[0] http://authorearnings.com/report/february-2017/ [1] http://authorearnings.com/report/october-2015-apple-bn-kobo-...
[0] http://authorearnings.com/report/february-2017/ [1] http://authorearnings.com/report/october-2015-apple-bn-kobo-...
[deleted]
The latest Planet Money podcast talks a bit about an interesting 'flaw' in the system causing Amazon to grow and grow even more and eating every other company.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/26/539552579/episo...
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/26/539552579/episo...
One thing I have noticed is my prime membership has subtly shifted my shopping habits further and further towards Amazon.
I've become impatient with other sites delivery fees and schedules, and don't really bother doing much price comparison either. Last night I ordered something off Amazon at 22:45 and it arrived this morning, that's a 10-11 hour turnaround time, and most of that time I was asleep
It makes me a bit uncomfortable that the situation has come to this, I'm inclined to cancel my auto renewal on Prime, just to try and level the playing field a bit when it comes to comparing retailers.
I've become impatient with other sites delivery fees and schedules, and don't really bother doing much price comparison either. Last night I ordered something off Amazon at 22:45 and it arrived this morning, that's a 10-11 hour turnaround time, and most of that time I was asleep
It makes me a bit uncomfortable that the situation has come to this, I'm inclined to cancel my auto renewal on Prime, just to try and level the playing field a bit when it comes to comparing retailers.
This is the very interesting part. By offering such great shipping terms on nearly everything (or close variants of), they're essentially setting the bar higher for any e-commerce store which carries similar items. This means businesses will need to both get with the times as well as find new moats and defining features to set them apart.
Do you think your isolated decision that harms you relative to other people, is able to do structural damage to what Amazon is?
Can anyone point to a good review of what Kahn's note argues?
I read most of the wapo article but it mainly talked about her and the attention she got without really getting into the details of what she wrote and why it matters.
I read most of the wapo article but it mainly talked about her and the attention she got without really getting into the details of what she wrote and why it matters.
Actually it turns out that she wrote an op-ed for the ny times: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-f...
You could also have a look at her note, the abstract is pretty succinct.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
> Why do Walmart, Google, Oracle and UPS all consider Amazon their biggest threat?
Is this true? For some of them (Walmart) I guess I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm still curious where this information comes from. Is it guesswork on the part of the author, or is it based on off the record discussions with the leadership of those companies, or something else?
Is this true? For some of them (Walmart) I guess I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm still curious where this information comes from. Is it guesswork on the part of the author, or is it based on off the record discussions with the leadership of those companies, or something else?
Anecdotally, when I proposed to some Google product managers that Amazon was their biggest competitor (if not threat) in my opinion, they looked at me as though I was out of my mind. They really could not see much of a connection at all. Perhaps because they worked in groups like Android etc. not the advertising group, but it was still a suprising attitude to me.
I think the parts of the business are a threat not the whole. I would think Amazon can be a pretty big threat to Google in advertising and cloud and to UPS in logistics and of course Walmart in retail.
In cloud it's the other way round. Amazon is the incumbent by far and Google is (one of) the threat(s).
Nope. But i also own around $100k in Amazon stock, so perhaps I'm just super bias?
I live in Canada, i tried to buy a iRobot 960 [$849 + 13% HST = $959.37 CA on Amazon] and ship it to my sister, she is building a house, and getting married...i love my Roomba and thought it'd be a fun present. Sadly I cannot do this, and since Amazon is just a book store in Australia there is really no option for using Amazon here.
The 'competition', Harvey Norman, lists the same item at $1399 AU. For fun, the exchange rate is $1.01 AUD for $1 CAD, pretty damn close. Import taxes I assumed, but then I found a cheaper and lesser known electronics website in Australia sells it for $1049 [taxes included]. Pretty close!
The moral to this story: Amazon will continue to be successful and grow as long as traditional retail insists on ripping off it's customers. I look forward to them prioritizing growth over profits for years to come, the entire world remains!
I live in Canada, i tried to buy a iRobot 960 [$849 + 13% HST = $959.37 CA on Amazon] and ship it to my sister, she is building a house, and getting married...i love my Roomba and thought it'd be a fun present. Sadly I cannot do this, and since Amazon is just a book store in Australia there is really no option for using Amazon here.
The 'competition', Harvey Norman, lists the same item at $1399 AU. For fun, the exchange rate is $1.01 AUD for $1 CAD, pretty damn close. Import taxes I assumed, but then I found a cheaper and lesser known electronics website in Australia sells it for $1049 [taxes included]. Pretty close!
The moral to this story: Amazon will continue to be successful and grow as long as traditional retail insists on ripping off it's customers. I look forward to them prioritizing growth over profits for years to come, the entire world remains!
Everything in Australia is more expensive than it should be, unfortunately. That's what we get for being the geographical arse end of the world.
It's also (AIUI) that Australian workers are paid a reasonably fair wage, even if they're moving packages in a warehouse, delivering parcels or floor staff in a shop.
Minimum wage in Australia is double that in the USA.
Here in Denmark, the minimum wage is even higher (2.5 times USA plus pension) and the vacuum more expensive than in Australia.
Minimum wage in Australia is double that in the USA.
Here in Denmark, the minimum wage is even higher (2.5 times USA plus pension) and the vacuum more expensive than in Australia.
I don't think that would even come close to explaining this difference. But as an Australian, yeah it's a thing.
I'm told Amazon Australia is opening up soon, first for merchant fulfilled and eventually FBA.
Relevant sequence of tweets by an antitrust legal scholar on the consumer welfare vs. big-is-bad approaches to antitrust law: https://twitter.com/ProfWrightGMU/status/889603600804179972
What's with his condescending hipsterantitrust hashtag?
Can someone ask the author to google 'myspace' and 'yahoo'? Maybe 'sun' as well?
"""
Customers naturally gravitate to the platform with the largest network of customers (think Facebook). Or their success depends on having the most customer data (think Google).
...
