Antitrust lawsuit says Apple and Amazon colluded to raise iPhone, iPad prices(hbsslaw.com)
hbsslaw.com
Antitrust lawsuit says Apple and Amazon colluded to raise iPhone, iPad prices
https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/apple-amazon-price-fixing/antitrust-lawsuit-says-apple-and-amazon-colluded-to-raise-iphone-ipad-prices
134 comments
Be interesting to see how this case shakes out. Amazon has a huge fraud issue and intermingling inventory won't help a claim that it was to prevent counterfeits.
https://www.reddit.com/r/airpods/comments/ekmuyd/beware_thes...
https://www.reddit.com/r/airpods/comments/ekmuyd/beware_thes...
The counterfeit issue basically didn't exist before they started allowing chinese sellers. I don't know why they didn't bother to track the origin of individual items before mixing.
I'm not so sure of that.
I ordered several products before the platform was inundated with Chinese junk and I later found out all the stuff I bought was counterfeit. I think that there was a lot of Chinese sellers using drop shippers to avoid showing their products were coming from China.
One was a Microsoft Sculpt keyboard new in the box with the mouse. I liked it so much a few months later, I couldn't find the original seller, so I bought one off of Microsoft's site - as soon I got it, I could tell the one I got on Amazon was a counterfeit.
Same thing with some Lucky jeans. I got a pair off of Amazon and then went to the Lucky store they had in a local mall. As soon as I picked them up, I knew the pair I had were fake. The cotton wasn't the same (the real one's are super soft denim) and when I went to look closer at the tags on mine, the tags were off in several areas.
I had two more things I bought there which turned out to be fake and that it was for me, I won't ever buy anything other than books from them now. I know its gotten much worse since I stopped buying stuff on the site.
I ordered several products before the platform was inundated with Chinese junk and I later found out all the stuff I bought was counterfeit. I think that there was a lot of Chinese sellers using drop shippers to avoid showing their products were coming from China.
One was a Microsoft Sculpt keyboard new in the box with the mouse. I liked it so much a few months later, I couldn't find the original seller, so I bought one off of Microsoft's site - as soon I got it, I could tell the one I got on Amazon was a counterfeit.
Same thing with some Lucky jeans. I got a pair off of Amazon and then went to the Lucky store they had in a local mall. As soon as I picked them up, I knew the pair I had were fake. The cotton wasn't the same (the real one's are super soft denim) and when I went to look closer at the tags on mine, the tags were off in several areas.
I had two more things I bought there which turned out to be fake and that it was for me, I won't ever buy anything other than books from them now. I know its gotten much worse since I stopped buying stuff on the site.
A long time ago, Microsoft discovered counterfeit copies of Microsoft Office, where the cover art on the boxes (pictures of "office workers sitting at desks using the software" type of thing) used photos that were the same except less cropped than the photos on the real product. This means the counterfeiters weren't just buying a copy and then copying it, rather they had access to material upstream from Microsoft and used designers etc. to create their goods; these were not amateur operations.
Careful. Even their books are fake.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/24/18715584/amazon-coun...
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/24/18715584/amazon-coun...
Wow, I had no idea.
Thanks for the heads up!
Thanks for the heads up!
Counterfeiting of clothing (particularly Nike and other branded sportswear) was rampant on Amazon for years before the six-letter Chinese sellers of electronics showed up. Some of it was actually quite well-done, but still easy to demonstrate by cross-referencing tag information.
It would have cost them plenty of money, which I guess was not worth their (at the time) reputation for authenticity.
[deleted]
I wonder what happened to the other comment thread that was here? I have showdead on and now it's not here @dang .
> Where consumers used to be able to find discounted prices of upwards of 20% for iPhones and iPads for sale on Amazon Marketplace, now they get locked into Apple’s premium pricing.
How were these resellers selling iPhones and iPads for 20% off?
How were these resellers selling iPhones and iPads for 20% off?
Organized retail theft rings. Both the stuff you see on the evening news where a group grabs everything off the shelf at an Apple store and one off thefts from places like Best Buy.
The fact that Amazon willingly participated in this scheme is a strong indicator that they were getting a high volume of charge backs and returns that they had to eat because the devices were new in box but couldn't be activated.
The fact that Amazon willingly participated in this scheme is a strong indicator that they were getting a high volume of charge backs and returns that they had to eat because the devices were new in box but couldn't be activated.
Are you telling me Apple doesn't immediately ban those devices?
Couldn't Apple just enable Activation Lock for the IMEI or serial numbers of the stolen devices? Maybe the retailers are not able to report the serial numbers / IMEIs of stolen devices back to Apple?
You can exploit currency differences to get a discount.
For example, in Australia Apple locks the exchange rate at certain points in order to maintain a consistent price. When the rate moves against say the USD you can import phones at a cheaper price.
Never seen it be as high as 20% though.
For example, in Australia Apple locks the exchange rate at certain points in order to maintain a consistent price. When the rate moves against say the USD you can import phones at a cheaper price.
Never seen it be as high as 20% though.
This is the question I have as well. Seems like they would be breaking their agreement with Apple about being an authorized seller.
Lots of companies refuse to let their products be sold at a lower price in order to protect their prices. There was one software company in particular that wrote into the contract that you could not resell the software to 3rd party. You could only sell it back to the software company. This was specialty software, and licenses averaged around $40k per seat.
Lots of companies refuse to let their products be sold at a lower price in order to protect their prices. There was one software company in particular that wrote into the contract that you could not resell the software to 3rd party. You could only sell it back to the software company. This was specialty software, and licenses averaged around $40k per seat.
It depends on the buy back price for if this scheme benefits customers or not. Lets say I'm nabisco and I tell grocers that instead of putting my product on sale and potentially take a loss that I'll buy back that product. The risk of selling the product is on nabisco rather than the grocer and the grocer may stock more nabisco goods because of it. However, if the terms are not favorable then consumers should be more skeptical in agreeing to those terms depending on their risk tolerance. Extreme examples of this do often fall into anti-trust.
Just a short time ago, there was a thread where someone posted a link to the infamous story about Vlasic (IIRC) and the extremely cheap large bucket of pickles that Walmart (the retailer) forced Vlasic (the maker) to provide. The store mandated the maker. Not the other way around. So yes, sometimes the grocer does the telling.
That latter part is to prevent resale, which is not related to retail price and manufacturer's wholesale price.