What this “post-Chicago” economics shows is that in such industries, firms that jump into an early lead can gain such an overwhelming advantage that new rivals find it nearly impossible to enter the market, while even experienced ones find it difficult to stay in the game.
"""
I'm an alumni of one of the big accelerators. We have had long internal email threads about Amazon strongarming smaller ecommerce startups with mandatory stock warrants as a precondition to sell anywhere on amazon.
For example, amazon will force a startup to give amazon a warrant to buy 10% of the company at a discount.
They have frequently tried to figure out what customers ultimately want and SHUT OFF accounts of sellers on amazon ... and gone and listed those products themselves.
Amazon is extremely famous for arm twisting anti-competitive and anti-startup policies.
They have frequently tried to figure out what customers ultimately want and SHUT OFF accounts of sellers on amazon ... and gone and listed those products themselves.
Amazon is extremely famous for arm twisting anti-competitive and anti-startup policies.
I wish that Amazon would start labeling packages with a code that indicates the "seller" so that they can better track, isolate and ban sellers of counterfeit goods. It wouldn't add that much to their overhead (what, < $.20 per item?), and would do a lot to improving the risk of class action, and trademark suits ahead.
asked the newspaper owned by Amazon owner.
I think the question to ask is: does Amazon make things better for consumers? The answer is an emphatic yes. Their practices squeeze every dollar out of the price of goods and then put that money right back into something else you want. Magical overnight shipping, digital books and videos, fresh and local food delivery -- what more do you want?
Oh the irony.
/s/Amazon/Walmart/
/s/2019/2003/
/s/2019/2003/
[deleted]
[deleted]
For you :-)
I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. However if they stifle competition, that's a problem.
From what I have read and my experience, they are stifling competition. For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. Also I have an ebook on amazon and in order to get exposure you have to exclusively sell on amazon. I get why he does these things, but that's just not right.
Amazon isn't a horrible corporation, but I think some of the things they do are anticompetitive and should be changed.
So are they too big? No being big is fine and helps them be more efficient. The real question in my mind is if they are using their size to compete unfairly.
From what I have read and my experience, they are stifling competition. For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. Also I have an ebook on amazon and in order to get exposure you have to exclusively sell on amazon. I get why he does these things, but that's just not right.
Amazon isn't a horrible corporation, but I think some of the things they do are anticompetitive and should be changed.
So are they too big? No being big is fine and helps them be more efficient. The real question in my mind is if they are using their size to compete unfairly.
They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV).
So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.
So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.
> They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV
This is such an interesting topic.
If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand?
The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my stuff, not yours.
What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM?
It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.
This is such an interesting topic.
If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand?
The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my stuff, not yours.
What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM?
It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.
It's about intersection of "anti-competitive" and "big enough to alter market dynamics".
In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive.
If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft.
Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive.
Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by Amazon, merely distributed by them.
To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively affecting customers.
In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive.
If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft.
Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive.
Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by Amazon, merely distributed by them.
To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively affecting customers.
Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire Sticks.
No kidding... I finally broke down and got an NVidia Shield TV so I could have one device for just about everything, I also wanted a 4K capable device, but that was secondary.
> In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive.
what? That's complete nonsense.
If I want to bring something to market, I can't just force my competitor to sell it in their stores. "Dan's Cars" could start up and force Ford to sell their cars in the Ford stores - crazy.
That's not how this works. If "Dan" expects to sell cars, then he has to do that himself, not rely on, or expect his competitors to do that for him.
How Dan's competitors sell their cars is frankly none of Dan's business.
what? That's complete nonsense.
If I want to bring something to market, I can't just force my competitor to sell it in their stores. "Dan's Cars" could start up and force Ford to sell their cars in the Ford stores - crazy.
That's not how this works. If "Dan" expects to sell cars, then he has to do that himself, not rely on, or expect his competitors to do that for him.
How Dan's competitors sell their cars is frankly none of Dan's business.
You're completely ignoring the "if Ford controlled all dealerships" part of the hypothetical. Which means you're railing against a pure strawman.
I see a few problems with this argument.
1. Market share matters, for what should be obvious reasons. Amazon is, in that regard, a far cry from your sole proprietorship fruit stand.
2. Amazon is much closer to Walmart than it is to Apple or Ford; Amazon didn't do retail to support their product line, they rolled out a product line once they dominated in retail.
3. Sure, consumers can go order a Chromecast from somewhere else; just like how users could always download Netscape on Windows. That didn't stop antitrust claims from being brought against Microsoft for their practice of tying, because they were fundamentally abusing a dominant position in one market to assure their dominance in others despite weaker product offerings. And here we are, with everyone subscribed to Prime for the free shipping, and getting an unasked-for set of streaming services bundled with. Which aren't compatible with Chromecast. Which Amazon uses to justify banning Chromecast from its store. It makes the tying of MS years past look amateurish by comparison.
1. Market share matters, for what should be obvious reasons. Amazon is, in that regard, a far cry from your sole proprietorship fruit stand.
2. Amazon is much closer to Walmart than it is to Apple or Ford; Amazon didn't do retail to support their product line, they rolled out a product line once they dominated in retail.
3. Sure, consumers can go order a Chromecast from somewhere else; just like how users could always download Netscape on Windows. That didn't stop antitrust claims from being brought against Microsoft for their practice of tying, because they were fundamentally abusing a dominant position in one market to assure their dominance in others despite weaker product offerings. And here we are, with everyone subscribed to Prime for the free shipping, and getting an unasked-for set of streaming services bundled with. Which aren't compatible with Chromecast. Which Amazon uses to justify banning Chromecast from its store. It makes the tying of MS years past look amateurish by comparison.
But if it's "their store" and not a "marketplace" then they should be required to deal with counterfeit goods, and deal with returns regardless of seller... they're trying to have their cake and a piece of everyone else's too.
> If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand?
Analogies are limited but to play along, it's as if you own the largest supermarket in a place that only has 3 orchards (assume you're isolated from the rest of the world), and you own one of those orchards, and ONLY sell fruit from your orchard while refusing to sell fruit from the other 2 orchards.
Those other two sell directly to the customer (and to small grocers) so they still survive. But they miss out on the customers that come to the supermarket and might have otherwise bought fruit from those other 2 orchards.
Analogies are limited but to play along, it's as if you own the largest supermarket in a place that only has 3 orchards (assume you're isolated from the rest of the world), and you own one of those orchards, and ONLY sell fruit from your orchard while refusing to sell fruit from the other 2 orchards.
Those other two sell directly to the customer (and to small grocers) so they still survive. But they miss out on the customers that come to the supermarket and might have otherwise bought fruit from those other 2 orchards.
The interesting thing here is that they are selling both their own products AND providing a platform for others to sell their products. Unless they compete with the products Amazon is making.
And that's their choice.
If I go to the trouble of building a store (bricks n mortar or online) then I'm going to sell what I want to sell.
I built the fruit store, NO, I don't want to sell live Aardvarks from my store, and it's preposterous that you think you can force me to do that.
If I go to the trouble of building a store (bricks n mortar or online) then I'm going to sell what I want to sell.
I built the fruit store, NO, I don't want to sell live Aardvarks from my store, and it's preposterous that you think you can force me to do that.
It's more like I will sell the apples and oranges of all the farms except for that one farmer who dared to try to open up an apple store. At some point, if you are the only apple and orange store in the area, the government may decide you are abusing your power as the biggest such store and are acting anti-competitively
Surely it only makes sense that I prioritize selling MY apples in MY store, and no somebody elses.
I built a store to sell my stuff and make money, after all.
I built a store to sell my stuff and make money, after all.
Sure, if your store mainly sells your apples do whatever you want. But once you open everyone else to sell their apples at your store for a cut, and everyone starts to rely on it as the only apple marketplace, screwing over the apple farmer next door who tried to open his own apple store is questionable
That's the thing; Amazon itself has sort of become a search engine of things/products. There are so many third party sellers that only sell their products through Amazon and not even their own websites that many people use Amazon as the first place to look for a product.
This is when I cancelled my Prime account and started trying to figure out how to put a gift wishlist somewhere else.
I recall their reasoning at the time was because those devies didn't support Amazon Prime Video and this was 'confusing' to customers.
I see this as flexing their muscles and stopping the sale of competitive video on demand services unless they play nice and support Amazon Prime Video.
What we don't know is if Amazon refuse to build their app for these devices.
I see this as flexing their muscles and stopping the sale of competitive video on demand services unless they play nice and support Amazon Prime Video.
What we don't know is if Amazon refuse to build their app for these devices.
Better yet: if you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon, guess which company's $40 multimedia stick is the first result? Hint: it's named after a South American rainforest, starts with an "A", and ends with a "mazon".
Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position.
Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.
Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.
Do you have a source? I searched and got this story [0], that says Bezos wanted "Prime Video Player to be a pack-in app on units sold through Amazon" and Google/Apple refused, so he pulled it.
0: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains...
0: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains...
uh, for chromecast, they have an open API and you are responsible for making your android app compatible with that. There are no built in apps for chromecast.
I'd refer you to Ben Edelman's explanation of the Google MADA. http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html (Note: He has been paid to consult for Microsoft, he's a biased source. But he's the person who initially discovered these agreements and put them somewhere public on the Internet.)
EDIT: Sidebar, but the whole "Private business discussions should stay private" comment in your link... Bezos knows how appalled we'd all be if we saw the way these companies acted behind closed doors. There's a reason the MADA is confidential too.
EDIT: Sidebar, but the whole "Private business discussions should stay private" comment in your link... Bezos knows how appalled we'd all be if we saw the way these companies acted behind closed doors. There's a reason the MADA is confidential too.
There's zero mention of Amazon there. My link has a purported quote direct from Bezos on the issue. If you want to make the case that Amazon's Fire devices aren't Google-suite compatible because they don't follow Google's requirements, uh, yeah, that's fine. I don't see the conflict.
That has nothing to do with Prime Video on Android (i.e. in Google Play) not supporting Google Cast. That's an intentional decision by Amazon. To enable Chromecast in their iOS/GPlay apps, Amazon just needs to register the app (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration), not agree to the MADA on other devices.
Amazon might as well ban all Microsoft products because MS doesn't allow Amazon to replace Cortana with Alexa on all sold-thru-Amazon PCs.
That has nothing to do with Prime Video on Android (i.e. in Google Play) not supporting Google Cast. That's an intentional decision by Amazon. To enable Chromecast in their iOS/GPlay apps, Amazon just needs to register the app (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration), not agree to the MADA on other devices.
Amazon might as well ban all Microsoft products because MS doesn't allow Amazon to replace Cortana with Alexa on all sold-thru-Amazon PCs.
Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.
Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly.
When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble.
Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off.
By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.
When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble.
Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off.
By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.
I believe Apple bought Beats...
I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action.
The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year.
I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year.
I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
Na that's a bunch of BS Amazon came up with to validate their position. There is nothing stopping Amazon from putting Chromecast app support other than Amazon. The only thing I can guess is Amazon wanted chromecast to enable support for their player format and chromecast didnt'.
The Chromecast app is a Google App. Google App access is conditional on agreeing to a Google contract called the MADA which requires device makers preinstall all of their software and set Google Search as default.
One of those apps is Google Play Books. So in order for Google to permit them to support Chromecast, Amazon would've had to agree to pre-install their competitor's ebook store on every single Kindle.
See the issue?
One of those apps is Google Play Books. So in order for Google to permit them to support Chromecast, Amazon would've had to agree to pre-install their competitor's ebook store on every single Kindle.
See the issue?
I read the Google Cast SDK license agreement and didn't see anything about search engines or requiring certain apps to be installed.
The Cast SDK is not at issue, the Google Cast app likely is. (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...)
Additionally, I'm pretty sure one of the conditions is also to make the Play Store the primary (if not only) preinstalled source of apps for the device. This conflicts with Amazon's own app store, which is integrated into the Amazon app (as distributed by Amazon; the one on the Play Store omits this feature).