It used to be quite easy to find used Apple products on Amazon. For example, I bought a used 2013 Macbook Pro with Applecare included at a decent discount. When it came time to replace it, similar options weren't available on Amazon, unfortunately.
This doesn't seem to be talking about used sales, though.
There's a difference from selling used as an individual vs selling used as store. There are authorized used Mac sellers, but I'd imagine they'd be under the same Apple mandates on what is allowed. If some of these sellers on Amazon "fucked around and found out" what happens when you break an Apple contract, then whoops! A contract is there for a reason.
[deleted]
Why unfortunate? There are great marketplaces like Backmarket.
At the end of life of an apple item, Apple still hasn't discounted their price, but other sellers have started to do so. I got my airpods pro at more than 20% off of Apple price 3 weeks before the announcement of the airpod pro II
[deleted]
Apple has always been known to protect their MSRPs so that authorized sellers can't "steal" business from other sellers by offering lower advertised rates and undercutting other stores in the hopes of less margins more sales.
Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold?
Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold?
How is preventing your competitors from undercutting your price not anti-competitive? It's preventing the one thing that causes competition to lower prices. You're literally explaining how Apple is using this to avoid resellers competing against apple stores.
Besides they're no longer their products, Apple lost ownership of them after they sold them. If someone chooses to resell them that's their business, Apple is not involved in that sale at all. Technology companies have too much control over what people can and can't do with their products as is, let's not give them even more control.
Of course just because it's anticompetitive does not mean that competition is always desirable, with concert tickets for example it's quite clear that competition is hurting more than it helps. Though I find "artists should get a say who can see their concert" much more reasonable than "Apple gets final say over all sales of Apple-manufactured products".
Besides they're no longer their products, Apple lost ownership of them after they sold them. If someone chooses to resell them that's their business, Apple is not involved in that sale at all. Technology companies have too much control over what people can and can't do with their products as is, let's not give them even more control.
Of course just because it's anticompetitive does not mean that competition is always desirable, with concert tickets for example it's quite clear that competition is hurting more than it helps. Though I find "artists should get a say who can see their concert" much more reasonable than "Apple gets final say over all sales of Apple-manufactured products".
> Besides they're no longer their products, Apple lost ownership of them after they sold them.
First sale doctrine is only for retail sales that have no contract outside the sale.
In distribution, contracts can absolutely dictate terms. This is a good thing. It lets, for instance, Boeing require purchasers to properly maintain airplanes (it hurts Boeing when they fall out of the sky). It also lets manufacturers offer lower prices on the condition that products be displayed or promoted in certain ways. This is very common in retail ("we'll give you 5% off quantity 100 on the condition they're promoted in ads and an endcap in each store").
The Apple / Amazon example is resale price maintenance. There's some good background on US law in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance#Unite...
In this specific example, where the claim is that Amazon and Apple colluded to raise prices by only allowing authorized Apple resellers on amazon.com, I guess I'm kind of sympathetic to Apple. At least inasmuch as they can show that sales from unauthorized resellers generate more warranty/support/other expense, or brand damage from even worse stuff like fraud and counterfeits.
It seems like the real complaint is with the resale price maintenance in Apple's authorized reseller program. Which may be a fair complaint. But why not go after that? If the price maintenance is illegal, it should be illegal everywhere, not just Amazon. And if it's legal, it should be legal on Amazon as well.
First sale doctrine is only for retail sales that have no contract outside the sale.
In distribution, contracts can absolutely dictate terms. This is a good thing. It lets, for instance, Boeing require purchasers to properly maintain airplanes (it hurts Boeing when they fall out of the sky). It also lets manufacturers offer lower prices on the condition that products be displayed or promoted in certain ways. This is very common in retail ("we'll give you 5% off quantity 100 on the condition they're promoted in ads and an endcap in each store").
The Apple / Amazon example is resale price maintenance. There's some good background on US law in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance#Unite...
In this specific example, where the claim is that Amazon and Apple colluded to raise prices by only allowing authorized Apple resellers on amazon.com, I guess I'm kind of sympathetic to Apple. At least inasmuch as they can show that sales from unauthorized resellers generate more warranty/support/other expense, or brand damage from even worse stuff like fraud and counterfeits.
It seems like the real complaint is with the resale price maintenance in Apple's authorized reseller program. Which may be a fair complaint. But why not go after that? If the price maintenance is illegal, it should be illegal everywhere, not just Amazon. And if it's legal, it should be legal on Amazon as well.
> I guess I'm kind of sympathetic to Apple. At least inasmuch as they can show that sales from unauthorized resellers generate more warranty/support/other expense
Could you provide some proof for such statements?
Could you provide some proof for such statements?
Proof that I'd be sympathetic if they showed those things? That's a tall ask. But I promise I would be.
Proof that authorized resellers in aggregate provide better service and therefore fewer escalations/expense to the manufacturer? I didn't make that claim for Apple specifically, but it seems plausible.
Proof that authorized resellers in aggregate provide better service and therefore fewer escalations/expense to the manufacturer? I didn't make that claim for Apple specifically, but it seems plausible.
> but it seems plausible
why? People working at apple stores are not more trained or more competent than people working in other stores.
why? People working at apple stores are not more trained or more competent than people working in other stores.
I think there's some confusion here -- "Apple Authorized Reseller" does not mean "Apple Store". B&H is authorized, Amazon is authorized, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and T-Mobile are authorized resellers. There's a tiny local shop near me that's authorized.
There are only ~500 Apple stores in the world. There are probably probably 100,000 authorized reseller locations (Walmart alone has 10,000 locations).
Setting aside Apple, the reason companies set up authorized reseller programs is to control the customer experience, from price maintenance (the topic of this HN thread) to brand image to customer satisfaction with returns/refunds.
Being authorized for any manufacturer is kind of a big deal; these companies pay for that arrangement, and there are often training requirements for staff, and minimum purchasing requirements, requirements for return/refund policies, and more. In return, the manufacturer steers business to these retailers and provides them with (often free) brand collateral, demo units, etc.
So if a customer has a complaint, whether it's user error or defective product or a mistake by the retailer or just the customer deciding this product is not for them, there is a strong incentive for the retailer to do right by the customer to avoid jeopardizing their status as authorized.