Hell, the whole Play Store is basically a direct competitor to Amazon's multimedia offerings. While Amazon's own behavior is scummy, it's also unsurprising given the situation.
Hell, the whole Play Store is basically a direct competitor to Amazon's multimedia offerings. While Amazon's own behavior is scummy, it's also unsurprising given the situation.
That would be for adding chromecast support to their devices... doesn't preclude them from supporting chromecast, or having Amazon Video in the Google Play store, supporting chromecast for playback.
Adding Chromecast support to their devices is what this blockage is about. Amazon doesn't want to sell devices that won't be supported by their Kindle Fire line of products.
They also already have a contract with Bing for search.
It's a prisoner's dilemma, and they are structurally locked into the defect position. Neither company can switch to cooperating of its own accord without coordinating with the other.
It's simply a coordination problem.
It's simply a coordination problem.
If it were simply a coordination problem, Sundar has Jeff's phone number.
Google's entire business model around Android depends on withholding their apps unless manufacturers agree to preload their apps and set default search and the like. It's not a coordination issue, their whole business depends on them not backing down on the requirement.
And being required to preload Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle platform, is similarly fundamentally unacceptable to Amazon. These two companies are completely unable to come to terms on this because their requirements are so blatantly opposed to each others' businesses.
As these mega-conglomerates start selling everything under the sun service-wise in lock-in ecosystems, these sorts of clashes are likely to increase in impact and number.
And being required to preload Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle platform, is similarly fundamentally unacceptable to Amazon. These two companies are completely unable to come to terms on this because their requirements are so blatantly opposed to each others' businesses.
As these mega-conglomerates start selling everything under the sun service-wise in lock-in ecosystems, these sorts of clashes are likely to increase in impact and number.
>For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.
Every distribution contract I've seen has that clause. I worked for a game company that used to give away (to friends and family) the games they couldn't sell through their distributor because they weren't allowed to sell directly below list.
Every distribution contract I've seen has that clause. I worked for a game company that used to give away (to friends and family) the games they couldn't sell through their distributor because they weren't allowed to sell directly below list.
You're allowed to list on Amazon at whatever price you want, you just need to charge at least as much everywhere.
That said, I'm not aware of recent enforcement of this, but it is in the terms.
That said, I'm not aware of recent enforcement of this, but it is in the terms.
>Amazon isn't a horrible corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies. I call your attention to "Anti-competitive practices" and "Treatment_of_workers".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies. I call your attention to "Anti-competitive practices" and "Treatment_of_workers".
I mean, all warehouse work sucks. It's $12-15/hr work with literally zero educational requirements and no people skills required. Any warehouse job paying more than $10 is going to be fairly miserable.
Is Amazon evil? Maybe. But no more or less evil than most every other organization that runs a large warehouse.
Is Amazon evil? Maybe. But no more or less evil than most every other organization that runs a large warehouse.
Appaling thinking.
Firstly, I don't know that all warehouse work sucks. Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same.
Secondly, if that were the case, it would be only more reason to be outraged! What, companies paying workers under minimum wage (as low as 2.70£ an hour), treating their employees as cattle without the bare minimum conditions of dignity, all the while making its CEO the richest man on earth? We're supposed to be okay with this?? Shrug our shoulders and say "eh maybe they're evil, so what", say "a company that makes 150,000,000,000$ a year can't pay its workers minimum wage, their work will be miserable but that's life"?
What an appalling way to see things.
Firstly, I don't know that all warehouse work sucks. Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same.
Secondly, if that were the case, it would be only more reason to be outraged! What, companies paying workers under minimum wage (as low as 2.70£ an hour), treating their employees as cattle without the bare minimum conditions of dignity, all the while making its CEO the richest man on earth? We're supposed to be okay with this?? Shrug our shoulders and say "eh maybe they're evil, so what", say "a company that makes 150,000,000,000$ a year can't pay its workers minimum wage, their work will be miserable but that's life"?
What an appalling way to see things.
> Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same.
What? Hot summers with lots of heavy lifting and long shifts for low pay, all while being treated by management as a completely replaceable cog (because at-will employment, union busting, and the low-skill nature of the job means YOU ACTUALLY ARE a replaceable cog)? That's warehouse work.
I'm not even sure if there are studies about this because it's just... completely common knowledge among the populations who work these jobs. Here's a blog post for example from 2011, describing exactly this conditions at probably-not-amazon from a former employee. Note he talks in broad strokes -- not "my employer sucked", but "warehouse work sucks". https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehou...
> What an appalling way to see things.
I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm describing reality. I don't think positive descriptions of reality can ever be appalling, unless your goal is to bury your head in the sand.
Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior.
Realizing that working conditions for low-skill blue collar folk are systematically crappy, and that we need a systematic solution, is not "appalling". It's realistic and pragmatic.
Besides which, counting on the beneficence of particular corporations and/or particular instances of PR pressure has never been a sustainable method for producing good working conditions or livable wages.
Focusing on specific company's workers instead of focusing on systematic improvements to the negotiating power of labor is what's appalling. It takes a serious political problem and turns it into a corporate PR problem that's solvable without addressing the underlying problems. Because the empirically effective PR expenditures -- installing air conditioning, clamping down on loud mouths, token improvements to workplace culture, marginally shorter shifts... none of this makes manual labor on $12/hr with zero workplace protections and a minimal social safety net any less dehumanizing.
(And Bezos's net work has absolutely nothing to do with whether working conditions in warehouses suck -- IDC if the CEO is making 100K or 100B, and neither do the employees working in the warehouse because their job sucks just as much either way.(
What? Hot summers with lots of heavy lifting and long shifts for low pay, all while being treated by management as a completely replaceable cog (because at-will employment, union busting, and the low-skill nature of the job means YOU ACTUALLY ARE a replaceable cog)? That's warehouse work.
I'm not even sure if there are studies about this because it's just... completely common knowledge among the populations who work these jobs. Here's a blog post for example from 2011, describing exactly this conditions at probably-not-amazon from a former employee. Note he talks in broad strokes -- not "my employer sucked", but "warehouse work sucks". https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehou...
> What an appalling way to see things.
I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm describing reality. I don't think positive descriptions of reality can ever be appalling, unless your goal is to bury your head in the sand.
Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior.
Realizing that working conditions for low-skill blue collar folk are systematically crappy, and that we need a systematic solution, is not "appalling". It's realistic and pragmatic.
Besides which, counting on the beneficence of particular corporations and/or particular instances of PR pressure has never been a sustainable method for producing good working conditions or livable wages.
Focusing on specific company's workers instead of focusing on systematic improvements to the negotiating power of labor is what's appalling. It takes a serious political problem and turns it into a corporate PR problem that's solvable without addressing the underlying problems. Because the empirically effective PR expenditures -- installing air conditioning, clamping down on loud mouths, token improvements to workplace culture, marginally shorter shifts... none of this makes manual labor on $12/hr with zero workplace protections and a minimal social safety net any less dehumanizing.
(And Bezos's net work has absolutely nothing to do with whether working conditions in warehouses suck -- IDC if the CEO is making 100K or 100B, and neither do the employees working in the warehouse because their job sucks just as much either way.(
>Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior.
Fair enough, you changed my mind in that regard (if indeed it is the case that this is the widespread situation in the warehouse industry, which, again, I'm not convinced of based on word-of-mouth or one single blog post; nonetheless I will look into it).
What I was referring to as appalling, though, is the idea that this is somehow okay, somehow excusable, somehow not scandalous, either because "everyone does it", or because "it's unqualified labour", or any other excuse. There is no excuse. A company, furthermore one so obscenely profitable for its owners, absolutely cannot be allowed to operate this way and to treat their workers this way. That is what I classify as appalling. We the people cannot indifferently let that slide. We can give no rest, else the balance shifts entirely to their favour.
Fair enough, you changed my mind in that regard (if indeed it is the case that this is the widespread situation in the warehouse industry, which, again, I'm not convinced of based on word-of-mouth or one single blog post; nonetheless I will look into it).
What I was referring to as appalling, though, is the idea that this is somehow okay, somehow excusable, somehow not scandalous, either because "everyone does it", or because "it's unqualified labour", or any other excuse. There is no excuse. A company, furthermore one so obscenely profitable for its owners, absolutely cannot be allowed to operate this way and to treat their workers this way. That is what I classify as appalling. We the people cannot indifferently let that slide. We can give no rest, else the balance shifts entirely to their favour.
> . For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.
I don't know how much of a choice Amazon really has here. Amazon is the ubiquitous online marketplace for everything. If I find your product on amazon, and then later find it for cheaper on your website, I'm not going to visit amazon anymore to purchase said product. You just used amazon as an advertising platform against itself.
I don't know how much of a choice Amazon really has here. Amazon is the ubiquitous online marketplace for everything. If I find your product on amazon, and then later find it for cheaper on your website, I'm not going to visit amazon anymore to purchase said product. You just used amazon as an advertising platform against itself.
You make a good point. However I still think it's underhanded an unnecessary. People are going to buy from amazon for a host of other reasons such as convenience and maybe free shipping if they are prime members. I think amazon needs to compete based on value add, not with an underhanded contract.
I will almost never sign a so-called "standard" software development contract because standard practice is to treat the little guy poorly. I think the same goes with amazon. Just because it is standard doesn't mean it's right.
I will almost never sign a so-called "standard" software development contract because standard practice is to treat the little guy poorly. I think the same goes with amazon. Just because it is standard doesn't mean it's right.
Most vendors don't charge that much less for direct sales, at least no more than is probably likely for Amazon's fees for "fullfilled by Amazon"
> For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten.
How is it stifling competition to say "If you want access to our marketplace, you can't charge a premium"?
How is it stifling competition to say "If you want access to our marketplace, you can't charge a premium"?
The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?
> The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?
Not that I have any insider information but from what I read above I assume (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me if I am incorrect) that these agreements only apply to "ships from and sold by" and "ships from" Amazon.com.
Not that I have any insider information but from what I read above I assume (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me if I am incorrect) that these agreements only apply to "ships from and sold by" and "ships from" Amazon.com.
So don't put it on Amazon. It's their ballpit; they're not stopping you from selling elsewhere, and they're not the only game in town when it comes to online sales. I can't buy a Honda from a Toyota dealer, but that doesn't mean Toyota is stifling the market.
Amazon is like 5-10% of the US retail market. Most companies are anti-competitive, it's when they are anti competitive and a big chunk of the market that it's a problem. Am I missing something?
>amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.
Why not create an Amazon exclusive SKU, the same way manufacturers do for Costco and the like?
Why not create an Amazon exclusive SKU, the same way manufacturers do for Costco and the like?
That's a fairly standard retailer request. Walmart doesn't want you selling them something for $15 that they sell for $20 at $15 on your web site either.
Walmart is in fact even worse to 3p sellers: they will remove your offer if they decide it's too expensive, which tends to be (from what I hear from active sellers) in the double digit percentages of the time.
They monitor against other sites and may remove if yours is too much more than other sites.
They monitor against other sites and may remove if yours is too much more than other sites.
This is the most unbiased view of Amazon I've seen.
The only fix available for big companies doing anticompetitive practices is splitting them. The question of "are they too big?" is basically interchangeable with "are they harming the market?"
Well, ok, there are others fixes around, tried more often. They have an unbeatable track record of failure. Thus it's perfectly fine for the author to ignore them.
Well, ok, there are others fixes around, tried more often. They have an unbeatable track record of failure. Thus it's perfectly fine for the author to ignore them.
At what point is something anti-competitive?
Facebook cloning snap features? They are dominant in social media, should they be allowed to do that?
Google and their ad blocker plans?
Being willing and able to lose money for a few years to drive a startup out of a new market?