But if a customer needs help from a no-name reseller who has no direct manufacturer relationship, that reseller has little incentive to fix the issue. It's cheaper to just punt everything to the manufacturer, and there is no reason to do any extra work to protect the manufacturer's brand.
And of course unauthorized resellers have a strong incentive to pass off refurbished or even counterfeit products as real. Lower cost, and there's no bridge to burn with the manufacturer.
So all of that is why I think it's plausible that Apple, and other manufacturers, see increased costs and more negative brand experiences from companies that don't participate in their authorized reseller programs. I'm sure there are great indie companies that do everything right. But, in aggregate, at the scale of an Amazon.com, it seems reasonable for both Amazon and Apple to use the authorized reseller designation as a filter for sellers more likely to treat the customer well.
There are only ~500 Apple stores in the world. There are probably probably 100,000 authorized reseller locations (Walmart alone has 10,000 locations).
Setting aside Apple, the reason companies set up authorized reseller programs is to control the customer experience, from price maintenance (the topic of this HN thread) to brand image to customer satisfaction with returns/refunds.
Being authorized for any manufacturer is kind of a big deal; these companies pay for that arrangement, and there are often training requirements for staff, and minimum purchasing requirements, requirements for return/refund policies, and more. In return, the manufacturer steers business to these retailers and provides them with (often free) brand collateral, demo units, etc.
So if a customer has a complaint, whether it's user error or defective product or a mistake by the retailer or just the customer deciding this product is not for them, there is a strong incentive for the retailer to do right by the customer to avoid jeopardizing their status as authorized.
But if a customer needs help from a no-name reseller who has no direct manufacturer relationship, that reseller has little incentive to fix the issue. It's cheaper to just punt everything to the manufacturer, and there is no reason to do any extra work to protect the manufacturer's brand.
And of course unauthorized resellers have a strong incentive to pass off refurbished or even counterfeit products as real. Lower cost, and there's no bridge to burn with the manufacturer.
So all of that is why I think it's plausible that Apple, and other manufacturers, see increased costs and more negative brand experiences from companies that don't participate in their authorized reseller programs. I'm sure there are great indie companies that do everything right. But, in aggregate, at the scale of an Amazon.com, it seems reasonable for both Amazon and Apple to use the authorized reseller designation as a filter for sellers more likely to treat the customer well.
It seems you lack real world experience of how things actually work when you buy apple at an authorised reseller.
People most certainly got no training, can't fix any issue and just point you to call apple's support number (which isn't cheap).
People most certainly got no training, can't fix any issue and just point you to call apple's support number (which isn't cheap).
The problem Apple and an awful lot of other brands have (had) with Amazon, eBay and other stores allowing third-party sellers for their products is that there are an awful lot of scammers around - Apple literally had to build a fake detector for AirPods into iOS [1] because the problem got so out of hand. And yes, obviously they have to deal with a lot of people expecting actual AirPods or other Apple hardware who got fakes and contacted the original brand for support.
It's sad to say but unfortunately I don't see a way out of this mess than strict brand control measures.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/12/iphone-fake-airpods-ale...
It's sad to say but unfortunately I don't see a way out of this mess than strict brand control measures.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/12/iphone-fake-airpods-ale...
> In this specific example, where the claim is that Amazon and Apple colluded to raise prices by only allowing authorized Apple resellers on amazon.com, I guess I'm kind of sympathetic to Apple.
This is false:
“Ultimately Apple proposed, and Amazon agreed, to limit the number of resellers in each country to no more than 20. This arbitrary and purely quantitative threshold excluded even Authorized Resellers of Apple products.”
Apple is alleged to have created an Agreement with Amazon that retroactively limited the marketplaces where Apple Authorized Resellers could sell Apple products.
This is false:
“Ultimately Apple proposed, and Amazon agreed, to limit the number of resellers in each country to no more than 20. This arbitrary and purely quantitative threshold excluded even Authorized Resellers of Apple products.”
Apple is alleged to have created an Agreement with Amazon that retroactively limited the marketplaces where Apple Authorized Resellers could sell Apple products.
To be fair, even if Boeing's legal team cuts the CYA maintenance clause out of the purchase agreement, absolutely nothing will change in terms of actual maintenance on the aircraft they sell. The FAA requires all certified aircraft flying in US airspace to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's approved instructions as a condition of airworthiness.
Doesn't seem like a great analogy for consumer electronics sales.
Doesn't seem like a great analogy for consumer electronics sales.
> Besides they're no longer their products
This is correct for used devices, or course, but people in the wholesale chain will have signed contracts agreeing not to sell below MSRP.
It’s called “undercutting the channel”, and it’s very frowned on in the physical goods distribution industry.
This is correct for used devices, or course, but people in the wholesale chain will have signed contracts agreeing not to sell below MSRP.
It’s called “undercutting the channel”, and it’s very frowned on in the physical goods distribution industry.
Those aren't "third party resellers" which is what is being discussed.
How does a third party get an iPhone at wholesale price, then? They're not going to undercut the channel if they have to buy at retail prices.
There’s a pretty massive grey market in iPhones.
There’s a couple of ways they are sourced but basically:
- Buy Apple gift cards for 70-80% of face value from let’s just say dubious sources and then use that to buy phones
- Fedex or warehouse employees stealing to supplement their salaries
- Authorized retailers who break their agreement
- Buyback websites or stores where people bring phones and get paid like 60% of retail or less if it’s locked. Some of this is just people wanting to return a gift they got without asking the giver for the receipt but most of the phones bought at these kind of stores are obtained through “credit mulling” where they gather up a bunch of homeless people and pay them $20 to go into an AT&T store and get a phone on credit.
- Currency arbitrage: if the Euro drops and companies don’t update their prices and you are able to get VAT refunds then you could be able to get a phone for less than it’s American retail value. This (big drop in yen) combined with the camera shutter is why Japanese spec iPhones can be a lot cheaper.
https://www.hanggroup.com/price/ is a company with 9 figure revenue that purchases these no questions asked. You can see the most they pay for a phone is $1050 for the 14 pro max which is $50 below retail.
There’s a couple of ways they are sourced but basically:
- Buy Apple gift cards for 70-80% of face value from let’s just say dubious sources and then use that to buy phones
- Fedex or warehouse employees stealing to supplement their salaries
- Authorized retailers who break their agreement
- Buyback websites or stores where people bring phones and get paid like 60% of retail or less if it’s locked. Some of this is just people wanting to return a gift they got without asking the giver for the receipt but most of the phones bought at these kind of stores are obtained through “credit mulling” where they gather up a bunch of homeless people and pay them $20 to go into an AT&T store and get a phone on credit.