Facebook cloning snap features? They are dominant in social media, should they be allowed to do that?
Google and their ad blocker plans?
Being willing and able to lose money for a few years to drive a startup out of a new market?
Yeah I'd say those are all anti-competitive.
> I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them.
I'm seriously wondering what about Amazon (the store) is so great. They are just a shop. They may have a little more inventory than anybody else. Their ordering system works fine. They have good user reviews. But all that does not justify the enormous negative effect they have on competition. And they also have problems, e.g. with counterfeit products.
In other words, saying "more power to the best" does not make much sense if "the best" is only marginally better than everybody else.
I'm seriously wondering what about Amazon (the store) is so great. They are just a shop. They may have a little more inventory than anybody else. Their ordering system works fine. They have good user reviews. But all that does not justify the enormous negative effect they have on competition. And they also have problems, e.g. with counterfeit products.
In other words, saying "more power to the best" does not make much sense if "the best" is only marginally better than everybody else.
Where Amazon absolutely kills it is in their logistics.
As a store they're... frankly terrible. Search is complete garbage. Filtering is clunky. The product categories are an absolute disaster. And it's often impossible to tell genuine product from counterfeit (a fact that, by the way, has me terrified for folks inadvertently buying fake solar observation glasses for use during the 2017 solar eclipse) It's honestly a terrible shopping experience in almost every way imaginable.
But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost (edit: to the consumer). IMO, that is what puts Amazon above the rest. With Prime I'm honestly dismayed when I see an arrival date that's more than 2-3 days out... that's the level of expectation they've set in the market.
Of course, competitors are starting to match them. Walmart, for example, is really advancing in this space. But IMO Amazon is still the king of logistics.
For now, anyway.
As a store they're... frankly terrible. Search is complete garbage. Filtering is clunky. The product categories are an absolute disaster. And it's often impossible to tell genuine product from counterfeit (a fact that, by the way, has me terrified for folks inadvertently buying fake solar observation glasses for use during the 2017 solar eclipse) It's honestly a terrible shopping experience in almost every way imaginable.
But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost (edit: to the consumer). IMO, that is what puts Amazon above the rest. With Prime I'm honestly dismayed when I see an arrival date that's more than 2-3 days out... that's the level of expectation they've set in the market.
Of course, competitors are starting to match them. Walmart, for example, is really advancing in this space. But IMO Amazon is still the king of logistics.
For now, anyway.
In Europe it's even crazier both ways.
Amazon UK sends me tons of counterfeit products, and their stock of many items I like is extremely unstable. That is, many products or supplies I need often get discontinued.
That said, almost everything is 1-day delivery on Prime. I often order at 10 pm and have my products at 9 am. Sadly, they now use contractors to deliver on their Amazon Logistics, instead of good parcel companies. And the quality of service is going down.
They still use DPD for expensive items (that's how much they trust their own Amazon Logistics), which is cool as they offer a 1 hour delivery slot. When they used DPD for everything it was awesome.
Amazon UK sends me tons of counterfeit products, and their stock of many items I like is extremely unstable. That is, many products or supplies I need often get discontinued.
That said, almost everything is 1-day delivery on Prime. I often order at 10 pm and have my products at 9 am. Sadly, they now use contractors to deliver on their Amazon Logistics, instead of good parcel companies. And the quality of service is going down.
They still use DPD for expensive items (that's how much they trust their own Amazon Logistics), which is cool as they offer a 1 hour delivery slot. When they used DPD for everything it was awesome.
You mention "fake solar observation glasses". do you mind elaborating a bit: how do you tell if they are fake? Is there something missing in the knockoffs? What is the effect of a fake?
Worst-case, the effect could be that they don't protect eyes properly, causing blindness.
This exactly.
They claim certifications and safety ratings they do not have.
If they're not actually suitable, the result can be severe eye damage.
As for identifying the "real thing", I found the specific brand NASA recommends, and then tried to find a reputable supplier through Amazon with reviews indicating, by people who've tested them, that they were genuine.
It's still not foolproof, but at least it's something.
At minimum, if you're in the market for glasses for the eclipse, if you can see anything other than the sun when you put them on, they're not dark enough. Solar glasses are REALLY dark.
They claim certifications and safety ratings they do not have.
If they're not actually suitable, the result can be severe eye damage.
As for identifying the "real thing", I found the specific brand NASA recommends, and then tried to find a reputable supplier through Amazon with reviews indicating, by people who've tested them, that they were genuine.
It's still not foolproof, but at least it's something.
At minimum, if you're in the market for glasses for the eclipse, if you can see anything other than the sun when you put them on, they're not dark enough. Solar glasses are REALLY dark.
I bought some glasses on line for the 99 eclipse and didn't have a problem
- posted from my screenreader
- posted from my screenreader
> But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost.
What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right?
When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. I don't see the difference with Amazon, except that I have to find that small shop through a Google search, whereas I can order on Amazon directly.
What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right?
When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. I don't see the difference with Amazon, except that I have to find that small shop through a Google search, whereas I can order on Amazon directly.
What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right?
I had a feeling that would be confusing.
Zero cost to the consumer.
When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days.
Well, maybe this is unique to Canada, but that's absolutely not my experience. Not even close. 7-10 days is optimistic for smaller retailers. 14-21 is not unexpected.
I had a feeling that would be confusing.
Zero cost to the consumer.
When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days.
Well, maybe this is unique to Canada, but that's absolutely not my experience. Not even close. 7-10 days is optimistic for smaller retailers. 14-21 is not unexpected.
I do think competitors are catching up with shipping. I honestly find the reviews helpful. I could be completely wrong but the reviews on amazon seem superior to most other e-commerce sites. I could read the reviews and buy somewhere else but I rarely do that.
These competitors are catching up with shipping because of the way Amazon's demands changed the entire shipping economy. UPS offers entire categories of delivery products now available to Amazon's competitors because they developed them originally for Amazon.