- Currency arbitrage: if the Euro drops and companies don’t update their prices and you are able to get VAT refunds then you could be able to get a phone for less than it’s American retail value. This (big drop in yen) combined with the camera shutter is why Japanese spec iPhones can be a lot cheaper.
https://www.hanggroup.com/price/ is a company with 9 figure revenue that purchases these no questions asked. You can see the most they pay for a phone is $1050 for the 14 pro max which is $50 below retail.
Also I should add carrier auctions, store bankruptcies/liquidations, gaming credit card points but these are much less common than the methods listed above.
> Apple gift cards [...] from let’s just say dubious sources
Is this where the gift cards harvested from scam operations go?
Is this where the gift cards harvested from scam operations go?
The Nigerian or Indian scammer will usually get 40-50 cents on the dollar in their local currency or crypto from a Chinese "gift card trader" who then sells it on Paxful or in Wechat/Whatsapp groups for 10-20% more than that. The groups doing it on a large scale have "shoppers" who spend all day buying electronics with the cards for a % of the amount.
They don't have to get it at wholesale price. They could have gotten one as a prize, but not want it. They could have gotten a great deal on one from AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile, but just want to turn the deal into more cash by keeping their old phone and selling the new one. They might have gotten cash back by buying it on a credit card and be willing to sell it for slightly under MSRP to arbitrage the difference. All of these could lead to lower than MSRP prices.
> They might have gotten cash back by buying it on a credit card and be willing to sell it for slightly under MSRP to arbitrage the difference.
Has anyone made this work? I tried to make it work. Even at 10% (Discover IT category + end of year match), you can’t buy something, have it shipped to you, sell it, ship it, and make money. Any online marketplace eats your profit very quickly with assorted fees.
Has anyone made this work? I tried to make it work. Even at 10% (Discover IT category + end of year match), you can’t buy something, have it shipped to you, sell it, ship it, and make money. Any online marketplace eats your profit very quickly with assorted fees.
A better example is Chase's promotion with Apple this year, which involves Chase credit card holders being able to redeem Ultimate Rewards points at a higher rate of up to 1.5 cents/point on Apple products compared to the standard rate of 1 cent/point for a limited time:
https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/03/chase-apple-products-redempti...
Many of Chase's credit card sign up offers provide enough points for a cardholder to obtain an iPhone through this promotion. If the cardholder does not want the iPhone, they could resell it on a marketplace. Amazon Marketplace used to be one of these marketplaces until it started restricting listings for certain brands such as Apple.
https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/03/chase-apple-products-redempti...
Many of Chase's credit card sign up offers provide enough points for a cardholder to obtain an iPhone through this promotion. If the cardholder does not want the iPhone, they could resell it on a marketplace. Amazon Marketplace used to be one of these marketplaces until it started restricting listings for certain brands such as Apple.
If you contacts overseas and enough volume you can often move various electronics for a decent margin. It's pretty involved though.
One of the routes I'm aware of involves buying gift cards from Kroger with a high cash back credit card during their frequent events where they offer extra fuel points on purchases. They don't charge activation fees on gift cards, and you can sell the fuel points accounts somewhat under the table on eBay, and then pocket the cash back from your credit card. Then you wait til black Friday or other sales, use the gift cards to buy electronics at discounted prices, and then ship them overseas to sell for a decent markup. It involves floating tens of thousands of dollars for several months though so not quite for your average individual just trying to make some quick cash.
One of the routes I'm aware of involves buying gift cards from Kroger with a high cash back credit card during their frequent events where they offer extra fuel points on purchases. They don't charge activation fees on gift cards, and you can sell the fuel points accounts somewhat under the table on eBay, and then pocket the cash back from your credit card. Then you wait til black Friday or other sales, use the gift cards to buy electronics at discounted prices, and then ship them overseas to sell for a decent markup. It involves floating tens of thousands of dollars for several months though so not quite for your average individual just trying to make some quick cash.
And the Discover bonus is limited to $75 in cash back per quarter at the 5% rate (at least on the card I have), which means you could probably do it once or twice before you’re back to earning 1%. And if you’re in the first year you’d need to wait until the card’s first birthday to get the other half, so you’d lose money until then.
They could have gotten one as a prize, but not want it.
Your examples are unlikely to be how a "third-party reseller" obtained the phone(s).
Your examples are unlikely to be how a "third-party reseller" obtained the phone(s).
Many people sell unwanted gifts and purchases that are not eligible for free return on marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay unopened. It's easy to sign up as an Amazon Marketplace seller, since there is an Individual plan with no monthly fees:
https://sell.amazon.com/pricing#selling-plans
In the past decade, Amazon started adding brand restrictions to prevent marketplace sellers from offering items on certain listings unless they met requirements set by the brand owner. This collapsed Amazon's marketplace for used goods of restricted brands and also hindered individuals selling new goods of restricted brands on Amazon. This lawsuit focuses on new goods of one of these restricted brands.
https://sell.amazon.com/pricing#selling-plans
In the past decade, Amazon started adding brand restrictions to prevent marketplace sellers from offering items on certain listings unless they met requirements set by the brand owner. This collapsed Amazon's marketplace for used goods of restricted brands and also hindered individuals selling new goods of restricted brands on Amazon. This lawsuit focuses on new goods of one of these restricted brands.
We are talking about Amazon not eBay. None of these examples make much sense. The real issue is iPhones aren’t country locked and Apple works with a ton of retailers globally. It would just end up a cat and mouse game of Apple trying to figure out which desperate retailer is dumping inventory on Amazon in violation of Apple’s agreement with the retailer.
Amazon has third party resellers. It's more similar to eBay than you might rhink
I know the process because I have setup an Amazon vendor account. You are not getting a vendor account to sell one phone you won in a bingo raffle.
I used to have an Amazon Seller account on the Individual plan, which has no monthly fees:
https://sell.amazon.com/pricing#selling-plans
Prior to Amazon's brand restrictions, Amazon Marketplace was a popular place for individuals to sell unwanted new and used goods. Selling on Amazon was even easier than selling on eBay, since there was no need to make a new product listing with photos and descriptions. Most of the new goods sold by Individual sellers were not raffle prizes, but unwanted goods such as gifts, items obtained at a discount, and items that were not eligible for free return to the original retailer.
https://sell.amazon.com/pricing#selling-plans
Prior to Amazon's brand restrictions, Amazon Marketplace was a popular place for individuals to sell unwanted new and used goods. Selling on Amazon was even easier than selling on eBay, since there was no need to make a new product listing with photos and descriptions. Most of the new goods sold by Individual sellers were not raffle prizes, but unwanted goods such as gifts, items obtained at a discount, and items that were not eligible for free return to the original retailer.
I can sell on Amazon. Or I used to be able to. Most recently I tried to use my account to sell some iPad/tablet/phone stands for a school. They were brand new, never opened. Amazon wouldn't let me list them unless I could prove I got them from the manufacturer or something.
It sucks.
I'm sure the reason is because of fraudulent items, which also sucks.
Pretty bad catch-22.
Anyway, I got this seller account to sell a couple of books. Used it a couple of times a decade. If I won an iPhone in a raffle, I'd absolutely be trying to sell it on Amazon.
It sucks.
I'm sure the reason is because of fraudulent items, which also sucks.
Pretty bad catch-22.
Anyway, I got this seller account to sell a couple of books. Used it a couple of times a decade. If I won an iPhone in a raffle, I'd absolutely be trying to sell it on Amazon.
What if you bought new phones from others and then resold?
"How is preventing your competitors from undercutting your price not anti-competitive? It's preventing the one thing that causes competition to lower prices."
Because Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies are one of the most common practices used by the large majority of consumer goods manufacturers and brands, especially in the electronics or higher end goods space.
Every retailer who is an authorized seller of a brand that employs a MAP policy has agreed to advertise/list/publish the product at a price no lower than MAP, or risk losing their reseller status. Note that I did not say they can't sell for a lower price, just that they cannot show a lower price to the general public to elicit a sale.
MAP is not just beneficial for the brand though, who's products remain priced accordingly to limits the brand has set; it's beneficial to the retailer who can count on a minimum set margin and not have to worry about being undercut by another retailer. It also benefits the end consumer by ensuring the retailer and brand retain enough margin on the sale to facilitate after-sale support and service as well provide the means to stay in business along with the benefit of helping to protect resale values (for applicable products). MAP policies themselves are fully legal under current anti-trust laws (in the US).
Because Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies are one of the most common practices used by the large majority of consumer goods manufacturers and brands, especially in the electronics or higher end goods space.
Every retailer who is an authorized seller of a brand that employs a MAP policy has agreed to advertise/list/publish the product at a price no lower than MAP, or risk losing their reseller status. Note that I did not say they can't sell for a lower price, just that they cannot show a lower price to the general public to elicit a sale.
MAP is not just beneficial for the brand though, who's products remain priced accordingly to limits the brand has set; it's beneficial to the retailer who can count on a minimum set margin and not have to worry about being undercut by another retailer. It also benefits the end consumer by ensuring the retailer and brand retain enough margin on the sale to facilitate after-sale support and service as well provide the means to stay in business along with the benefit of helping to protect resale values (for applicable products). MAP policies themselves are fully legal under current anti-trust laws (in the US).
How is selling not rent seeking?
Do we still need sales reps for technology at this point? Is the value of it not plainly aware to the end user?
Retail middle men made sense in an era of vastly different solutions to logistics problems.
The USs problem is individuals are better at individual decision making but we have all these lifelong sales reps, wannabe thought leaders, and politically correct economic of a bygone era to validate.
Best Buy, for example, is a car dealership; a land owning rent seeker not inventing anything.
Do we still need sales reps for technology at this point? Is the value of it not plainly aware to the end user?
Retail middle men made sense in an era of vastly different solutions to logistics problems.
The USs problem is individuals are better at individual decision making but we have all these lifelong sales reps, wannabe thought leaders, and politically correct economic of a bygone era to validate.
Best Buy, for example, is a car dealership; a land owning rent seeker not inventing anything.
>Apple is not involved in that sale at all.
Apple is still on the hook to provide at least the bare minimum of support which costs Apple money.
Apple is still on the hook to provide at least the bare minimum of support which costs Apple money.
They choose to offer that support themselves, there is no "hook" for them to be on. If their business model is found to be incompatible with a fair economy, they'll be forced to adapt.
> Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold?
Yes. And it's not supposed to be ""your"" product after you sell it to a retailer.
Yes. And it's not supposed to be ""your"" product after you sell it to a retailer.
> And it's not supposed to be ""your"" product after you sell it to a retailer.
...unless you have a contract with that retailer around the conditions of the sale, which Apple and lots of other big companies do with their bulk retailers.
...unless you have a contract with that retailer around the conditions of the sale, which Apple and lots of other big companies do with their bulk retailers.
This is actually shifting, from what I've heard; if you're a small physical product seller and want to get your stuff on retailer shelves, you essentially pay Best Buy a shelf space & inventory fee instead of selling your product to them. This means Best Buy can take a chance putting garbage (or not) products on their shelves without having to take a loss (in the form of a discount) on any unsold inventory.
Big Box retailers will give you shelf space, but if product isn't moving, they can force you to buy it back from them. That's part of the agreement signed between the parties. Just like Apple putting in as part of the contract that you sell at stated price, it's something agreed between parties.
> Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold?
Emphasis on suggested in MSRP. Retailers can take a hit on a loss leader to get people to buy cases, earphones, etc. Unless businesses collude to not allow that.
Emphasis on suggested in MSRP. Retailers can take a hit on a loss leader to get people to buy cases, earphones, etc. Unless businesses collude to not allow that.
Just like those places with no prices, just donations. Suggested donations are prices.
Yes. That is like the definition of anti-competitive. Apple is abusing its power as a manufacturer to gain an anti-competitive edge in the retail side of its business.
US anti-trust law mostly focuses on harm to consumers, not competitors.
I'd daresay that backroom deals that prevent prices from dropping are the poster child for harm to consumers. I can't think of a more blatant example of it, actually - can you?
I'd daresay that backroom deals that prevent prices from dropping are the poster child for harm to consumers. I can't think of a more blatant example of it, actually - can you?
They are not the sellers, so they don't decide the price. They can force sellers through their market advantage. And this is why, in my guess, it's anti-competitive.
> Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold
Is restrictiong competition antimcompetitive?