Their search is pretty terrible. Everything else (the ordering process, delivery options, delivery time, returns system, etc.) is pretty fantastic. From my phone, I can order, say, another batch of my favourite kitchen towel brand in about 5 seconds. It will be in my hallway the next day. I don't know of anyone else that does that.
Amazon is scary in that way, because the ease of which you can magically manifest goods through its app means it becomes ingrained your routine, even to the point where you're itching to order something, even if you don't need it. They've really nailed the worst of consumerist culture, too.
It's also scary in the sense that they're slowly becoming the source of everything I buy. Whether I want household stuff, electronics, a suitcase, some hardware tool -- I invariably reach for Amazon unless it's something I know that Amazon doesn't have. (Amazon is still pretty useless for high-end, quality home decor and furniture, for example.)
As for the search, I suspect it works fine from Amazon's point of view. It's designed to offer you products that Amazon thinks you will buy, not what you searched for, and it tries very hard not to return "no results found". It is very frustrating for "power users", though.
Amazon is scary in that way, because the ease of which you can magically manifest goods through its app means it becomes ingrained your routine, even to the point where you're itching to order something, even if you don't need it. They've really nailed the worst of consumerist culture, too.
It's also scary in the sense that they're slowly becoming the source of everything I buy. Whether I want household stuff, electronics, a suitcase, some hardware tool -- I invariably reach for Amazon unless it's something I know that Amazon doesn't have. (Amazon is still pretty useless for high-end, quality home decor and furniture, for example.)
As for the search, I suspect it works fine from Amazon's point of view. It's designed to offer you products that Amazon thinks you will buy, not what you searched for, and it tries very hard not to return "no results found". It is very frustrating for "power users", though.
The single source payment system is pretty nice too... I don't like entering my CC on random sites, and given Paypal's reputation, they're far worse than Amazon from what I can tell. My bigger issue is the spammy/counterfeit products.
As they've focused more and more on third-party resellers and rebranded/white labeled products their store experience has gone down-hill.
Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for. Even if you navigate through their categories to "Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry : Men : Shoes : Athletic : White", 20% of the results are not white athletic shoes for men.
The relevance tanks even further if you're searching for specific computer components -- I have fled to NewEgg or NCIX for this purpose.
Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for. Even if you navigate through their categories to "Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry : Men : Shoes : Athletic : White", 20% of the results are not white athletic shoes for men.
The relevance tanks even further if you're searching for specific computer components -- I have fled to NewEgg or NCIX for this purpose.
<Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for.>
While I understand your frustration, there is an explanation. You are thinking of search & filtering as some sort of mathematical / boolean algebra process (hey, it's ok, I'm a CS grad).
Amazon is thinking about it as, "what does our show show that customers who have searched for [white nike hightops] have actually purchased in the past?" This is their search fitness function and they don't think they are wrong.
I agree on the broader point that 3p sellers and counterfeit products along with spam listings are a mess.
While I understand your frustration, there is an explanation. You are thinking of search & filtering as some sort of mathematical / boolean algebra process (hey, it's ok, I'm a CS grad).
Amazon is thinking about it as, "what does our show show that customers who have searched for [white nike hightops] have actually purchased in the past?" This is their search fitness function and they don't think they are wrong.
I agree on the broader point that 3p sellers and counterfeit products along with spam listings are a mess.
I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product", or they could find a nearby internet shop so shipping is fast. They should be able to replicate the same experience as Amazon, and make it better, and apply it to the whole internet.
I don't understand what is taking Google so long to figure this out. This is where the money seems to be.
(Otoh ... maybe they are afraid of becoming too large.)
I don't understand what is taking Google so long to figure this out. This is where the money seems to be.
(Otoh ... maybe they are afraid of becoming too large.)
>I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product
Google already does that. At least in my area. Type in a search. Click "Shopping" and it shows stores nearby that could have the item. It's not 100% perfect because it'll be decades before retailers allow Google to monitor their inventory in real-time, but it at least gives me leads, especially when I'm in an unfamiliar city.
Google already does that. At least in my area. Type in a search. Click "Shopping" and it shows stores nearby that could have the item. It's not 100% perfect because it'll be decades before retailers allow Google to monitor their inventory in real-time, but it at least gives me leads, especially when I'm in an unfamiliar city.
The ordering systems works fantastically given the volume, Prime shipping is huge, and their inventory really is broader.
The combination of (a) not needing to log in again to place an order (b) most things I'm interested in ordering being in their inventory (c) receiving most orders within 48 hours (and many within 24) is really potent. I've placed maybe a half-dozen non-Amazon orders online in the last six months, and apparently 163 with Amazon.
When possible, I avoid anything that's not fulfilled by Amazon due to point (c) above -- I'll find alternatives or even pay slightly more to get prime shipping.
The combination of (a) not needing to log in again to place an order (b) most things I'm interested in ordering being in their inventory (c) receiving most orders within 48 hours (and many within 24) is really potent. I've placed maybe a half-dozen non-Amazon orders online in the last six months, and apparently 163 with Amazon.
When possible, I avoid anything that's not fulfilled by Amazon due to point (c) above -- I'll find alternatives or even pay slightly more to get prime shipping.
Most people already have Amazon account, and the lock-in effect is huge. I also have one, though I buy occasionally (few items per year max).
Recently I wanted to buy some electronics, and I found a good offer on a non-Amazon website. But when I wanted to proceed with the purchase, they asked for so many of my personal data (all of it required) that I decided I prefer to pay slightly more and buy from Amazon, than to hand my personal data to yet another third party.
Recently I wanted to buy some electronics, and I found a good offer on a non-Amazon website. But when I wanted to proceed with the purchase, they asked for so many of my personal data (all of it required) that I decided I prefer to pay slightly more and buy from Amazon, than to hand my personal data to yet another third party.
I find it surreal that the article is written in a medium owned by Amazon.
> owned by Amazon
It's not owned by Amazon, it's owned by Bezos. Granted that's not much of a distinction but I think it's still important.
It's not owned by Amazon, it's owned by Bezos. Granted that's not much of a distinction but I think it's still important.