Is taking someone else's money stealing?
Is putting people in chains and selling them slavery?
Do words mean anything?
Is restrictiong competition antimcompetitive?
Is taking someone else's money stealing?
Is putting people in chains and selling them slavery?
Do words mean anything?
> Is that anti-competitive forcing all sellers to sell your product at the price you want it sold?
Yes
Yes
This isn’t true at all.
Numerous sellers reduce prices for apple devices. It’s gotten so consumer friendly that I almost never go to the Apple Store anymore.
I know this because I fully utilize Best Buy’s price matching to get lower prices on my purchases.
Numerous sellers reduce prices for apple devices. It’s gotten so consumer friendly that I almost never go to the Apple Store anymore.
I know this because I fully utilize Best Buy’s price matching to get lower prices on my purchases.
Price matching pretty much only works on Apple devices because every other consumer electronic/appliance gets a different model # for each store that sells it.
Yes? Unless Apple goods are sold on consignment or something didn't the store buy their inventory from Apple? And so then it's not Apple's but the store's?
They bought their inventory from Apple within the provisions of the contract they signed to be allowed to sell Apple products. These companies are entering into a valid contract voluntarily. They can chose not to sign the contract, but then they don't get to sell Apple products.
What do you mean by "all sellers"? Does that include people selling used devices?
yes
Once I buy something it is my product, not Apple's. I can then resell it at whatever price I want. That's why the concept of maximum suggested retail price exists.
Apple blocking me from selling something I own is 100% illegal.
Apple blocking me from selling something I own is 100% illegal.
As many others have pointed out, this is only true as a purchaser who has no contractual relationship outside of the sale.
If Apple comes to you and says "paxys, we just love you, we'll sell you everything for 50% off... but you have to sign a contract that you will only dispose of products by firing them into space", and you sign that contract, and they live up to the discount... surprise, you're on the hook for your part of the contact.
Apple has contracts with these resellers. It's called minimum advertised price (MAP) or retail price support. There is a long history of MAP/RPS being litigated in the US, and there are lots of twists and turns and valid opinions to be had.
But "first sale doctrine supersedes any contracts" is NOT correct.
If Apple comes to you and says "paxys, we just love you, we'll sell you everything for 50% off... but you have to sign a contract that you will only dispose of products by firing them into space", and you sign that contract, and they live up to the discount... surprise, you're on the hook for your part of the contact.
Apple has contracts with these resellers. It's called minimum advertised price (MAP) or retail price support. There is a long history of MAP/RPS being litigated in the US, and there are lots of twists and turns and valid opinions to be had.
But "first sale doctrine supersedes any contracts" is NOT correct.
Yes except this lawsuit has nothing to do with Apple authorized resellers. It is about "third-party merchants" on Amazon, who can be literally anyone. If I – having no prior agreement with Apple – decided to sell my iPad on Amazon, they would remove my listing because Apple didn't approve of it.
They would remove it because it's incredibly likely to be stolen or a grey import, both of which cause big issues to Apple, Amazon and the consumer.
The "M" in MSRP is Manufacturer's, not Maximum.
> The lawsuit says the parties’ illegal agreement brought the number of third-party sellers of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace from roughly 600 to just seven sellers – a loss of 98%, and by doing so, Amazon, which was formerly a marginal seller of Apple products, became the dominant seller of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace.
Apple (future argument) - “We regularly review our sellers for counterfeit goods. During this review, we found indications of non-original Apple products. We regularly co-operate with our industry partners to maintain high standards for our products”
^ that’s my version not Apple’s.
Apple (future argument) - “We regularly review our sellers for counterfeit goods. During this review, we found indications of non-original Apple products. We regularly co-operate with our industry partners to maintain high standards for our products”
^ that’s my version not Apple’s.
That hypothetical argument doesn't even make sense. Apple could (and still can) have counterfeits taken down. This has nothing to do with that.
The counterfeiters can create accounts faster than you can shut them down, which is likely what led them to the next step, asking Amazon to only permit certain vetted resellers.
It makes a great deal of sense if you get into the wording. Non-original doesn't necessarily mean counterfeit. It could refer to "not sold by Apple or an authorized retailer", i.e. used / refurbs.
I don't think they'd go down that path. Risk of ending up in the pile of corporations who have lost the fight against the law of first sale.
I don't think they'd go down that path. Risk of ending up in the pile of corporations who have lost the fight against the law of first sale.
It can also refer to retail stolen and grey imports, which are a huge issue for everyone in the chain.
I'm not sure that I buy it either, but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Apple would take more proactive steps than merely waiting to find counterfeits and report them, especially when a marketplace like Amazon is so poorly curated that the counterfeiters will just pop back up again.
The argument in this case seems all kinds of weird. Basically, it seems to be that Amazon, by restricting third party sellers of Apple products from its marketplace, is somehow engaged in a horizontal price-fixing agreement with Apple. This is despite the fact that the only products whose produced by Apple are affected, are involved - which is sort of the definition of vertical price-fixing - and neither Amazon nor Apple control the prices of other vendors, only whether or not they're allowed on Amazon's platform - which is not in any case an exclusive channel for Apple products.
Sellers like Mercate Group are a solid reason why the Apple/Amazon agreement took place. Look at the seller feedback - I’m not sure I understand why they’re still allowed to list product for smartphones/electronics.
https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A389ML6MNB3VQK&asin...
https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A389ML6MNB3VQK&asin...
Apple stuff has always cost what Apple stuff cost.
At one point you could shop around at places such as Best Buy and get an Apple device with a "free" printer or something, but you were still paying what Apple charged for the Apple device. I guess I don't follow what's going on here.
At one point you could shop around at places such as Best Buy and get an Apple device with a "free" printer or something, but you were still paying what Apple charged for the Apple device. I guess I don't follow what's going on here.
I mean...that is what's going on here. That's not supposed to be possible. (And I say this as an unapologetic Apple fan.)
When Apple's products are never available (barring certain rare sales) for significantly less than Apple themselves retails them, that's an indication that some kind of price fixing is going on. Yes, it's price fixing for the products of a single supplier, which means that there's a lot less to do, and a lot less benefit to be gained (ie, the least you're going to be able to sell it for without taking a loss is Apple's wholesale price), but it's still illegal.
When Apple's products are never available (barring certain rare sales) for significantly less than Apple themselves retails them, that's an indication that some kind of price fixing is going on. Yes, it's price fixing for the products of a single supplier, which means that there's a lot less to do, and a lot less benefit to be gained (ie, the least you're going to be able to sell it for without taking a loss is Apple's wholesale price), but it's still illegal.
> That's not supposed to be possible.
Why not? Apple isn't under any obligation to sell to anyone at a wholesale price, and can apply conditions via a contract when they do so.
Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it.
Why not? Apple isn't under any obligation to sell to anyone at a wholesale price, and can apply conditions via a contract when they do so.
Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it.
In perfectly competitive markets, producers are price takers. That includes at a wholesale distribution level.
Being able to pick and choose your customers (and apply conditions to any sale that favour Apple and disadvantage the customer) is a perfect indication of the level of market power that apple possesses.
Most businesses in competitive industries don’t get to do that.
Being able to pick and choose your customers (and apply conditions to any sale that favour Apple and disadvantage the customer) is a perfect indication of the level of market power that apple possesses.
Most businesses in competitive industries don’t get to do that.
Tesla?
> Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it.
Any number of products print the MSRP on the packaging. You'll notice it if you peel off the label showing the price you bought the thing for.
Any number of products print the MSRP on the packaging. You'll notice it if you peel off the label showing the price you bought the thing for.
[deleted]
It is definitely price-fixing. But vertical price-fixing (which is what occurs when a manufacturer tries to control the price of its product at retail) is not a per se violation of US anti-trust law.
ref. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html
ref. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html
> That's not supposed to be possible.
It happens to me all the time with non-Apple products. Always the same price, down to the penny. Pricing agreements between the manufacturer and their resellers seem to be pretty common.
If we're suddenly going to decide that's illegal, it will have a huge impact on the market.
It happens to me all the time with non-Apple products. Always the same price, down to the penny. Pricing agreements between the manufacturer and their resellers seem to be pretty common.
If we're suddenly going to decide that's illegal, it will have a huge impact on the market.
is what's going on here class action attorneys targeting companies with big savings accounts, hoping anything might stick?
I mean, Apple and Amazon don't make competing products wrt the lawsuit, so they can't collude to price fix their separate products and defeat the market?
I keep trying to see what i'm overlooking...presuming somehow it makes sense.
I mean, Apple and Amazon don't make competing products wrt the lawsuit, so they can't collude to price fix their separate products and defeat the market?
I keep trying to see what i'm overlooking...presuming somehow it makes sense.
Amazon always sold Apple stuff for $50-$100 less than Apple did. $250 iPad for years.
As a consumer I hope this lawsuit fails.
Since the agreement between Amazon and Apple it was finally possible to reliably buy genuine Apple hardware and accessories from Amazon, often significantly cheaper than from Apple.com.
Before it was wild west. I don't want to buy used or counterfeit iPhones from random marketplace sellers and Apple preventing just that is a good thing. I don't see why a company shouldn't be able to decide who can sell its products. Of course pricing is a different discussion but from what I can tell Amazon is free to (and does) set their own prices for Apple products.
Since the agreement between Amazon and Apple it was finally possible to reliably buy genuine Apple hardware and accessories from Amazon, often significantly cheaper than from Apple.com.
Before it was wild west. I don't want to buy used or counterfeit iPhones from random marketplace sellers and Apple preventing just that is a good thing. I don't see why a company shouldn't be able to decide who can sell its products. Of course pricing is a different discussion but from what I can tell Amazon is free to (and does) set their own prices for Apple products.
I'm late to this thread but does anyone know where I could find a link to the "Global Tenets Agreement" between Apple/Amazon that was referenced in the class action lawsuit?
I've sometimes wondered why it's legal for markets to be coerced not to price items below MSRP. The acronym includes the word suggested right? Not mandated?
It isn’t a mandate. It is a condition for resupply.
High end sporting good brands are known for enforcing MSRP so the high end retailers have budget for sales people and demos. They cutoff supply to discount retailers to maintain good relationships with retailers.
REI would drop North Face in a second if North Face clothing was available at the TJMaxx next door. The relationship cuts both ways.
High end sporting good brands are known for enforcing MSRP so the high end retailers have budget for sales people and demos. They cutoff supply to discount retailers to maintain good relationships with retailers.
REI would drop North Face in a second if North Face clothing was available at the TJMaxx next door. The relationship cuts both ways.
I understand the chain of incentives, but I see room for it being legislated away as anti-consumer.
That would effectively mean a law requiring companies to wholesale to anyone at the same price.
That's a rather extreme intervention in a market for no clear benefit. We're really not talking about anything that can be construed as monopolistic behavior.
That's a rather extreme intervention in a market for no clear benefit. We're really not talking about anything that can be construed as monopolistic behavior.
There's no shortage of brands of outdoor clothing. If you don't like North Face's high prices (enforced by contract to be only sold at MSRP), you're free to buy from countless other brands, some high-end, others not.
The same is true for Apple: there's dozens of competing phone brands.
I don't see why mfgrs shouldn't be allowed to have sales and pricing agreements (contracts) with retailers so that their goods are sold in ways the mfgr approves of.
The same is true for Apple: there's dozens of competing phone brands.
I don't see why mfgrs shouldn't be allowed to have sales and pricing agreements (contracts) with retailers so that their goods are sold in ways the mfgr approves of.
I helped build the online division for a major consumer product that had market force to force retailers to price at msrp. It was fascinating the extent they went to build the appearance they weren’t being anticompetitive when in reality everyone knew they were and their pricing was uniform across all retailers. They also bought all excess inventory back at cost and destroyed it to ensure no grey market could exist. They even went so far as requiring retailer websites to essentially #include our website components embedded in their framing and branding to ensure total compliance and to ensure competitors products wouldn’t be displayed along side.
I think these antics are pervasive in high end products as a way of ensuring their exclusivity and to prevent dilution of their brand. But they were extraordinarily sensitive to the anticompetitiveness of their behavior to the extent we weren’t allowed to even say the words “monopoly” let alone write anything like it down.
I think these antics are pervasive in high end products as a way of ensuring their exclusivity and to prevent dilution of their brand. But they were extraordinarily sensitive to the anticompetitiveness of their behavior to the extent we weren’t allowed to even say the words “monopoly” let alone write anything like it down.
Oh the ghost of Steve Clinical-Sociopath Jobs lives on. I remember that price fixing suit very well. Also the employee poaching one. And his paternity case.
Sucks that the only reason the iPod case lost was because nobody showed up in time with an affected device. I think I have one sitting on a shelf that I picked up along the way. Oh well, that's the law process for ya. It happened but Apple got to skate.
Sucks that the only reason the iPod case lost was because nobody showed up in time with an affected device. I think I have one sitting on a shelf that I picked up along the way. Oh well, that's the law process for ya. It happened but Apple got to skate.
It is always funny to me to see a claim that Amazon has some type of outsize pricing power in the marketplace, when switching to a different business involves typing in a different URL.
As opposed to every other merchant/marketplace in the physical space where switching to a different business involves expending leagues more energy and time.
If these people are able to source and sell Apple products for considerably less than Amazon, then it should be trivial for them to advertise their website. Just spamming Reddit comments would do the trick. People will surely be willing to type in a different URL if they can save tens or hundreds of dollars.
As opposed to every other merchant/marketplace in the physical space where switching to a different business involves expending leagues more energy and time.
If these people are able to source and sell Apple products for considerably less than Amazon, then it should be trivial for them to advertise their website. Just spamming Reddit comments would do the trick. People will surely be willing to type in a different URL if they can save tens or hundreds of dollars.
Iirc, Amazon prevents you from charging a lower price on a non-Amazon site. It drives up prices across the board and artificially makes non-Amazon retailers seem more expensive than they would be, because Amazon prices often hide part of the shipping costs. There’s no such thing as free shipping after all
I forget what the penalty is but it was all over the news a few years ago. Let’s see…
https://www.inc.com/guadalupe-gonzalez/amazon-removes-price-...
I forget what the penalty is but it was all over the news a few years ago. Let’s see…
https://www.inc.com/guadalupe-gonzalez/amazon-removes-price-...
I actually worked at Amazon on the tool that crawled the web looking for lower prices on products which Amazon had a most favored nation clause on. This was in 2012 and the tool had been broken for multiple years and no one cared until I found it and fixed it.
After I fixed it I think in the first year it "made" Amazon $30M in lower payments to vendors(though it is hard to attribute exact monetary values due to complexity of the contracts)
But no one cared, I barely got any praise, no promo or anything. So I quit and went somewhere else.
After I fixed it I think in the first year it "made" Amazon $30M in lower payments to vendors(though it is hard to attribute exact monetary values due to complexity of the contracts)
But no one cared, I barely got any praise, no promo or anything. So I quit and went somewhere else.
If I had a dime for every story like yours I'd read, I'd have a few dollars. Which is saying something, because I don't talk to Amazon or Ex Amazon people all that often.
Move here to Seattle and you can't throw a rock without hitting a current or ex Amazon employee:)
But also please don't throw rocks at us.
But also please don't throw rocks at us.
Oh, I live in Seattle myself. I just know the warning signs to avoid.
Seems a little bigoted to judge 75,000 people like that, but to each their own.
It was a joke, though it is true that my friends circles don't happen to include that many people from Amazon, and I still have many stories of broken business processes there.
> artificially makes non-Amazon retailers seem more expensive than they would be, because Amazon prices often hide part of the shipping costs.
I presume there would not be anything stopping the other websites from including the shipping prices?
Regardless, my point is if Amazon was not offering a seller a reasonable deal, they should just start their own website. The barrier to entry has never been lower in all of history.
I presume there would not be anything stopping the other websites from including the shipping prices?
Regardless, my point is if Amazon was not offering a seller a reasonable deal, they should just start their own website. The barrier to entry has never been lower in all of history.
> The barrier to entry has never been lower in all of history.
There are distinct brand, network, and bundle effects at play. Like "I've already got Prime so why bother looking elsewhere".
There are distinct brand, network, and bundle effects at play. Like "I've already got Prime so why bother looking elsewhere".
That sounds so easy. I wonder why so few of them thought of that
Well if they can't sell the Apple products on Amazon, this doesn't seem to apply.
Their vertically-integrated logistics provides plenty of friction for switching.
Sure, you could type in a different URL. But the free shipping option will probably be slow if it exists, and you'll need to place several orders with different retailers if you want to buy products from disparate categories.
There's also the trust aspect. Would you really try to get a token discount on a new iDevice by purchasing it from a random redditor or a pop-up Shopify storefront? And where would those people get the cheaper devices, if Apple is providing Amazon with a cheap wholesale deal in exchange for control over who can list their products?
Sure, you could type in a different URL. But the free shipping option will probably be slow if it exists, and you'll need to place several orders with different retailers if you want to buy products from disparate categories.
There's also the trust aspect. Would you really try to get a token discount on a new iDevice by purchasing it from a random redditor or a pop-up Shopify storefront? And where would those people get the cheaper devices, if Apple is providing Amazon with a cheap wholesale deal in exchange for control over who can list their products?
Most people don’t buy products from sites who’s advertising consists of spamming message boards. We are trained to treat such site with suspicion - and rightfully so too given they usually are scams.
So don’t excessively spam so as to not come off as a scam website. And the seller simply has to wait for their reputation to build. Just like Amazon and Apple had to wait.
>It is always funny to me to see a claim that Amazon has some type of outsize pricing power in the marketplace, when switching to a different business involves typing in a different URL.
That's the power of habit. You can use Bing to search the web, but you probably don't. It's unconscious brand loyalty. I know the VAST majority of stuff I buy online comes from Amazon. Why? The barrier is low. I know they'll have it and I can most likely get it in two days. Mix in familiarity with the website, it's all over.
That's the power of habit. You can use Bing to search the web, but you probably don't. It's unconscious brand loyalty. I know the VAST majority of stuff I buy online comes from Amazon. Why? The barrier is low. I know they'll have it and I can most likely get it in two days. Mix in familiarity with the website, it's all over.
[deleted]
> switching to a different business involves typing in a different URL
You are mixing two different parts of the market. Switching URL impacts the relationship between consumer and retailer. This lawsuit is about the relationship between retailer and manufacturer/distributors.
You are mixing two different parts of the market. Switching URL impacts the relationship between consumer and retailer. This lawsuit is about the relationship between retailer and manufacturer/distributors.
Basically alleging Apple disallowing third-party resellers from appearing on their Amazon pages is anticompetitive and caused consumers to pay more than if they had the option to purchase the devices from 3p sellers (page 41).