It's not surreal, it's a good sign. Would you rather live in a world in which the owner of a media company will never allow negative content to be published about their other properties?
Or they want to get ahead of the messaging...
Rather than surreal, it's more like a good chance to burnish their reputation for independence.
A bit like BBC News, who regularly report on scandals at the BBC (most recently, the pay gap between male and female presenters).
The BBC is ostensibly owned by the public, so they stand to lose politically if they buried scandals at the BBC.
(incidentally, the BBC was accused of doing exactly that when they spiked a Newsnight story that would have broken the Jimmy Savile scandal)
(incidentally, the BBC was accused of doing exactly that when they spiked a Newsnight story that would have broken the Jimmy Savile scandal)
[deleted]
Why ?
Do you really think that Bezos doesn't know Betteridge's law of headlines ?
Do you really think that Bezos doesn't know Betteridge's law of headlines ?
That law is only valid in the domain of slanderous, clickbaity or otherwise tabloid-style headlines.
No, you are wrong.
It refers to when a headline asks a question ... then the answer must be no.
Because if it was yes ... the newspaper wouldn't form it into a question the newspaper would state it as fact.
If the owner knows that ... he might be sharp enough to use it to his advantage.
It refers to when a headline asks a question ... then the answer must be no.
Because if it was yes ... the newspaper wouldn't form it into a question the newspaper would state it as fact.
If the owner knows that ... he might be sharp enough to use it to his advantage.
Great, sounds applicable then.
Just because you dislike the premise of the question does not mean it's not a legitimate question that can be discussed and debated. The headline "Is [company/individual/country] getting to [rich/big/powerful/indebted]?" is a valid question, and very different from a headline like "Is [White House staffer] capable of [an incredible acrobatic feat]?"
Edit: OK, I think I get your point that the headline is a clickbait considering the article is supposedly lacking. But my point is that the question being posed is not a question that anyone would get into legal trouble for stating as a positive fact, so the "headline law" doesn't apply.
Edit: OK, I think I get your point that the headline is a clickbait considering the article is supposedly lacking. But my point is that the question being posed is not a question that anyone would get into legal trouble for stating as a positive fact, so the "headline law" doesn't apply.
Except
"Is 'company/individual/country' getting to [sic] 'rich/big/powerful/indebted'?"
is a matter of opinion, and when it comes to legitimacy, the last place I would look for a legitimate discussion about Amazon would be in a publication that is personally owned by Jeff Bezos.
"Is 'company/individual/country' getting to [sic] 'rich/big/powerful/indebted'?"
is a matter of opinion, and when it comes to legitimacy, the last place I would look for a legitimate discussion about Amazon would be in a publication that is personally owned by Jeff Bezos.
You make a very valid point.
I'm only saying that just because it is a question in a headline, the answer is not automatically "no".
It's ironic that WP is owned by Bezos.
Isn't Jeff bezos the owner of Washington post?
Yes. That is mentioned in the article.
I feel like Betteridge is failing me here, because I want to scream "yes!"
Then I read the article, and Amazon is actually hiring notable antitrust lawyers. So it would appear that even Amazon thinks it's getting too big, even for the current regulatory atmosphere.
Then I read the article, and Amazon is actually hiring notable antitrust lawyers. So it would appear that even Amazon thinks it's getting too big, even for the current regulatory atmosphere.
> So it would appear that even Amazon thinks it's getting too big
Only guilty people hire lawyers? The intention of hiring counsel is to help you navigate the law and the procedure. It doesn't say anything about what Amazon "thinks."
Only guilty people hire lawyers? The intention of hiring counsel is to help you navigate the law and the procedure. It doesn't say anything about what Amazon "thinks."
It is more like Amazon hires the antitrust lawyers as some sort of insurance in case an antitrust suit is filed against them. This is like getting a vacination shot to advoid the flu in the business world.
Is Amazon too big? They are like a gentle giant offering services and products cheaper than competition with a good return policy in case of defective stuff. Amazon is sort of a better Walmart here but instead of going to a store front you shop online and things you order get shipped to you. If Amazon is too big, then so is Walmart and others.
Is Amazon too big? They are like a gentle giant offering services and products cheaper than competition with a good return policy in case of defective stuff. Amazon is sort of a better Walmart here but instead of going to a store front you shop online and things you order get shipped to you. If Amazon is too big, then so is Walmart and others.
Well, it is a recognition of risk not of guilt.
Being a monopoly is not against the law.
> "I feel like Betteridge is failing me here, because I want to scream "yes!"".
That's exactly what I thought too, I never thought I'd see the day where Betteridge's law was broken!
That's exactly what I thought too, I never thought I'd see the day where Betteridge's law was broken!
Or they're hiring them all so they all have conflicts of interest when the antitrust shit hits the fan and they end up in court.
The big question is how you'd even split up a company like Amazon. The Economist published a quality piece a little while back on how antitrust rules need to change for the data economy: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy...
On another note:
> They are implicated in complaints that Facebook has aided the rise of “fake news” while draining readers and revenue from legitimate news media.
This feels tired as if Facebook and Google were using anticompetitive practices to drain "legitimate news media" from revenue. Traditional media outlets aren't victims: they still refuse to look at alternative models of distribution, and have no one to blame but themselves.
On another note:
> They are implicated in complaints that Facebook has aided the rise of “fake news” while draining readers and revenue from legitimate news media.
This feels tired as if Facebook and Google were using anticompetitive practices to drain "legitimate news media" from revenue. Traditional media outlets aren't victims: they still refuse to look at alternative models of distribution, and have no one to blame but themselves.
The rest of it is discussing that, according to current anti trust laws, Amazon isn't too big but when it makes acquisitions it hugely affects stock market among other things. So there may need to be new laws or thinking about dealing with large, online companies like Amazon.
It's interesting but I feel like they could have gotten the same message across in just a few paragraphs and a link to the Yale journal but I digress. I've been wondering about this same topic though so it is interesting.
[1] http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox