[HN Gopher] FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly p...
___________________________________________________________________
FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power
Author : marcopolis
Score : 675 points
Date : 2023-09-26 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov)
| jupp0r wrote:
| I find the premise that Amazon has a monopoly to be pretty far
| fetched. I order goods online from various shops all the time.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I don't like it, but I kind of don't blame them because it's,
| frankly, a rational act.
|
| Everyone vies for control/power. Once you have control, you can
| exert pressure to get more from less (this is essentially what
| "bullying" is). There's nothing (but any laws set up to
| counteract this) stopping you, so you do it, because relative to
| you, there's only upside. Can you really blame these entities for
| taking advantage?
|
| Literally, the thing we all want more of (success and control),
| will turn us into bullies. Veeeeery few people, or companies, get
| to that point and then continue to "play fair", at least
| completely. So we set up the system with rules we think will
| limit this, but it's not perfect, so rules get exploited.
|
| In games (which are systems and sets of rules), one of the most
| fun things is to discover an "exploit". Sometimes this comes from
| a developer oversight, sometimes this comes from rule complexity
| leading to unexpected states, sometimes from bugs. I remember
| figuring out how to get an extra enchant on a weapon in
| Neverwinter Nights (I somehow got 1 past the supposed limit) and
| how fun that felt. But there was no cost to other people in doing
| this. (At worst, if I found too many exploits, the game would
| stop being fun due to not being challenging, and I would just
| "cheese" through it.)
|
| Amazon is a bully that is cheesing its way through the rules, at
| some unknown but probably large success cost to many other people
| vying for the same control. Perhaps it's time to dismantle the
| bully dominating the schoolyard lunches.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Merits of this specific case aside, I find it really interesting
| that the FTC is going after Amazon now. They have pretty limited
| resources (especially relative to a massive tech co which can
| pour money into litigation) and have to pick and choose their
| battles carefully... I have to admit I'm a little frustrated that
| they're choosing to go after Amazon, which yes, imo the case
| definitely has merits and they do shady stuff like with dark
| patterns for trying to cancel accounts and the like, but there
| are so many other things more important to my life that seem
| broken that I wish the FTC would prioritize. How about more of a
| focus on insurers who refuse claims, drug companies flouting the
| law, PE firms jacking up the cost of housing or contractors
| gouging the government (and therefore all of us)?
| janmo wrote:
| There are many insurers, so this would mean many cases.
|
| There is only one Amazon and I am sure the FTC is receiving a
| ton of complaints against them.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I'm not sure I track. Sure there's only one Amazon, but there
| are a few major e-commerce providers (Shopify has been
| mentioned often, but also Walmart and other major) and more
| traditional retailers that compete with them.
| bogwog wrote:
| The FTC is bringing a lot of cases, not just the few big ones
| like this that make headlines. The DOJ also brings antitrust
| cases.
|
| See:
|
| * FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-
| proceedings
|
| * DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I know, and I applaud the one they recently filed against
| Anesthesia Partners which is directly at the intersection of
| PE and healthcare, but they do have limited resources and
| have to make tough choices about cases they bring and ones
| they don't, and I wish they would focus on ones that are more
| impactful for my life (e.g., healthcare, education, housing)
| than marginal ones like Amazon or the one against Meta
| acquiring a VR company. I understand their rationale and am
| generally supportive, I just disagree with the
| prioritization.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How about more of a focus on insurers who refuse claims, drug
| companies flouting the law, PE firms jacking up the cost of
| housing or contractors gouging the government (and therefore
| all of us)?
|
| Those aren't FTC issues regardless of merits, so they don't
| factor into FTC priorities. The first is mostly state insurance
| regulators, the second doesn't seem to be a violation of
| existing law (though it might be a _legislative_ issue, mostly
| at the state or local level like most land use issues), the
| third is for the inspector-general or similar authority of the
| agency employing the contractor.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree but IANAL. Doesn't the fact that the FTC
| recently filed a case against a PE firm buying up anesthesia
| clinics and using that to jack up prices run counter to the
| example of the cost of housing? Or for contractors gouging
| the gov, my understanding is that PE firms have rolled up
| small defense contractors and then used monopoly power to
| gouge the government. That seems pretty firmly in their
| jurisdiction.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-
| proceedings/2...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Doesn't the fact that the FTC recently filed a case
| against a PE firm buying up anesthesia clinics and using
| that to jack up prices run counter to the example of the
| cost of housing?
|
| If you can find a _single_ private equity firm doing that
| to a functionally bounded market to secure a monopoly on,
| say, rental housing, sure.
|
| But that isn't the complaint I've heard about PE effects on
| housing markets.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| > PE firms jacking up the cost of housing
|
| They're just profiting off of a supply shortage. Fix the
| shortage and they won't be able to make money.
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| I hope this works. There hasn't been a big monopoly break up
| since the 1982 break up of AT&T. And with this conservative
| supreme court, I'm not holding my breath that this will actually
| go through.
| talent_deprived wrote:
| When Microsoft was accused of monopolistic behavior for
| integrating IE into the OS IIRC it was the DOJ who went after
| them. In this case, it's the FTC, seems like it should be the DOJ
| to go after Amazon based on Microsoft's case.
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| Yeah I'm kinda on the fence about this. On one hand, I see the
| case that this diminishes the open market. On the other hand,
| Amazon is doing this all within their own ecosystem. So it's a
| bit disingenuous for the FTC to say that this has nothing to do
| with their size. The problem the FTC keeps skirting around on
| anticompetitive is the fact that the internet favors power
| differentials, so we'd have to ding any company that has massive
| market distribution and tweaks their platform to favor
| participants exclusively on their network
|
| Network effects have not been accounted for in antitrust. That's
| the core of the problem. Not the fact that Amazon is tweaking
| algos. Every major player is doing that.
|
| I like Jerry Chen's piece on "The New Moats" (ahead of its time
| published in 2017) that calls out the progression of tech going
| from systems of engagement -> systems of record -> systems of
| intelligence. It feels like this is one (of many) consequences of
| that progression:
|
| https://news.greylock.com/the-new-moats-53f61aeac2d9
| dantheman wrote:
| I'd argue that anti-trust is a fundamentally flawed concept -
| it's a matter of time frames, but no company without
| significant government intervention has had a 'monopoly' for
| more than a few years. Hell, Standard Oil was only 64% market
| share when it was broken up.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Google has had >90% market share for decades. Windows had
| >90% market share for several decades.
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| This seems extremely weak, even by recent FTC standards. Just in
| the past 2 years we've had the following e-commerce changes:
|
| - Shopify small store explosion
|
| - Google search adding products DIRECTLY to the search engine
| results
|
| - LLM vs Search Engine battle. Whoever controls the LLM controls
| the product listing.
|
| - Temu & Shein exploding onto the scene. WSJ just had an article
| on this yesterday.
|
| My real annoyance with the FTC is why they refuse to go after
| REAL monopolies that actually hurt consumers, such as Apple and
| their closed App Store.
| Spivak wrote:
| > after REAL monopolies that actually hurt consumers, such as
| Apple and their closed App Store
|
| I find this a funny comparison because Amazon and Apple are so
| similar in the business practices people complain about. Are
| you sure you're not just on the supplier side of Apple and the
| consumer side of Amazon?
| adventured wrote:
| It's not a coincidence that Bezos ran for the hills exactly like
| the Google founders did, with the anti-trust writing on the
| walls. Bill Gates did the same thing as well (although he stuck
| it out a bit longer), exiting with the anti-trust heat.
|
| They're all terrified of the invasive investigations and what
| could be revealed, the scrutiny they'd be persistently under, and
| the time demands involved (it's no doubt miserable battling the
| government in a major anti-truist suit).
| charcircuit wrote:
| Another case of Kahn trying to go after companies for being
| successful.
| akira2501 wrote:
| And the police are mad at cocaine dealers just for being
| successful.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Cocain dealing is illegal.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Out of all the natural tech monopolies, Amazon is the ONLY one
| that did the opposite of exercising market power. They actually
| brought fast shipping to the market. A decade ago, you had to pay
| a crap ton of money to ship things even two days. They forced the
| incumbents such as Walmart to change. They're constantly
| improving e-commerce. Heck they even opened up aws and created an
| entire industry. Amazon did more to reshape commerce in the US
| than anyone in the past two decades.
|
| What more does US govt want?
| lbsnake7 wrote:
| They did all those things unsustainably so they could gain
| market share and raise prices when people were locked in.
| Similar to Uber and AirBnB etc. All those things are good but
| not feasible and subsidized by the capital/venture markets. The
| game is market share and ecosystem lock-in both from suppliers
| and customers.
|
| A truly competitive marketplace allows any supplier to easily
| match with any customer. Suppliers gain market share by being
| the 'best', not by being the only option.
| likpok wrote:
| Less market concentration. Lina Khan, the current head of the
| FTC, argued before she got the job that market concentration
| and not consumer harm was a better target for antitrust
| enforcement.
|
| Amazon _does_ exercise a fair amount of their market power. FBA
| policies are generous to the consumer and to amazon, taking it
| out of the third party sellers. The other classic example was
| IIRC diapers.com which was a sharp competitor until Amazon
| bought it and raised diaper prices. It 's possible this was all
| a ZIRP fad, and diapers.com was burning through investor cash,
| but still a pretty clear-cut case of consolidating market power
| (at the time the FTC did not consider it illegal).
| sschueller wrote:
| They straight up copied products in their store an then listed
| theirs higher in search results. There was a famous instance of
| a bag. You can't be more monopolistic than that.
|
| They also got insight into every states future plans (which are
| secret for some reason ) when they offered to build new HQs but
| then decided not too. This gives them a huge advantage over
| anyone else who wants to setup a nation wide logistics service.
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| That's not what the word "monopoly" means though...
| tristan957 wrote:
| You don't have to have > 50% market share to be prosecuted
| for anti-trust practices.
| jessriedel wrote:
| > They straight up copied products in their store an then
| listed theirs higher in search results. There was a famous
| instance of a bag. You can't be more monopolistic than that.
|
| Almost every major grocery store and convenience store chain
| does this. These are the store's generic brands, they are
| specifically designed to be copies of the name brand, and
| they are positioned more favorably on the shelves. (They
| often say "compare to [name brand]".) In general, this is
| highly beneficial to competition and the consumer.
|
| If you want to make an argument that Amazon's high market
| share makes this strategy damaging when it would otherwise be
| good, then sure go ahead and do that. But the argument needs
| to be specific and quantitative.
| lukeinator42 wrote:
| Along with this, I don't understand how the part of the lawsuit
| that says "Conditioning sellers' ability to obtain 'Prime'
| eligibility for their products--a virtual necessity for doing
| business on Amazon--on sellers using Amazon's costly
| fulfillment service"
|
| is solely an anti-competitive tactic, because how else would
| Amazon guarantee the fast shipping, etc. if they aren't in
| control of the fulfilment? I thought prime is only possible
| through amazon distributing third party products to their
| warehouses all over so that the shipping can be so fast.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| They only passively mentioned fulfillment.
|
| The fact that Amazon owns the market _and_ fulfillment _and even
| last-mile delivery_ is the most obvious case of _vertical
| integration_ I have ever heard of, and I personally interact with
| it in some way _at least once every week_!
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Is vertical integration illegal?
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Is monopoly illegal?
|
| That's very nearly the same question.
| runako wrote:
| Without engaging the merits of this particular case, I do think
| there is an interesting takeaway about which companies wield even
| more power than Amazon (and Big Tech more generally, since Google
| and Meta are also discussed as likely targets of similar suits).
|
| Notably: health insurers. They're an oligopoly whose revenues
| total something like 4% of US GDP. They engage in anticompetitive
| practices, and the end result is far more consumer harm than
| Amazon can do. (Because people generally spend a lot more on
| health insurance premiums than they do on Amazon in a year.)
|
| Similar could be written about e.g. airlines.
|
| Lobbying works. Tech will eventually figure this out.
| kibwen wrote:
| The irony here is that Amazon is literally a health care
| provider, after acquiring One Medical.
|
| Break all these companies up, before we find ourselves even
| deeper in a cyperpunk dystopia.
| tqi wrote:
| > Lobbying works. Tech will eventually figure this out.
|
| Tech is well aware of this, and is spending accordingly[1].
| However I think politics are a bigger motivating factor, and
| taking "tech" to task is viewed as a good way to score points
| (probably helps that legacy media views tech as direct
| competitors, and covers them accordingly).
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/23/apple-ramped-up-lobbying-
| spe...
| runako wrote:
| They kind of get it, but are not at the magnitude yet where
| it would be effective enough to squash these types of
| interventions. By comparison, healthcare lobbying spends more
| every quarter what Big Tech did in all of 2022.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Much as I might see health insurers and private medical
| companies in general as often bad actors, I don't think "more
| competition" is at all a reasonable suggestion for any part of
| the health sector. Health insurance companies naturally need to
| be regulated - just one reason among many is that anyone could
| take people's money, pay claims for a bit and then vanish with
| money paid to shareholders who aren't liable for the scam. And
| once you have an industry, health care, that must have detailed
| state regulation, the only solution is nationalizing the
| industry, as medicine is nationalized in most civilized
| industrial nations.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| Even if this action turns out to be toothless, it should still go
| a long way to shape public perception. I cancelled Prime 3 years
| ago and really haven't looked back. I simply shop elsewhere, and
| between Target and eBay I don't miss a thing. The Echos got
| unplugged, the AWS certs didn't get renewed, their music service
| got canceled. I am all out and I hope others will do the same.
| For me this was driven by their anticompetitive behavior as well
| as terrible treatment of staff from warehouse workers to web
| developers. This FTC suit brings a new level of attention and
| gravity to their insidious practices.
|
| Obviously a firm that massive can't be all bad. As a consumer,
| the only thing I have is choice in how I spend my time and
| resources based on the information I have.
| vagabund wrote:
| I don't know, your easy access to alternatives that've let you
| not "look back" kind of undermines the argument that they wield
| monopolist power, doesn't it? And should FTC suits really be
| vehicles for shaping public perception, even if, as you
| suggest, the claims are either not defensible or don't
| constitute violations?
| reilly3000 wrote:
| The fact that competition exists does not mean that AMZN
| isn't engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. FTC should be
| consistently enforcing law in their domain i.e. The Sherman
| act of 1890 and others.
|
| "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize,
| or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
| monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the
| several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed
| guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
| punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation,
| or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
| exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the
| discretion of the court."
|
| Public perception isn't their motive, I'm just cheering for
| it. Moreover I'm glad that antitrust enforcement has ramped
| up of late. I wish it had started sooner, I believe we would
| have a healthier internet ecosystem if that was the case.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| "anti-discounting tactics"
|
| > One set of tactics stifles the ability of rivals to attract
| shoppers by offering lower prices. Amazon deploys a sophisticated
| surveillance network of web crawlers that constantly monitor the
| internet, searching for discounts that might threaten Amazon's
| empire. When Amazon detects elsewhere online a product that is
| cheaper than a seller's offer for the same product on Amazon,
| Amazon punishes that seller. It does so to prevent rivals from
| gaining business by offering shoppers or sellers lower prices
|
| Price competition conflated as punishment. The FTC's mandate is
| to promote competition. Here, they attack Amazon for competing
| effectively.
|
| Also, advocating for other online superstores is playing the
| world's smallest violin. Walmart has decimated mom and pop
| stores. They're unable to beat Amazon at the online game. Truly
| remarkable achievement, really.
|
| Why are redactions even permitted in a lawsuit involving a
| government agency and a corporation? Don't mention Project Nessie
| at all if you can't tell the public what you're arguing about.
| "Trust us, they were monopolists" isn't the same as laying out
| the facts for all to see.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Buying your competition is competitive? Bullshit
| wordsarelies wrote:
| The measure of these services shouldn't be if you can sell a new
| product and make money.
|
| It should be that you can sell a cheaper, better version of an
| Amazon basics product and overtake it.
|
| If there is literally no way to do that... Amazon is clearly a
| market manipulator.
| whiddershins wrote:
| I don't understand this point:
|
| >>> For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering
| lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers
| so far down in Amazon's search results that they become
| effectively invisible. >>>
|
| This means if Amazon sees a lower price elsewhere they
| effectively make the product unavailable on their site? Or is it
| more complicated than that.
|
| On the face of it, while I am open to the stance this is
| monopolistic, I can naively understand why Amazon wouldn't want
| to offer a product at a price that isn't competitive.
|
| I'm sure there's more to it, can someone explain?
| spandextwins wrote:
| Where does the fine go? Seems to be a great recipe.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| Nowhere, once the FTC loses (again).
| Mistletoe wrote:
| It feels like things are getting better.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day
| just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling
| diapers at a loss, which was numbers that diapers.com couldn't
| compete with given that they didn't have another business to rely
| on, then forced diapers.com to sell to amazon because they had no
| other option?
|
| And this came out last time they were doing monopolistic
| inquiries against amazon. Yet...
|
| So I'd love to see something positive come out of it, but I have
| my doubts.
| loldk wrote:
| That's what these discussions are for: to discover solutions
| and obstacles.
|
| Have you ever heard of the monkeys and ladder metaphor?
|
| Things need to change. It's great to be skeptical, but not if
| you're not also optimistic at the same time.
|
| Monopolies are bad for many reasons, not just because arbitrary
| "rules" or whatever you think is easily dismissed, but because
| of the opportunity costs that even the owner of the profits
| incurs. We're not talking about money or status or power, but
| actual meaningful change of the total composition of their
| culture & society and the world. They are literally preventing
| themselves from experiencing a world that gives them everything
| they can't have now and clamor and hurt themselves chasing
| after. It's the ultimate irony.
|
| So yes, you should have hope. There is NOT a "good" reason for
| being a greedy parasite. People have just forgotten and/or been
| manipulated into believing in fake power. This false faith
| (fear) is literally what enables these fake leaders like Jeff
| Bozos the clown to succeed.
|
| Please next time contribute more to the conversation than just
| whine.
| yomlica8 wrote:
| Apparently product dumping isn't illegal if you do it on the
| internet. This wasn't even a fuzzy digital goods or services
| example either.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Product dumping is not illegal if you have a national
| newspaper that can be used to target any politician and if
| you make sure to contribute millions and make sure your
| employees do the same for the political party in power.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Do you have evidence of the Washington Post doing that?
|
| I know evidence the contrary: The Post is clearly on the
| Democrat side, and it's Democrats that seek more regulation
| and who are suing Amazon.
| [deleted]
| afavour wrote:
| If Bezos were using this Washington Post for this purpose a
| member of the newsroom would immediately leak it. It would
| be a career defining story for that journalist.
|
| The fact that we've heard nothing strongly suggests it
| isn't happening.
| btmoore wrote:
| I do. I also remember when they were selling books at a loss,
| and the FTC went after _Apple 's_ book store instead
| duped wrote:
| The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's
| monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much
| about it that the only reason we'd see the government take
| their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim
| that her previous advocacy biases the case against them.
|
| (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-
| parado...
| onebot wrote:
| Will they ever go after Ticketmaster?
| coltonv wrote:
| I'm honestly not sure how you could make the case that they
| aren't maintaining and abusing monopoly power. I mean they
| literally blatantly copy the designs of other companies who sell
| on amazon, then put their own results for their own products
| higher in search results than what they copied off of. It's
| incredibly blatantly anti-competitive.
| bmitc wrote:
| And at what point is a company too powerful that doesn't meet
| the traditional, and frankly outdated, view of a monopoly?
| Amazon owns and controls entertainment, news, journalism,
| books, movies, products, furniture, space/satellite services,
| backend services, storefronts, medical care, pharmacies, food,
| etc. They literally control, own, and/or provide every aspect
| of life. Are they the only ones in each of those areas? No. But
| they are one of the few, if not the only one, in all of those
| areas at once.
|
| Technology, and in particular software, has greatly outpaced
| the definition of monopolistic power. Amazon and all the other
| large tech companies wield so much power it is scary. And they
| can literally just buy into any market they please with hardly
| any push back.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| I get the sentiment behind this reaction that most people have.
| I just have a hard time understanding how it is any different
| than brick and mortar companies using their sales data to
| determine which products they should have a store brand version
| of. Costco, Walmart, Target, etc. all do this, and have been
| doing it for decades.
|
| At a Costco, they'll often stop selling the brand name product
| if they introduce a "Kirkland Signature" version. Amazon
| doesn't take down competing products when they launch Amazon
| Basics versions.
|
| Not really intending to defend Amazon, because they are
| indefensible, but by big corporate standards, I don't see how
| they are anywhere near as bad as Walmart. And nobody is trying
| to break Walmart up.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I just have a hard time understanding how it is any
| different than brick and mortar companies using their sales
| data to determine which products they should have a store
| brand version of. Costco, Walmart, Target, etc. all do this,
| and have been doing it for decades.
|
| The legal difference underlying the lawsuit between this
| behavior by Amazon and the behavior you raise by those stores
| is _not the behavior, but its context_.
|
| Amazon, the complaint alleges, has durable monopolies in two
| relevant markets which the behavior leverages and reinforces,
| making it a means of illegally maintaining a monopoly.
|
| The other stores _do not have monopolies_ , so the behavior
| is not part of a system of illegally maintaining a monopoly.
|
| This is very similar to the kind of discussion that happened
| at the time of the Microsoft antitrusts suit about bundling
| software: one of the ways Microsoft illegally leveraged their
| Windows monopoly - in this case to monopolize other markets
| rather than to maintain the Windows monopoly, but same kind
| of issue - was bundling IE with Windows. People made all
| kinds of "well, how is this different than maker A bundling
| software X with software Y", and mostly it wasn't, except
| that maker A didn't have and thus wasn't leveraging a
| monopoly in the market of software X, so them bundling
| software Y with it wasn't an issue.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Amazon does not have a monopoly on online shopping that's
| absurd. Chewy, Wayfair, Target, Walmart, AliExpress all are
| huge competitors.
| kortex wrote:
| We need to move away from the term "monopoly" (which may
| not _literally_ be a _mono_ ) and towards anti-
| competitive.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > We need to move away from the term "monopoly" (which
| may not literally be a mono) and towards anti-
| competitive.
|
| Anti-trust rules cover both, with a (often complex to
| apply, because of the kinds of facts that need to be
| analyzed, but relatively well-developed) concept of
| "monopoly" which ultimately boils down to whether or not
| substitution happens in practice rather than whether
| there is exactly one firm ina descriptive market. There's
| no need to "move away" from one to the other.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-
| guidance/gui...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Amazon does not have a monopoly on online shopping
| that's absurd.
|
| "That's absurd" is an inadequate rebuttal to pp. 39-71 of
| the complaint detailing the basis for the claim Amazon
| has durable market power in two relevant markers.
| zht wrote:
| I've found that many people will spend a lot of time and energy
| defending large companies (and often their CEOs) against
| perceived bullying. Amazon, Tesla, Elon, Meta, etc etc. I don't
| really understand it.
| Andrex wrote:
| The argument always boils down to "well it's allowed / that's
| just how you do things" and when the companies get told "No,
| that's actually not allowed and not how you should do things"
| the argument switches to "the FTC has been weaponized by The
| Other Side, even if they're doing pro-consumer things we
| shouldn't trust them because Big Govt."
|
| Meanwhile, we have over 100 years over antitrust history and
| precedent pointing the other way. Sometimes Big Govt does
| need to step in and set the market right, because raw
| unfettered capitalism lacking regulation will always destroy
| itself. (For the record, and to preempt some strawmen, I
| don't think raw, unfettered socialism is The Way either.)
| jsight wrote:
| I guess I do that to some degree. Amazon is doing some bad
| things, but I have a difficult time seeing that without also
| seeing the good impacts that they've had.
|
| I remember online retail before Amazon dominance. Return
| policies and return shipping was a real mess. Amazon actually
| greatly improved the customer service experience. It also
| changed some markets in ways that were undoubtedly pro-
| consumer.
|
| It also has had a lot of negative impacts, as their model
| (including the free shipping concept) has made it practically
| impossible for small independent stores to compete in online
| sales.
|
| Put another way, very few things are all bad or all good. A
| lot of internet commentary wants to magically keep the good
| and vaporize the bad, but it just doesn't work that way.
| vasilipupkin wrote:
| and others spend a lot of time attacking large companies
| simply because they are large. In this case, AMZN. AMZN is
| like the cheapest place to buy things online. But it's not
| the only place. So, why is FTC going after them?
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| well, there is an entire article highlighting each of their
| reasons if you are so inclined
| vasilipupkin wrote:
| yeah, I am saying these reasons don't seem to make sense,
| since AMZN is not a monopoly because other online sellers
| exist and physical stores exist
| lancesells wrote:
| > others spend a lot of time attacking large companies
| simply because they are large
|
| This isn't the FTC's complaint but search "How Amazon
| treats their workers" and see why large companies get
| attacked. Typically the only way you're going to become
| this large is by abusing people in some sort of way. Amazon
| abuses their workers, their sellers, etc. Meta abuses their
| users. Google abuses their users. Uber abuses their
| drivers.
|
| I would love to see 20 Amazons where half have a decent
| quality of life for workers compared to 1 Amazon where it's
| just awful for everyone except maybe consumers (debatable),
| executives, and tech workers.
| vasilipupkin wrote:
| absurd. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for AMZN or
| Google or Uber. People would simply quit if these
| companies were actually abusing them
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes they are forced to work. If you don't have a job you
| starve, that's how our economy works. That's a very soft
| form of force (specifically, a sin of omission), but it
| is still force.
|
| Likewise, quitting your job is extremely disruptive and
| carries risk of bankruptcy if you can't get on to another
| employer in time. It's not simply a matter of "switch to
| the best offer available".
| vasilipupkin wrote:
| I was alive before Uber, AMZN existed and nobody starved,
| people just worked elsewhere, so this assertion is just
| not true. People have to work, but they don't have to
| work for AMZN, they didn't before it existed. Sure,
| quitting is disruptive, but people are not actually
| forced to work for any company, come on.
| lancesells wrote:
| You don't think the large companies that existed before
| Amazon abused those workers? Wal-Mart never did anything
| wrong to their workers? It's a repeating playbook.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Have you seen Uber's turnover rate? Most people do quit.
| jsight wrote:
| Search for "How Starbucks treats their workers" and see
| why large companies get attacked too. If you search for
| your favorite local coffee shop, you won't see such
| complaints.
|
| But go to /r/starbucks and you'll sometimes hear that a
| lot of small shops are worse, for various reasons.
|
| Large companies attract certain classes of criticism not
| by being worse, but by being more visible. Unfortunately,
| this actively masks some of the wrongs that they actually
| do.
| akira2501 wrote:
| There's the old line about "temporarily embarrassed
| millionaires."
|
| I feel like Hacker News types see themselves as "temporarily
| embarrassed monopolists."
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I mean... that's basically the business case behind many
| tech companies, right? Build a moat.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| HN is run by a VC firm, and the explicit goal of the
| companies they fund is to grow very big very quickly. While
| HN's audience extends beyond that the VCs do leave behind a
| huge imprint.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Some people will just defend anyone or anything regardless of
| tribalism. Just based on what they think is ethical and/or
| factual.
| takinola wrote:
| Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do on the
| issue?
|
| I don't have a POV on this particular case but it seems
| reasonable to assume that there are other (reasonable) people
| that have different values and judgements than you do. Just
| because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources
| should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath"
| instinct that most people have
| jstarfish wrote:
| > Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of
| resources should not automatically kick in the "David v
| Goliath" instinct that most people have
|
| David vs. Goliath was a story about overcoming subjugation
| and oppression. A lot of people have been very much put-
| upon by the metaphorical Goliath here in a number of ways.
| There are piss bottles available as evidence.
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm amazed at how much the idea of pissing into a bottle
| offended the sensibilities of journalists. Given a choice
| between pissing in bottles or having the time saved as a
| longer lunch break, I'd guess most would chose the lunch
| break. The never ending screw turning cost optimization
| is the problem, but using that example lands really flat.
| burkaman wrote:
| Why would anybody need to make that choice?
| mindslight wrote:
| Why do people have to make choices of how to spend their
| time? Because there is a finite amount of time in any
| given period, and most activities are mutually exclusive.
| burkaman wrote:
| No, why are they forced to make this specific choice? Why
| would they need to deduct time from their lunch break in
| order to use the bathroom? Using the bathroom and eating
| lunch are not normally mutually exclusive activities,
| unless there is a third party enforcing such an
| exclusion.
| mindslight wrote:
| Sorry, we might be talking past one another. When I hear
| about peeing in bottles, I think of the delivery drivers.
| This is the obvious place bottles would get used, and in
| my recollection this was most of the reporting on the pee
| bottles. I believe there was also reporting on workers in
| the brick and mortar fulfillment center using bottles to
| meet their quotas, which is perhaps what you are talking
| about.
|
| For delivery routes, there's no simple solution for
| bathroom access (unless you want to talk about installing
| some step up from a "bottle" in all the vans). Meaning a
| driver will inevitably have to choose to spend time not
| delivering packages to leave the van and use an indoor
| bathroom.
|
| If you are talking about the workers at the fulfillment
| centers, I do agree that is indefensible. That human need
| should be entirely owned by the business. If it takes
| workers too long to walk to the bathroom, or if Amazon
| insists on using time with security lines and whatnot,
| that's entirely on Amazon.
|
| (Also to each their own, but using the bathroom and
| eating lunch are definitely mutually exclusive activities
| for me)
| jstarfish wrote:
| > The never ending screw turning cost optimization is the
| problem, but using that example lands really flat.
|
| I worked in logistics (elsewhere) for a decade, and quit
| when conditions shifted to incentivize smoking meth and
| pissing in jugs. It's abusive and just fucking gross.
|
| I assume _you_ aren 't pissing in jugs to save time for
| longer lunch breaks. Why not?
|
| Nobody pisses in jugs unless _they 're forced to._ The
| example only falls flat because Bezos escaped the gravity
| well in his dick-rocket and it's really fucking hard to
| hurl bottles of piss into space with a sling.
| mindslight wrote:
| See my comment below. I'm talking about delivery drivers.
| You might be talking about fulfillment centers.
|
| I disagree that nobody would voluntarily choose to pee in
| a bottle in the context of driving a delivery vehicle.
| But I do agree that the behavior in the context of being
| in a building that has a bathroom is a sign that
| something is horribly wrong.
| browningstreet wrote:
| You're allowed to win.
|
| You're not allowed to complain.
|
| I think that's a very American thing right now... politically
| too.
|
| But downstream, there are lots of issues that arise if one
| can't expect some kind of balance in check-n-balances.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Is this supposed to be an argument or something? Malign
| people with large companies, and then tell them their
| opinions don't matter.
|
| Tribal thinking is the worst. You added nothing of value to
| the conversation.
| hinkley wrote:
| I ate a lot of popcorn during the Microsoft trials - plural -
| and the received wisdom from previous generations that was
| already being forgotten at the time is this bit of torch-
| passing, which I now impart to you.
|
| Anti-trust cases usually only succeed once the court of public
| opinion has turned against the monopolist. If the public is
| still in favor or ambivalent, then you will not find the
| political will to successfully prosecute your case.
|
| But once the company has abused their power enough to turn the
| public against them (arrogance in addition to greed), then the
| charges tend to stick.
|
| My read is that there is no amount of lobbying that can be
| successful once the pitchforks have come out. But it could also
| be how many whistleblowers you can hunt up. Once your brother
| is giving you shit for working for the Evil Empire, it's a lot
| easier to get up the courage to be a witness.
| dhimes wrote:
| IIRC Microsoft lost in Europe, not in the US.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| To "make the case that they" are or aren't violating antitrust
| law, you need to know and talk about antitrust law.
|
| To not be sure how someone can make either case, without being
| familiar with antitrust law and framing the discussion in terms
| of it, is only to be expected.
|
| I came to HN hoping to see some legal analysis, but I guess
| that's not what HN is for. You can get good technical
| discussion of technology, but when it comes to legal technical
| stuff it's just ideology and people talking about how they
| think things should be. What's HN for lawyers?
| fallingknife wrote:
| Grocery stores do this all the time and undercut brand names.
| They even put up signs with "compare to <brand name>" by the
| generic. I'm really not sure how you could make the case that
| it isn't legal given that it is a long standing and accepted
| practice, and is clearly beneficial to the consumer.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Don't all grocery stores do this?
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Often store-branded articles are in fact produced in the same
| factory as the original brand products. It's not quite the
| same.
| wordsarelies wrote:
| It's going to come out that Amazon calls the manufacturers
| for their basics goods, sends them the leading competing
| item and has them make it with slightly less expensive
| components to undercut the cost of the competitor.
|
| It's so blatantly obvious if you've ever done a side by
| side in things like lamps, backpacks etc and other super
| simple designs.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Walmart has been doing that for decades. And they
| probably were not the first. It is not a novel strategy.
| autoexec wrote:
| And Walmart has been repeatedly sued for doing it, just
| like Amazon is being sued now.
| jsight wrote:
| My biggest issue with the way Wal-Mart (and most other
| retail) did it is that it was... scammy.
|
| Want an HDMI cable? Here's an overpriced Monster cable.
| Oh, don't want to pay absurdly high prices? Save money by
| buying one that is only 300% more than it should be
| instead of 400%!
|
| The nice thing about Amazon was that it broke this model.
| Suddenly you could buy Anker or (insert small third party
| here) at very reasonable prices.
|
| Amazon destroying those competitors is doing some damage
| to this, though.
| htrp wrote:
| > It's going to come out that Amazon calls the
| manufacturers for their basics goods, sends them the
| leading competing item and has them make it with slightly
| less expensive components to undercut the cost of the
| competitor.
|
| They won't need to even call. Most FBA product listing
| inventory can be received directly from the factory (so
| Amazon knows exactly where it's made) and they can just
| go to the factory and offer to do 10x the volume for the
| exact same item (at a much higher discount).
| travoc wrote:
| Grocery stores are not a monopoly.
| 2023throwawayy wrote:
| In Denver they are. I imagine other places too.
| https://kdvr.com/news/local/kroger-albertsons-king-
| soopers-s...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not see the purpose of excluding Walmart from
| "grocery store" when it sells the most groceries in the
| nation. Costco and Target are also sell huge amounts of
| groceries.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Neither is Amazon. Aliexpress, Walmart, Newegg are direct
| competitors selling cheap crap.
|
| Then there is Target/Home Depot/Lowes/Staples/Costco/Best
| Buy/etc
| yomlica8 wrote:
| Doesn't Amazon prevent you from selling on other stores
| for a lesser price? I always thought that was a galling
| scam and couldn't understand why it was even allowed at
| all.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Neither is Amazon
|
| The lawsuit that is the subject here details Amazon's
| durable monopoly power in two markets.
|
| But, yes, if Amazon did not have a monopoly, it could
| not, obviously, be illegally maintaining a monopoly.
| jlmorton wrote:
| Pretty close!
|
| Albertsons owns: Acme Markets, Safeway, Haggen, Jewel-Osco,
| Kings, Pavilions, Plated, Randalls, Shaw's, Tom Thumb,
| United Supermarkets, and Vons
|
| Kroger owns: Baker's, City Market, Dillons, Food 4 Less,
| Foods Co., Fred Meyer, Fry's, Gerbes, Harris Teeter, JayC,
| King Soopers, Kroger, Mariano's, Metro Market, Pay Less,
| Pick 'n Save, QFC, Ralphs, Ruler Foods, Smith's
|
| And now Albertsons and Kroger are merging together into one
| gigantic holy-shit mega corp.
| ecshafer wrote:
| That seems far from a monopoly. Only 2 of those I have
| ever been to, and the common places I go: wegmans,
| costco, aldi, trader joes are all not on there.
| travoc wrote:
| Not even close. Combining all those brands results in a
| 13.5% market share.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Groceries aren't a single national market, and its quite
| likely that such a merger would both create both
| monopolies and monopsonies.
|
| Its also quite likely that the big grocery merger won't
| happen as planned for that reason.
| loeg wrote:
| Albertsons + Kroger is like 90% of the market in Seattle,
| where I live, though.
| dublinben wrote:
| That doesn't seem likely. According to this source, Frey
| Meyer (18.4%) + Safeway (17.3%) would be the clear market
| leader with over 35%, but there's still robust
| competition from Costco, Walmart, and others.
|
| https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/04/24/seattle-
| favor...
| loeg wrote:
| Note that Fred Meyer (18.4) and QFC (14.1) are already
| both owned by Kroger. So that would be 49.8% post-merger,
| per those figures.
|
| These figures seem to be for the Seattle metro rather
| than the city itself. Costco might be a competitor in
| some sense but it doesn't serve the area I live -- the
| nearest one is a 45 minute drive away. WinCos are even
| further away -- they serve some of the suburbs, but not
| the city of Seattle. Ditto Walmart. I've never heard of
| or seen Campeon. Whole Foods / PCC exist, but are
| expensive. Trader Joe's is fine but not really a full
| grocery store.
| rendang wrote:
| With the remainder being made up of Trader Joe's and ...
|
| ... Amazon
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah although TJ's is like 6% of the marketshare of the
| big two (and Whole Foods / Amazon is ~5%) (see sibling
| comments).
| unregistereddev wrote:
| It's very location-dependent. In my midwest metro I
| believe they'd be less than 5% of the market. I'm sure
| Albertsons and Kroger each have local monopolies in
| different regions.
| plagiarist wrote:
| I think they have a good point, though. I would like the
| laws to prevent a single corporation from being 90% of
| all groceries for an entire state even if they aren't
| anything close to a monopoly from a national perspective.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > And now Albertsons and Kroger are merging together into
| one gigantic holy-shit mega corp.
|
| Well, they _want_ to, but its quite likely that the FTC
| will prevent or force major changes to that.
| sib wrote:
| Nor is Amazon
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The complaint [0] has 32 pages detailing Amazon's durable
| monopoly power in two relevant markets, so your claim
| that it lacks a monopoly might do with somewhat more of a
| counterargument than you've presented.
|
| [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.
| wawd.32...
| sib wrote:
| "Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the
| supply of or trade in a commodity or service."
|
| Given that there are things such as Walmart.com, eBay,
| Shopify, and many hundreds of other online commerce
| stores, they are self-evidently not a monopoly. In fact,
| they don't even have a _majority_ share of eCommerce in
| the US.
|
| And they also don't have majority share in cloud
| services.
|
| Nor do they have a monopoly in eBooks.
|
| I did not say they don't have monopoly power, I said,
| they are not a monopoly.
|
| (Other than obvious things such as "Amazon products"...,
| in which case every manufacturer or retailer is a
| monopoly in their own products.)
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Other than obvious things such as "Amazon products"...,
| in which case every manufacturer or retailer is a
| monopoly in their own products.
|
| The way this argument is normally presented is somewhat
| intentionally obtuse. Obviously Nike has a monopoly on
| Nike shoes, but "Nike shoes" isn't any kind of sensible
| market definition because you go to a shoe store and
| there are a dozen brands of shoes that are all pretty
| fungible with each other.
|
| But then you get into something like "GM-compatible brake
| pads" and _that_ is a sensible market definition, because
| if you have a GM car and you need new brake pads, they
| need to be compatible with your car. But you 'll also
| notice that this isn't the same thing as GM- _brand_
| brake pads. You could get GM- _compatible_ brake pads
| from a variety of OEMs that are all compatible with your
| GM vehicle.
|
| Or, it could be the case that only GM makes GM-compatible
| brake pads. In which case they _would_ have a monopoly in
| that market. Not because it 's a monopoly on their
| _brand_ of brake pads, but because it 's a monopoly on
| _any_ brand of _brake pads_ compatible with that brand of
| _cars_ -- which is something else entirely.
|
| Notice that they don't even have to be the same company.
| If you have a Studebaker, the Studebaker Corporation is
| no more, and you may have trouble finding parts. It may
| even be the case that some independent third party has a
| monopoly on some such parts, even though it's a monopoly
| on parts for one specific brand of car.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Neither is Amazon in e-commerce, they hold ~39% of the US
| market and their eCommerce growth lags behind total
| eCommerce with 9% and 10% respectively. Wal-Mart is at
| about 6.5% but had nearly 25% growth this year while
| capturing 36% of all eGrocery sales in the US.
|
| The only place where Amazon is even near 50% is in consumer
| electronics and office supplies.
|
| The eCommerce market as such has a very long tail and a lot
| of competitive players just behind Wal-Mart.
| rewmie wrote:
| > Neither is Amazon in e-commerce, they hold ~39% of the
| US market and (...)
|
| From the link:
|
| > The complaint alleges that Amazon violates the law not
| because it is big, but because it engages in a course of
| exclusionary conduct that prevents current competitors
| from growing and new competitors from emerging.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I obviously read the press release, but haven't read the
| 173 page complaint yet. But the piece about pricing is
| DEAD wrong.
|
| The complaint says:
|
| > Amazon uses a set of anti-discounting tactics to
| prevent rivals from 24 growing by offering lower prices,
|
| But Amazon's contracts with big sellers specifically
| state that it may only discount when competitors first
| lower prices, making it in effect a price follower.
|
| It goes on to say:
|
| > Amazon deploys a sophisticated surveillance network of
| web crawlers that constantly monitor the internet,
| searching for discounts that might threaten Amazon's
| empire. When Amazon detects elsewhere online a product
| that is cheaper than a seller's offer for the same
| product on Amazon, Amazon punishes that seller
|
| Which belies the fact that when you sell on Amazon you
| agree not to offer lower prices in other places. This is
| simply Amazon enforce one end of the two way part of the
| contract. Amazon agrees not to unilaterally slash your
| prices and you agree not to discount behind their backs.
| But you aren't as an eCommerce seller obligated to do
| business with Amazon, they don't have sufficient market
| share for that.
|
| Furthermore, this statement is specifically false:
|
| > By taming price cutters into price followers, Amazon
| freezes price competition 11 and deprives American
| shoppers of lower prices
|
| Amazon is the price follower. If Wal-Mart offers a
| discount, so will Amazon. If B&H Photo discounts a
| camera, so will Amazon. The FTC is using sleight of hand
| here.
|
| I just don't find their arguments here to be very
| compelling. I'm not against monopoly enforcement, but I
| just don't see how Amazon actually has the pricing power
| they're claiming.
| autoexec wrote:
| Grocery stores sell generic foods, but they put them on the
| same shelf as the name brand stuff.
|
| They don't hide the original products in a darkened corner of
| the back room where no customer can see them. They don't
| shove their generic into your hand every time you reach for a
| name brand. Amazon can hide the real products from search, or
| push it to the bottom of results, while putting their own
| products at the top of search results even when you search
| for the brand by name.
| dnissley wrote:
| Can't speak for your experience, but in mine generics have
| often replaced name brand products in shelf-space-limited
| urban locations of stores like Target, etc. I should make
| it loud and clear that I'm completely fine with this.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| there is limited shelf space. they take the original
| product off the shelf.
| autoexec wrote:
| I have never once seen a store that removed the major
| name brands from the shelves and only offered their own
| generic brand.
|
| You might argue that having generics on the shelves at
| all means that new small brands have to pay more for
| placement, but that's not the same thing as stealing
| product ideas and leaving no other option but the generic
| version of that thing on the shelves.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I've seen it in the mini versions of stores in NYC.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| is your claim the shelves were empty where now stand the
| generic brand? something had to go.
| autoexec wrote:
| Originally, the generics (which had plain black and white
| packages) had their own dedicated isles. Now the generics
| are put on the shelves next to the originals and all
| those "generic only" shelves got filled with regular
| products.
|
| I've still never seen a brand new product show up in the
| store and become popular only to be pulled off the selves
| and replaced with only a generic version of that product.
| When I see examples of that happening, I'll accept that
| grocery stores are guilty of doing what amazon does.
| malfist wrote:
| Actually, isn't that what Bed Bath and Beyond did? Partly
| the cause of their failure?
| srackey wrote:
| Also what Trader Joe's does. It's kinda their whole deal,
| and partly the cause for their success.
| [deleted]
| cj wrote:
| I think grocery stores are culpable for a lot of shady
| behavior.
|
| The least of which is selling end cap space (most walking
| traffic) to the highest bidder, meaning a lot of junk food
| and impulsive-purchase products are put in the highest
| traffic places.
|
| At least on Amazon it's marked as a sponsored result. Even if
| most people click the first result anyway.
|
| Both Amazon and grocery stores can be in the wrong.
| CptFribble wrote:
| the difference is that grocery stores are easy to search
| completely - don't like the cereal options on the end-cap?
| just walk down the cereal aisle and see it all immediately.
|
| Amazon on the other hand, actively makes it difficult to
| search for other products, by not only promoting their own
| brands at the top, but filling up the rest of the results
| with sponsored items.
|
| It's more akin to an endcap with highest bidder items, but
| then every few feet you walk down the cereal aisle, the
| shelves separate and move farther away so another endcap
| can slide into view, pushing the cheaper alternatives
| farther and farther down the aisle the further you walk.
|
| Not to mention the scale of the problem as well, grocery
| stores are finite, and amazon nearly infinite, at least in
| terms of how much time it takes to search through
| everything.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Grocery stores generally don't have monopoly power to start
| with, and therefore cannot illegally maintain such power no
| matter what they do.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| They have just as much as Amazon does. Walmart probably has
| more.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > They have just as much as Amazon does.
|
| What individual grocery firm has a monopoly of the degree
| that the FTC has identified for Amazon in the two
| relevant markets for this case over any market, what is
| that market, and where is the evidence for the claimed
| monopoly?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Not really feeling like doing a bunch of research right
| now but walmart has 36% of the grocery market in this
| country and many local monopolies. I don't think Amazon
| is above 50% in any ecommerce sectors so seems pretty
| similar to me. Walmart also is known for the same stuff
| Amazon does where it bans the companies it buys from from
| charging less elsewhere.
| etchalon wrote:
| Not really, or, at least, not at the same scale.
|
| Staples (peanut butter, canned fruit, etc.) tend to have
| store brands, but grocery stores doesn't have a store brand
| version of the vast majority of popular products.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| And so what if they did? Are manufacturers not allowed to
| sell to customers directly?
| etchalon wrote:
| If they did, whether it'd be something of concern would
| be a function of the grocery stores market size and
| capture.
|
| If Walmart, for instance, were to start creating Walmart-
| branded everything after in-store product trials by small
| companies, that'd be a concern.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Walmart has done that, for decades. They have tons of
| their own brand in their stores selling for cheaper next
| to the more brand name items. Equate, Mainstay, etc. In
| fact, everyone does it. Target, Costco, CVS, Walgreens,
| etc. It is basic price discrimination / segmentation
| strategy.
| etchalon wrote:
| As I said above, staples tend to have store-brand
| equivalents.
|
| But you don't see Walmart creating store-brand knock-offs
| of every popular product on their shelves.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > but grocery stores doesn't have a store brand version of
| the vast majority of popular products
|
| Yes they do. I can shop at safeway and buy nothing buy
| safeway branch shit easily.
| jonas21 wrote:
| At my local supermarket, there is a store-brand option in
| basically every popular product category.
|
| And I can't even recall visiting a major chain grocery
| store where this was not the case (at least not in the last
| 5 years).
| whatever1 wrote:
| It is not if you cannot prove that the price that the customer
| pays is now higher.
|
| Apple for example copies apps and makes them available as
| default in iOS. Companies go bankrupt because of it, but it is
| not monopolistic.
|
| Of course all these are because of the strict legal definitions
| we have. In spirit I agree with you.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > It is not if you cannot prove that the price that the
| customer pays is now higher.
|
| That's according to a peculiar interpretation of anti-trust
| law.
|
| "Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s
| and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely
| with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not
| producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust
| doctrine views low consumer prices, alone, to be evidence of
| sound competition."
|
| Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
| https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-
| parado...
| abduhl wrote:
| It's strange to call the most prominent view (and the one
| applied by courts currently) a "peculiar" interpretation.
| Lina Khan is the one with the "peculiar" view right now.
| The consumer interest test is preferred because, among
| other reasons, it is quantitative. Quantitative tests are
| seen as less able to be abused because some judge has a
| particular view/vibe. Additionally, the consumer harm test
| focuses on the consumer which is the ultimate class of
| people antitrust laws seek to protect. Antitrust laws don't
| exist to protect markets, they exist to protect citizens.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| It is peculiar because it was legislated from the bench.
| Congress made it very clear _at the time the legislation
| was drafted_ , _multiple times_ , that they considered
| concentrated markets to be, in effect, a parallel state.
| Every captain of industry today would become a tyrant
| tomorrow, if given the power. Textualists and
| originalists should have smacked down consumer welfare
| the moment it was proposed.
|
| > Additionally, the consumer harm test focuses on the
| consumer which is the ultimate class of people antitrust
| laws seek to protect. Antitrust laws don't exist to
| protect markets, they exist to protect citizens.
|
| Citizens stop being consumers when they exit the store.
| Then they go to work or run their business, whereupon
| Amazon harms them to the tune of thousands of dollars -
| all so they can save a penny when they put that
| "consumer" hat back on. This is ludicrous and self-
| defeating.
|
| > Quantitative tests are seen as less able to be abused
| because some judge has a particular view/vibe
|
| Of course, the choice of which quantitative test to use
| is totally objective too, right? /s
| kozd wrote:
| Isn't the issue here short term vs long term consumer
| interest? It's all fine and dandy for consumers to pay
| lower prices because company A is eating losses to drive
| company B out of business but what happens after that.
| abduhl wrote:
| How do you quantify long term consumer interest? We are
| talking about drastic actions when we are talking
| antitrust including the complete dismantling of companies
| in the extreme from the government perspective and a
| tripling of damages from a private enforcement
| perspective. How do you justify such drastic measures
| with a "what if they're dumping?" approach rather than a
| rigorous quantitative assessment of impacts on the
| consumer.
|
| If dumping actually occurs then the government or
| competitors can sue and win under the current antitrust
| laws by showing that consumers are now paying more due to
| the dumping scheme. Lina Khan's view militates for
| prospective suits - suits where no consumer harm has yet
| occurred.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Monopoly is a subset of anticompetitive behavior, and not easy
| to prove. Whatever behavior you see as monopoly, they could
| have a "reasonable" explanation for. A company violates the law
| only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monpoly through
| _unreasonable_ methods. As usual, the law has loopholes big
| enough to drive an entire logistics chain through.
| lacker wrote:
| According to the best statistics I can find, in the US, Amazon
| has 37.8 percent of the retail e-commerce market.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-t...
|
| The simplest pro-Amazon case is that they do not have monopoly
| power, because they are not a monopoly.
| tristan957 wrote:
| You do not need > 50% market share for the government to go
| after you for monopolistic practices. If Amazon made that
| case in court, they would be laughed out of the building.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The simplest pro-Amazon case is that they do not have
| monopoly power, because they are not a monopoly.
|
| It's also odd that their retail business doesn't make any
| money if they're supposed to have market power.
| rat9988 wrote:
| As a seller who wants to sell retail, what is the marketshare
| of available platforms?
| crazygringo wrote:
| It really depends on how you define it, but Amazon, Walmart
| and Shopify are all excellent mainstream choices. This
| gives you plenty of numbers for comparison:
|
| https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/amazon-
| walmart-s...
|
| Then obviously you're also got direct-to-consumer via your
| own website, and lots of niche channels like Etsy, Wayfair,
| and so forth.
| jldugger wrote:
| > I'm honestly not sure how you could make the case that they
| aren't maintaining and abusing monopoly power
|
| Well, the obvious way would be "Amazon is not a monopoly." It's
| blatantly anti-competitive but hasn't produced a competitor
| yet. And heck, they didn't even have to buy off the competition
| from Jet.com, Wal-Mart somehow inexplicably did that for them.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is what supermarkets do as well - see what sells, then
| create own-brand alternatives.
| tehlike wrote:
| At this point, they don't have to rank it higher and people
| would still buy it.
|
| They are like Kirkland of Costco most often.
| hightrix wrote:
| Exactly. I prefer Amazon Basics to YAYWOWND brand every day.
|
| It is one of the few brands on Amazon you can count on to not
| be Chinese crap. Even if it is made in China, the Amazon
| Basics products are generally good quality.
| babypuncher wrote:
| That is another problem with Amazon. It seems like my only
| options are Amazon Basics, or weird 3-day old Chinese
| brand.
|
| Where are all the actually reputable brands hiding?
| bluGill wrote:
| Many reputable brands are not on Amazon because then they
| people who buy from them are not getting a counterfeit.
| You have to be a certain size to pull this off though,
| small companies have trouble getting a market outside of
| amazon or ebay.
| shitlord wrote:
| Amazon Basics products were previously known for causing
| fires and destroying electronic devices. See:
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/10/business/amazonbasics-
| electro...
|
| I don't know if they ever fixed this problem (they have
| changed suppliers before), but I try to avoid using
| products from Amazon or no-name Chinese companies that plug
| into the wall.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think it's slightly better than <insert anonymous three
| day old Chinese company here> but just slightly. Amazon
| Basics within my company has earned a reputation for being
| extremely fragile crap that will break quickly and,
| occasionally, dramatically. I have had absolutely awful
| experiences with their surge protectors.
|
| But yes - it's a step up from YAYWOWND which is a company
| that probably didn't exist last week and almost certainly
| won't exist in a month when their product spontaneously
| combusts and you try and chase down damages or at least a
| refund... Still, I'm actually finding myself buying more
| and more name brand crap because at least that way I know
| there's a company I can reach out to when it breaks down.
| dartos wrote:
| We're coming full circle
| chx wrote:
| The /r/usbchardware subreddit used to recommend
| AmazonBasics cables because they are USB IF certified
| https://www.usb.org/single-product/728 but lately...
| https://www.usb.org/products the entire company is gone.
| https://i.imgur.com/qFzHbvP.png It also used to be you
| could use the ASIN to search for it... you can't now.
| malfist wrote:
| Bonus points for YAYWOWND that didn't exist last week,
| yet all it's products have thousands of 5 star reviews
| that amazon somehow doesn't think is fraudulent.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Kirkland has a big difference here, in that it's a much
| better consistent indicator of quality than the Amazon house
| brands.
| tehlike wrote:
| Probably true. But then feels like it's one or two tweaks
| away.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| It might be, but Costco has a reputation for integrity,
| and it's not worth trading that for a few percent cost
| savings on generic items that aren't even a big portion
| of their bottom line.
| tehlike wrote:
| I meant for amazon.
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| As a consumer, this doesn't really hurt me. I get good products
| for cheap delivered in two days or less. I don't see how the
| FTC is helping me here.
| mikem170 wrote:
| How do you know that you're not missing out on an even better
| deal?
|
| If amazon had real competition maybe they would not have
| raised seller fees so much, and would not have prevented
| sellers from allowing lower prices in other places. So a
| cases can be made that they are using their market share to
| drive up prices, not lower them. Costing the consumer more.
|
| There's other issues besides cost, for example counterfeits.
| If they had real competition then maybe they'd have to do
| something about all the counterfeit products they sell, which
| hurts both buyers and sellers.
|
| Just a couple examples. There are other ways that monopolies
| can impact markets.
|
| I've had similar thoughts about facebook. We could have had
| much better social/messaging systems, but facebook bought the
| competition. We likely missed out on more variety and perhaps
| much better options. Consumers were harmed by these lost
| opportunities.
| tw04 wrote:
| >I get good products for cheap delivered in two days or less.
|
| You would be getting the same products for cheaper, that's
| the point. Their "two days or less" hasn't been true for
| several years. "Prime" to me basically has become "sometime
| in the next week" and there's a massive warehouse within 30
| miles of my house.
| olyjohn wrote:
| I cancelled Prime, and I always still get free shipping.
| Yes it's longer than 2 days, but a lot of the time it
| arrives early anyways. I really feel like it is better
| without Prime. I get more "early arrivals" now and I used
| to just get 2 day shipments in 3-5 days anyways.
| max_ wrote:
| Exactly, the purpose of capitalism is to serve the consumer
| not the competitors.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The purpose is to serve the public, full stop (including
| consumers, employees, shareholders, other citizens). The
| mechanism is the free market, not capitalism, and the free
| market requires free competition.
|
| Capitalism is one tool in the free market toolbox, and it
| works very well in many ways. One way this tool doesn't
| work well is that it leads to monopolies, which stifle
| competition, which hurts the people listed above.
| likpok wrote:
| The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that
| this is basically every large retailer. Walmart has great
| value, Safeway has safeway select, Target has good and gather.
| In all of these cases large retailers take well-performing
| products (i.e. look at their sales data to see what is selling
| well) and creates mimics.
|
| They put the generics right next to the original products, and
| then charge the original seller for better shelf placement (as
| well as for various other things -- getting a product in a
| retail store requires a fair amount of payola in some form or
| another).
|
| All of this adds up to basically the same thing: amazon copies
| a product and ranks it highly unless you pay for better
| placement.
|
| You can say that this is bad, which sure, but it seems hard to
| make the argument that this is specifically illegal for amazon
| when it's widely practiced in the industry.
| losteric wrote:
| > The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is
| that this is basically every large retailer.
|
| Alternatively: there's no trouble at all, Walmart/Safeway/etc
| are all clearly engaging in this anti-competitive practice
| and must be reigned in. Marketplaces need to be regulated as
| neutral grounds for sellers, the marketplace cannot double-
| dip and compete against sellers or engage in practices that
| reduce competition between marketplace businesses.
|
| Generics and knock-offs are fine, it just needs to be done by
| independent sellers.
|
| Practices like down-ranking sellers for offering better
| prices elsewhere is just blatantly violating any sense of
| neutrality, reducing competition among marketplaces and
| increasing prices for customers.
| mentalpiracy wrote:
| I have come to this same conclusion as well.
|
| Too many economic opinions are still predicated on the idea
| that the free market is still working correctly, and that
| there are effective controls in place. The reality is that
| - at least in the US - the controls are broken, and have
| been for a decade or more.
| kiklion wrote:
| How is it clearly anti-competitive if they are providing a
| better value for the consumer?
|
| When a name brand has market power and charges a premium
| for a basic product, then another company entering the
| market and undercutting them is great for the consumer. We
| can make regulations to ensure that a distributor,
| advertiser, retailer and the product owner engage in arms
| length transactions but there's nothing inherently wrong
| with a store brand offering products comparable to name
| brand at significantly reduced prices.
| m-ee wrote:
| From what I understand the FTC is shifting away from the
| doctrine that consumer benefit/harm as the deciding
| factor for an antitrust case.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Okay so take the FTC out of it. Let's say we're writing
| the laws from scratch today. Why would store brand
| generics be outlawed?
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| They wouldn't, except for market dominating retailers.
| sailfast wrote:
| Aren't most of these generics all white-label anyway? I'm
| less worried about store-brand generics that are often
| outsourced, and more worried about behavior that drives any
| of the original manufacturers out of the business entirely
| because of monopoly over the entire sales chain.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Clearly, it isn't illegal to do this kind of thing in
| general. What's illegal is doing it when you have enough
| market power to be deemed a monopoly. No physical retailer is
| anywhere near that. Businesses are allowed to be
| anticompetitive. That's more or less the entire reason they
| exist. They're not allowed to create monopolies by being
| anticompetitive.
| fragmede wrote:
| I don't know that it is. Walmarts been repeatedly sued for
| the same practice, so it's not just Amazon being sued for
| that behavior.
| enriquec wrote:
| Very true. I find it hard to argue against something like
| generics - since they increase access and lower price.
| kiklion wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with genetics and nothing wrong with
| stores having their own brand.
|
| We just need regulations to ensure that vertical companies
| are engaging in arms length transactions. If Walmart
| charges a company $10 per linear foot of shelf space on the
| third row, then they need to internally bill the generic
| brand division the same rate.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| I think those great value products are not in fact produced
| by Walmart. It's the same product from the same company, just
| lower priced to appeal to price conscious customers.
| gehwartzen wrote:
| Thats exactly what those are. I worked for Reynolds
| Consumer a while back and the same aluminum foil goes into
| the brand box as well as the private label box.
| bluGill wrote:
| The foil might be the same, but that doesn't mean
| everything is. I've had generic raisin bran cereal that
| was clearly Kellogg's in a different box, excpet that 1
| out of 100 boxes had a slightly different flavor that
| wouldn't have passed Kellogg's quality controls but since
| still food safe (so I assume) the generic boxes got it.
| Of course when doing a private labor you can specify the
| higher quality controls, but that comes at a higher
| price. Most of the time Kellogg's is going to make the
| same cereal either way so nobody can tell the difference,
| but when something goes off in the process the cheaper
| generics get it.
|
| My knowledge of foil suggests there isn't anything
| Reynolds could to that would reduce quality that would
| still be good enough to ship.
| hotnfresh wrote:
| I dunno how it is these days, but the store brand cocoa
| pebbles used to not taste like chocolate at all, and
| would fail to turn the milk into chocolate milk like the
| real ones did. Other cereals had similar problems. A
| common issue was that the store brand was consistently,
| noticeably stale, while the name brand almost never was.
| graeme wrote:
| Monopoly is very specific. Anti competitive isn't monopoly.
|
| Amazon simply hasn't got monopoly market share or even e
| commerce monopoly market share.
|
| And btw all retailers copy products. Surely you've bought store
| brand corn flakes at some point for instance.
| nixass wrote:
| By what metric Amazon IS monopoly?
| neogodless wrote:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-
| of-t...
|
| 37.8% of online retail.
|
| Walmart is #2 at 6.3%.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
|
| > The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by
| which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude
| competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In
| law, a monopoly is a business entity that has _significant
| market power_ , that is, the power to charge overly high
| prices, which is associated with a decrease in social
| surplus.
|
| > Product substitutability: Product substitution is the
| phenomenon where customers can choose one over another. This
| is the main way to distinguish a monopolistic competition
| market from a perfect competition market.
| wordsarelies wrote:
| 37.8 seems low, I suspect the "shipped goods" percentage is
| higher.
| munk-a wrote:
| By the metric of market control and by the metric of being
| able to leverage anti-competitive practices without feeling
| any market pushback.
| Spivak wrote:
| I wish we could make this more well-defined because this is
| every company ever entering a new market supported by their
| existing business. If you actually outlawed all of it it
| would kill every medium or larger business (which isn't to
| say I'm not opposed to outlawing it) because that's just
| the game. The business that has to take on funding and pay
| interest will struggle against the conglomerate with a war
| chest larger than your TAM.
|
| Amazon has some shitty practices but I expect a lot of
| pushback in this lawsuit as a bunch of other companies see
| a target on their back for stuff they've been doing for
| longer than Amazon's been around.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| it was well defined enough for the FTC to bring this suit
| with a pretty detailed complaint, I think we're good
| there
|
| "other companies" don't have the same market power here,
| or indeed engage in the same anticompetitive behavior,
| but again, that's all explained when you read the FTC
| complaint detailing the actual behaviors in question
| taeric wrote:
| Sadly, no it isn't. Them calling out that they are not
| going after Amazon because they are too big, but because
| they did thing X is very problematic for the clear
| definitions.
|
| That is, as well defined as some concerns are, this
| complaint actually throws out a ton of that and makes it
| even less clear.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| fortunately, it was, hence the existence of the complaint
|
| if the FTC didn't know whether their rules applied, they
| wouldn't have been able to draft a complaint explaining
| how they do
|
| penalizing suppliers for offering lower prices elsewhere,
| for example, is pretty clearly anticompetitive
| taeric wrote:
| Don't confuse criticism of the FTC with praise for Amazon
| here. The FTC seems to be continuing weak cases, and at
| least some of us view that as very problematic.
|
| If we are going to rebuild some of the surrounding rules
| such that these practices are illegal, I'm all for it. If
| it turns out that I'm wrong and they do manage to make
| the market healthier with a suit against Amazon, great.
|
| This doesn't look strong in that direction, though. This
| reeks of populist appeal from folks that know it is a
| politically savvy move to bash Amazon.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| there's no need, as the practices are already illegal,
| and the rules are already built, and the FTC is already
| filing strong cases like this one
|
| the criticism of this latest case, however, reeks of
| corporate worship from folks that know that Amazon is in
| the wrong (as the complaint documents)
| taeric wrote:
| This is not a strong case, is what a lot of us are
| asserting.
|
| You can disagree there, but realize our disagreement here
| isn't that Amazon is a good company. It is on the
| strength of this case. It really feels like one that is
| being brought more for optics than otherwise.
|
| I say this as someone that thought they should have had a
| strong case against Microsoft buying Activision. And yet,
| just look how that went. Maybe I'm wrong. Shouldn't take
| too long for us to find out, all told. I remember the
| stories of what Walmart did and still does in retail,
| though. It is obscene to see how that has played out in
| time.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I understand you are asserting that, and what a lot of us
| are asserting after reading all the allegations is that
| it is a strong case
|
| You can disagree, and that's fine, I'm not saying your
| personal disagreement specifically is support for Amazon,
| it's just that's the optics of the individuals
| disagreeing with the case the FTC presented here, for a
| lot of us, seem to be corporate/capitalism worship and/or
| personal disagreement with the existing rules and laws
| against anticompetitive behavior that Amazon clearly
| violated here (as detailed in the complaint)
| taeric wrote:
| I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you
| think these claims are strong. Especially with the
| backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, these
| feel weak. It sucks that the only real commentary out
| right now is the expected appeals online.
|
| So, we'll see. Hopefully quickly.
| taeric wrote:
| Examples? Because, by most evidence that I am aware of,
| they aren't actually doing that well? Certainly not bad.
| But not clear to me that they have any real online
| advantage now that other stores have online payment that
| they can use between them. I've certainly been far more
| willing to buy direct from brands for the past few years.
| cj wrote:
| The examples are listed in the article. The last point is
| pretty damning if they can prove it.
|
| > Biasing Amazon's search results to preference Amazon's
| own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better
| quality.
|
| > Degrading the customer experience by replacing
| relevant, organic search results with paid advertisements
|
| > Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of
| sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on
| Amazon to stay in business. [...]
|
| > Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter
| other online retailers from offering prices lower than
| Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the
| internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller
| is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury
| discounting sellers so far down in Amazon's search
| results that they become effectively invisible.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| The last one is the most problematic IMO
| taeric wrote:
| First, disclaimer that I do not mean my post as a reason
| not to pursue antitrust concerns. By all means, look for
| them. If they are found, make rules about them.
|
| That said, I have specific doubts. For one, search has
| always been crap on Amazon. I could believe they tried
| some of these tricks, but I confess I have my doubts they
| would execute on them well.
|
| For second, some of this is standard BS that retail has
| just accepted. That is, bringing on "experts" from in the
| retail industry would almost certainly bias you in some
| of these directions. The standard contracts that retail
| stores have pushed for a long time are such that they
| absolutely should be curtailed. They can be good tools
| for small companies, but it is clear that as companies
| get larger, they amplify power imbalances.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Waterluvian wrote:
| But I like it when Costco does it...
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Do Shopify next! And Apple's 30% tax is literally outrageous!
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Also do the fact that you never own what you "buy". Buy means
| buy. Period. Amazon, Audible, Google Play, Apple TV, etc. I
| would like to _own_!
| rob74 wrote:
| Then you are in the minority unfortunately. Just look at
| music - you can buy DRM-free music online without problems,
| but people still prefer to pay for Spotify...
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Streaming is a different matter. I agree that you don't own
| anything if you stream. I also don't think lack of
| popularity for "buying" is a reason not to have a
| reasonable rule about the definition of "buying".
| softwaredoug wrote:
| How is Shopify a monopoly? There's all kinds of competitors for
| making online stores
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| They force sellers to use their payment processor. If you
| don't, they charge an extra 0.5% markup on top, which
| basically means that no 3rd party payment processor can be
| competitive on price.
|
| I think you can also measure their power in the same way as
| Amazon - The % of fees that they capture as a percent of
| sales volume goes up every year. Slow squeeze.
| lolinder wrote:
| Does anyone know more about Project Nessie? There's a portion of
| the complaint [0] that is _heavily_ redacted from page 123 to
| 126. The only information that isn 't redacted is this:
|
| * Project Nessie is an algorithmic pricing system
|
| * "Amazon's Project Nessie has already extracted over [redacted]
| from American households."
|
| * "this scheme belies its public claim that it "seek[s] to be
| Earth's most customer-centric company,""
|
| * It's related to Section VI.A.3 (Amazon maintains its monopolies
| by suppressing price competition with its first-party anti-
| discounting algorithm)
|
| Amazon themselves identify Nessie as the system that monitors
| spikes or trends [1], so my hunch is this is some sort of surge
| pricing system. Does anyone here know more?
|
| [0]
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910129AmazoneC...
|
| [1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/amazon-offices/the-
| surprisi...
| capableweb wrote:
| Guessing this is also related, from page 10:
| Amazon has implemented an algorithm for the express purpose of
| deterring other online stores from offering lower prices.
| [redacted] Rather than trying to compete, Amazon uses
| [redacted] Ultimately, this conduct is meant to deter
| rivals from attempting to compete on price altogether-
| competition that could bring lower prices to tens of millions
| of American households. As a result of this conduct, Amazon
| predicted, "prices will go up."
| hotnfresh wrote:
| What especially rankles is how Amazon doesn't give a fuck
| about counterfeits. So they're allowing counterfeits
| (amplifying the mentioned effect) to discourage direct-
| sellers from attempting to compete on price.
|
| Meanwhile, I have to order from direct sellers to be sure I
| will get a genuine, new product. So I don't even get Amazon's
| lower-but-still-higher-than-optimal price, but a _yet higher_
| one.
|
| As far as I'm concerned the whole company's a giant scam and
| I can't believe it still hasn't caught up with them. They
| benefit so very much from enabling bad actors, and have for
| so long _clearly_ without any serious attempt to stop it,
| that I'll do a happy dance the day they go under or get
| broken up. I just wish the eventual consequences could force
| Bezos to have to work for a living again, since he's built
| his empire on fucking people weaker than him. Shouldn't get
| to keep a penny of it.
| KyleJune wrote:
| You might still be getting products from the same inventory
| pool in an Amazon warehouse when ordering directly if the
| company uses Amazon's Multi-Channel Fulfillment offering.
| They sell on their site, tell Amazon about the sale, then
| Amazon ships it to the customer. They even offer the option
| to ship it in unbranded boxes so that customers don't know
| the order is being fulfilled by Amazon.
| hotnfresh wrote:
| Ew, gross. I'm pretty sure the couple companies I order
| from regularly that also have an Amazon presence don't do
| that, since they have direct-order products not listed on
| Amazon and often include little touches like a bonus
| sample or handwritten note that you don't get if you
| order their stuff on Amazon, but good to know to watch
| out for that.
| pests wrote:
| > since they have direct-order products not listed on
| Amazon
|
| This is still at-risk because you are not required to
| list on Amazon to use FBA.
|
| The handwritten note is a better indicator for sure.
| datavirtue wrote:
| So tired of being on the shit-end of a drop-ship.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| How does Amazon avoid liability for selling scam products?
| Do they claim to be "just the middleman" and pass
| responsibility onto ghost-in-the-night companies selling
| the scam products? Or do they just abuse the legal system
| and make justice too expensive to be worth it?
|
| I don't know the law very well, but I would hope there's a
| legal doctrine that responsibility has to effectively land
| somewhere. If a company is passing responsibility en masse
| to some other entity that cannot be effectively sued, then
| the responsibility should actually lie with the first
| company.
| throw9away6 wrote:
| The same way they avoided paying state taxes for over a
| decade. Too big to sue
| hotnfresh wrote:
| I have no idea, but companies routinely do shit that I
| assume would at least get me a fine in a hurry if I tried
| it. I don't know how it works either. Like I'd have
| assumed deliberately dumping e-waste all over city
| sidewalks would get you a steep fine and an order to come
| pick them up or face an even steeper one within a matter
| of days--plus an absolute liability nightmare if, god
| forbid, anyone tripped over them and got hurt--but
| e-scooter companies have done it for years and have faced
| almost no consequences. I doubt I could get away with it.
| I dunno how they do.
| pests wrote:
| In the beginning it was a free-for-all but now cities
| require permits and have limits and require the companies
| to implment restricted zones where the scooter won't run.
| tornato7 wrote:
| Not just counterfeits but pages upon pages of shitty
| products from companies like WOWZAMGO and PARTUE that, now
| that they have sponsored rankings, will always come up
| first in search. They also all have endless fake reviews.
| This renders Amazon's search essentially useless.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| WOWZAMGO makes quality products. I bought their portable
| usb battery and it only caught fire after the 20th charge
| cycle. PARTUE, on the other hand... don't ask!
| m463 wrote:
| What's funny is that I couldn't tell if this was serious
| or sarcastic at first glance. (caught fire -> sarcastic)
|
| Thing is, these silly UPPER-CASE-NONSENSE-COMPANIES are
| winning against established brands with quality products.
|
| Except there is a trend now where a brand with products
| of known good quality like YETI can now charge
| _outrageous_ amounts of money - like 10x or more.
| no_wizard wrote:
| The truth about consumer buying patterns is most
| purchases are treated as lowest cost commodity, unless
| the buyer is aware or the price threshold is high
| enough[0]. When you don't have subliminal[1] and limited
| selection pressure (both of which exist in brick and
| mortar stores), coupled with a UI that makes it pretty
| easy to discover other brands, and coalesced signals
| (reviews placement etc), lowest price wins.
|
| [0]: Put another way, if its expensive, it gets more
| scrutiny by the average consumer (whatever their
| definition for expensive is). The other circumstance is
| if they care about the category or are in the slice of
| shoppers who do quality research, which is less common
| than you might think, until the cost factor kicks in,
| usually.
|
| [1]: This is brand awareness, and other related
| verticals. Effectively, this is what brand and mass
| marketing is about.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| The UPPERCASENONSENSENAMES are so obvious it makes me
| wonder if this is a target-selection technique in the
| same vein as the 419 scammers use -- make it so only the
| most clueless people would ever buy your garbage product,
| so you get a lower percentage of people who are going to
| report you.
| Avshalom wrote:
| The thing is, it's 2023, we all "know" that every
| company's product get made in the same factory and
| there's just a fork at the end of the conveyor where they
| get different branding slapped on.
|
| So the gamble is that UCNN is sourced out of the exact
| same factory as the product/brand you actually want. It's
| the the evolution of the Warby Parker model.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Just bought a wood bed frame online. 5 vendors with
| nearly the exact same frame, all priced within $50 of
| each other. How does one choose? Does it matter?
| cdumler wrote:
| Welcome to the Era of [Poe's
| Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law).
| smugma wrote:
| It's hard to find that value niche in the middle. They do
| exist within categories eg Anker for USB related things.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| The Anker that was selling "offline" cameras that phoned
| home plaintext images? Yeah, no thanks.
| jrockway wrote:
| I don't really have a problem with this stuff. It's
| memeable (some great photoshop artists there; always good
| when the company has no photo of their actual product)
| and not that cheap, but I think of Amazon as an
| overpriced Shenzhen market and this stuff is essential to
| maintaining that vibe.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Fucking finally
| skinkestek wrote:
| Good!
|
| Does this mean FTC got a new spine (or have I misunderstood and
| they had one all the time)?
|
| If so:
|
| Can I also suggest someone looks into:
|
| - Googles abuse of market position to take over the browser
| market
|
| - Microsoft trying to abuse their market position to take over
| the browser market (again)
|
| ?
| ihaveajob wrote:
| In my opinion, Amazon needs to be split into at least 4
| independent entities: - Online marketplace
| - Consumer products - Internet infrastructure -
| Delivery logistics
|
| Similar to the three-tier distribution system for beer in most
| states (a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer). This
| makes it easier for smaller players can compete with the big ones
| on quality at least, if not price or recognition.
|
| (Edit: format)
| duped wrote:
| > Similar to the three-tier distribution system for beer in
| most states (a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer).
| This makes it easier for smaller players can compete with the
| big ones on quality at least, if not price or recognition.
|
| This seems like a bad example given how its arguably led to
| massive consolidation in beer
| thfuran wrote:
| >(a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer)
|
| Does that mean brewpubs can't exist or just that they couldn't
| also sell the beer bottled?
|
| But regarding Amazon, I agree.
| ZeWaka wrote:
| > a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer
|
| Reminds me of the weird law in a lot of states where breweries
| and distilleries can't use the same equipment or physical
| location - which pushes out smaller more varied players since
| you need capital in order to operate multiple locations.
| CaffeinatedDev wrote:
| Amazon has been cognizant of this[antitrust risk] for a while
| now I believe. The internal systems are all set up to run
| independently, most systems are modular and already run as
| separate entities with permissioned access.
|
| Proof: worked as an SDE for AWS and Amazon for 7 yrs.
| ggreer wrote:
| Isn't that done because independent modular systems make it a
| lot easier to build stuff inside of such a large company?
| Bezos said as much in 2002 when he issued his API
| mandate.[1][2]
|
| 1. https://chrislaing.net/blog/the-memo/
|
| 2. https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
| emodendroket wrote:
| I question the assumption that simply letting more small
| players compete is going to improve outcomes for anyone who
| doesn't happen to own one of these smaller businesses.
| m463 wrote:
| - advertising
| ggreer wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the beer laws hurt small breweries and
| consumers. Back in the 1980s when these laws were at their most
| numerous and strictest, the market was dominated by a few
| macrobreweries. Even today, the states that restrict brewery
| self-distribution have half as many breweries per capita as
| states that allow it.
| arbuge wrote:
| I would add a fifth - advertising.
| cthalupa wrote:
| The three-tier system is absolutely awful in a lot of states
| for smaller breweries. It has been used to severely reduce
| their ability to sell on-site for off-site consumption, which
| is key for smaller breweries. Many states set the
| revenue/volume cap too low before you have to cut off on-site
| sales of off-site consumption for you to not take a significant
| hit to your profit swapping to a distributor.
|
| It also makes it very easy for the bigger groups like AB Inbev
| to play games with distributors around pushing enough volume of
| their products if they want to get allocations of more in-
| demand bottles like Goose Island's Bourbon County Brand Stout.
|
| I did not think I would ever see someone seriously arguing that
| the three-tier system for beer is a good thing for smaller
| players.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The thing with the three-tier system is that it only
| partially disaggregates the system. Market consolidation has
| a certain gravity to it: once one market is consolidated,
| they start stripping the margins off their suppliers and
| increasing prices for their customers. The only defense
| against this is to consolidate yourself to maximize your
| negotiating leverage. If wholesalers and retailers were
| horizontally disintegrated then it'd be a better system.
|
| This is also why businesses are furiously and unanimously
| anti-union. Labor is their biggest cost and they get ahead if
| they can keep labor fragmented while they consolidate.
| [deleted]
| jacooper wrote:
| Lets hope this doesnt become a secret trial like the google one.
| kderbyma wrote:
| Hopefully it works. Amazon has done so much damage to this
| world....
| criddell wrote:
| I wish they would add ebook DRM to the list. Amazon has
| essentially locked the Kindle so that it can only purchase from
| Amazon and Amazon ebooks can only be used on the Kindle. On top
| of that, they offer no way of transferring ebooks and, AFAIK,
| offer no way to remove DRM after a work enters the public domain.
| taeric wrote:
| I don't know, as I never had access to that data, but I would
| be shocked to find that is not demanded by their agreements
| with the publishers. Akin to why there is no library that will
| give you non-DRM items. Is almost certainly part of a strategy
| by the publishers to bolster other marketplaces they find more
| favorable.
| 542458 wrote:
| Isn't Amazon also the publisher for a nontrivial number of
| ebooks on Amazon?
| taeric wrote:
| The ones folks are buying? Not really. :D Publishers still
| do a good job signing on authors. Audio books, I think, are
| very different. Audible was far more active in building up
| a market and voice talent than the competition for a long
| time.
|
| That said, I am not aware of any actual anti-competitive
| practices that they do there. The examples that some high
| profile folks have used feel very weak. Prices are lower
| for customers than they have ever been, and profits for the
| talent are almost certainly up due to increased sales
| volume. Their percentage profit per sale is down, but the
| history could also be that keeping that percentage high
| would not have grown the market? Such that, they could not
| have gotten the larger pie without the smaller slice. But,
| now that the pie is big, they want the bigger slice.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| An agreement is constructed by _two_ parties, not one.
| taeric wrote:
| Feels like a non-sequitur? What are you trying to say? My
| specific point is that I would wager money that Amazon
| being required to have DRM on their devices is required by
| publishers for them to be able to have that publisher's
| offerings. If Amazon drops the DRM, they lose the ability
| to offer that content.
|
| I'm not as confident that they have the agreement include
| that they will not offer authors a way to have DRM free
| content on the platform, but I would not be surprised by
| it.
| criddell wrote:
| DRM doesn't have to be proprietary. I should be able to
| buy books from any place and read them on any reader.
| taeric wrote:
| I mean... not wrong. But useful? Does this happen with
| any technology? Is it being blocked by practices from
| Amazon? Still feels like a non-sequitur.
| criddell wrote:
| DVDs could be purchased and played on any player. Most of
| the non-Amazon ebook world uses Adobe DRM.
| taeric wrote:
| As someone that was into DVDs from other regions, this
| comment is laughably wrong.
|
| Edit: Heck, just playing movies on my computer DVD drives
| was less than straight forward. For the longest time you
| basically had to feel like a hacker to get it working on
| a linux machine.
| criddell wrote:
| It wasn't perfect, but it was better than the current
| situation with ebooks. You could go into an electronics
| retailer and choose one of a dozen DVD players then drive
| across town to video store and buy or rent any DVD and
| the chances that the two things would work together was
| very high.
| taeric wrote:
| No real disagreement from me, on that general point.
| Things were certainly more convenient in some older
| formats.
|
| I'm not clear on the relevance to this particular story.
| For one, ebook practices are literally not part of this
| case. For two, the assertion in this branch is that that
| exists at the demands of publishers.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| If Amazon refused to enter that agreement, would the
| publisher simply refuse to sell ebooks on Amazon? I
| sincerely doubt that.
|
| If Amazon was actually motivated to refuse DRM, then we
| would be in an entirely different situation. The reality
| is that the opposite is true, and that Amazon itself is
| one of the publishers requiring DRM!
| taeric wrote:
| You do know there was an antitrust against the publishers
| and Apple where they did collude and force changes to the
| agreement onto Amazon, right? This isn't even
| hypothetical. Literally happened. Amazon absolutely
| cannot live without publishers right now.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| But can publishers live without Amazon?
|
| My point is that that question was never asked:
| practically all of the publishers that sell on Amazon's
| marketplace - including Amazon Publishing - agree that
| they want DRM incorporated into Amazon's digital
| marketplace platform.
| taeric wrote:
| Almost certainly they would be fine, given some time. Is
| why they were willing to strong arm Amazon into changing
| terms on how they sell ebooks.
|
| And you seem to be dodging my point? My
| assertion/wager/whatever is that the publishers actively
| want it so that Amazon has to have DRM on their devices
| and sales. Just as they want it on libraries lending. Do
| I /know/ this? No. That is why I worded it as something
| that would shock me.
|
| I agree that my willingness to wager on this would go
| down as I extend it to my larger guess, that they also
| have terms covering things that Amazon publishes. That
| said, it lowers my willingness, but it does not seem
| beyond the pale.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Does calibre not work on new kindles?
| criddell wrote:
| I assume you are talking about the DeDRM tools? If so, the
| answer to your question is that it doesn't work as well as it
| used to. The era of easily strippable DRM is ending.
|
| Amazon's latest file format KFX hasn't been entirely cracked
| and it's possible it won't ever be entirely cracked. The best
| anybody can do so far is to buy an older Kindle and download
| it to that in order to get a crackable version. The problem
| with that is you lose all of the typography improvements only
| available in KFX.
| boyesm wrote:
| Adding a new book to a kindle is as simple as sending an email
| with a PDF attachment.
| charcircuit wrote:
| If you buy a PS5 game you can only play it on the PS5 and they
| don't remove DRM after the came goes into public domain.
| j_maffe wrote:
| PS5 doesn't have a monopoly over the console market, Amazon
| does.
| taeric wrote:
| Sony almost certainly has more marketshare of the console
| market than Amazon does of anything. The numbers that came
| out for sales of XBox were... sobering for how badly
| Microsoft is throwing cash to stay in the game.
| dartos wrote:
| So with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo: Sony has about 50%
| market share and Microsoft and Nintendo have about 25.
|
| That's a very different (I'd argue healthier) world than
| online retailers where Amazon has like 36% but the next
| largest (Walmart) is like 6%.
|
| You need to weigh the market share against the number of
| players in the space.
|
| Also that's not to mention how all 3 major game console
| players have some kind of moat or walled garden
| (exclusives.)
|
| Most online retailers are basically interchangeable, but
| Amazon is still the single largest player by far at 36%
| taeric wrote:
| Note that I don't mean one to be a defense of the other.
| It can be argued well that both markets are unhealthy. :D
|
| To your numbers, though, I'm not sure I see the argument?
| I'd be very surprised if that 25 is evenly split between
| Nintendo and Microsoft. And where is Valve in that?
|
| Playing into your argument, is Walmart really only 6%? Of
| all sales that happen period, how is the online/offline
| split? From my perspective, folks love to hate tech
| companies. You'll see silly headlines about 1 in 169
| people work for Amazon. You don't often see similar
| headlines for Walmart, which has twice the associates, if
| I recall...
| arielcostas wrote:
| And even in consoles, you have the option of never buying
| one: you can play videogames on PC, on a tablet or on a
| mobile phone. And now you even have the cloud option with
| NVIDIA or MS' Game Pass Ultimate.
|
| With Amazon however, it's more complicated since they
| control so many businesses. Visiting a website? Very
| probably it's hosted on AWS, or on a platform that runs
| on AWS. Visiting a friend with a smart doorbell thingy?
| Quite probably an Amazon Ring. Want to buy an e-book to
| read? Sell your soul to either Apple, Google or Amazon,
| or other smaller platforms (or pirate the book or buy it
| physically).
| taeric wrote:
| Note that AWS is actually not a part of this lawsuit. So
| that is mostly not relevant.
| arielcostas wrote:
| No, but it still is part of Amazon. In fact, as others
| have commented, AWS helps subsidise parts of the Amazon
| store that would otherwise result in losses.
| taeric wrote:
| But how is it at all relevant to this story? And if it is
| a vital point, why not get mentioned by the FTC?
|
| I don't think there is nothing at all there. However,
| most of the criticisms you will see in the wild about how
| AWS pays for retail are almost certainly from ignorance
| of how retail had to literally seed AWS.
|
| And don't take my criticism of that point as some sort of
| promotion of Amazon. I can be critical of the complaints
| without having to worship them.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| You can't think of a few reasons this is not a great
| comparison? Like, base expectations to begin with would
| disqualify this analogy as useful.
| taeric wrote:
| My kids have been confused on why I have to buy separate
| copies of many indie games for both Steam and Playstation
| and/or Switch. And... it actually is rather obnoxious.
| protonbob wrote:
| Ps5 games are specifically programmed for that architecture
| and sometimes studios are paid for exclusivity. The written
| word is universal.
| jpk2f2 wrote:
| You can easily use ebooks from anywhere on the Kindle. However,
| agreed on the DRM. Blindsided me when I tried to open some
| comics I had purchased on my computer (to read them in color).
| Luckily others have already made tools to remove that DRM...
| emodendroket wrote:
| The Kindle has support for side loading books so I'm not sure
| how it's locked to only reading Amazon purchases.
| my123 wrote:
| (disclaimer: Amazon employee)
|
| For that one, it's mandated by publishers. There's nothing that
| can be done for e-readers from vendors that don't support
| third-party applications.
|
| Amazon e-books are accessible on Android and other platforms in
| addition to Kindle devices.
|
| Kindle is also not locked to only ebooks from Amazon, but
| third-party DRM schemes are not supported. Calibre for example
| comes with good tooling for that use case.
| criddell wrote:
| > For that one, it's mandated by publishers.
|
| I believe the publishers want DRM. I'm not sure they want DRM
| that effectively locks in their readers to the Amazon
| ecosystem. I don't believe publishers would be upset if I
| could directly purchase books from Apple, Google, Kobo, or
| any other similar vendor directly on the Kindle.
|
| Is the audiobook market different? I know Cory Doctorow for
| one would like to sell his audio books through Audible but
| they require DRM. Care to defend that?
| my123 wrote:
| > but they require DRM
|
| There's no option to sell on Kindle's own store with DRM
| disabled indeed.
|
| edit: A poster has a link saying otherwise. Will ask what's
| up on the Audible side then.
| delecti wrote:
| Sure there is. From here
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0879H8NNB
|
| > At the Publisher's request, this title is being sold
| without Digital Rights Management Software (DRM) applied.
|
| (Specific title as just a convenient example from that
| publisher)
| emodendroket wrote:
| Nothing prevents you from buying from a different seller
| and reading the materials on your Kindle, other than the
| fact those other sellers have their own DRM locking you
| into their ecosystem instead.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| That's because publishers practice anti-competitive behavior,
| too.
|
| We need to quit getting lost in the word, "monopoly". No part
| of this problem is from a _single actor_ dominating the
| entire market. The problems are anti-competitive behavior and
| vertical integration.
|
| DRM is literally _intended to support_ copyright monopoly.
| The entire purpose and function of DRM is to prevent
| competition in the form of "copyright infringement".
| Uvix wrote:
| The same was true for music once upon a time, but that didn't
| stop Apple from negotiating for DRM-free with the publishers.
| my123 wrote:
| Leverage on music was much bigger because of the position
| that Apple had at the time, together with CDs not having
| DRM.
|
| That was a unique situation that couldn't be replicated
| later for video and other media sadly.
| gameoverhumans wrote:
| Some cursory web searches reinforce an assumption I had:
| Amazon absolutely dominate the eBook sales market, with
| figures from 65-80% of _all_ sales being indicated.
|
| So how can you make the case that Amazon _doesn 't_ have
| "leverage" to negotiate DRM-free publishing?
|
| > together with CDs not having DRM
|
| I don't recall printed books ever having any form of
| "DRM".
| callalex wrote:
| Amazon could leverage their market power to benefit the
| consumer like Apple did when they eliminated music DRM.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Exactly. The publishers need Amazon, and Amazon doesn't
| need the publishers. They have more than enough power to be
| able to dictate terms.
|
| Apple realized this and was able to bully their way to a
| deal that worked for Apple, and the labels had no real
| ability to counter Apple. Amazon has yet to do so.
|
| Arguably, Amazon has _substantially more_ market power now
| than Apple did back in the Jobs days when they were
| building out iTunes and negotiating with the major labels.
| m463 wrote:
| What I can't figure out is that many books (such as Tor) have
| a notice: At the Publisher's request, this
| title is being sold without Digital Rights Management
| Software (DRM) applied.
|
| Are these encrypted anyway on kindle?
| circuit10 wrote:
| You can at least copy files onto it if you already have non-
| DRMed ones
| miguelazo wrote:
| Nice to finally see this, so many years after online retailers
| (read: Amazon) were given total exemptions from sales tax in
| order to not "stifle innovation". We subsidized the destruction
| of brick and mortar retail, and by extension, many of the retail
| spaces that served as community anchors. It will take decades to
| recover, if it's even possible at this point.
| tantalor wrote:
| "most customer-centric company"
|
| I don't think anybody actually buys that line.
|
| Do they believe that internally?
| ashbee wrote:
| Some do, some don't.
|
| I know some folks who really genuinely believe that Amazon is a
| force for good, the criticism is exaggerated, will talk about
| how lucky they are to work for the World's Best Employer, and
| will get a bit sulky if you say anything negative about the
| company.
|
| Generally though, I think it's understood that "most customer
| centric company" doesn't mean "we will put the customer before
| ourselves because we are such good people", but instead
| "strategically keeping the customer happy is better for the
| shareholders in the long run".
|
| It's the same with most of the LPs. They're packaged in a way
| that makes Amazon sound like this amazing company that _really
| cares_ , but they boil down to "16 ways YOU can enrich Amazon's
| shareholders (you won't believe number 15!)".
| Xeronate wrote:
| I've never met anyone that thought the LPs were meant to
| imply Amazon "really cares". I like Amazon because it seems
| more straightforward than other companies. It's a business
| and it wants to make money. The only way I've ever
| interpreted "customer obsession" is that it's mutually
| beneficial to do what's best for the customer.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| The funny thing about slogans is that you can almost always
| count on the sloganeer to embody the opposite:
|
| - Don't be evil
|
| - Drain the swamp
|
| - Hope and Change
| Nevermark wrote:
| - "Free"
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| "Unlimited"
| fasthands9 wrote:
| >The complaint alleges that Amazon violates the law not because
| it is big, but because it engages in a course of exclusionary
| conduct that prevents current competitors from growing and new
| competitors from emerging
|
| >Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other
| online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping
| prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if
| Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods
| elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in
| Amazon's search results that they become effectively invisible.
|
| I feel like ultimately they are accused of violations because
| they are big. I don't think that's the worst thing. But as others
| have pointed out - their tactics are very similar to deals
| grocery stores and retailers make with suppliers all the time.
| The only difference seems to be that Amazon is big enough that
| suppliers can't legitimately threaten to take their business to
| another store - because there isn't one.
|
| Their complaints that Amazon makes prices higher for products
| across the internet is clearly only true because they are so big.
| autoexec wrote:
| Maybe they are only so big because their anti-competitive
| behaviors have kept alternatives from taking their users. I'd
| love to be able to stop giving amazon as much money as I do,
| and I know a lot of people who feel this way.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Alternatives in terms of sellers on Amazon.com, maybe, but
| people use amazon because of how good of a product Prime is
| (or at least, for the past few years, appears to be despite
| it being obvious product prices go up to offset subsidized
| shipping prices) and because it tends to have everything
| available is a fast and secure way. With e.g. a search engine
| showing you products, you might be sent off to one of 100k
| stores that all need your cc info and who don't already have
| your shipping address.
|
| This is partially solved by Shopify for Shopify sites, and
| Apple Pay/Google Pay/PayPal for third parties, but it's still
| often more friction to go to a 3p store.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I don't disagree with that but nonetheless it seems like the
| behavior they are in trouble for (telling suppliers they can
| only sell on Amazon if they don't offer cheaper prices
| elsewhere) is something that tons of other retailers do.
|
| I really don't mind their being a different set of rules if
| someone has the ability to dictate most of the market, but
| exclusive deals are routine for smaller players.
| brianstorms wrote:
| I signed up as a Seller on Amazon a while back, with one primary
| goal: sell extra copies of my book, published by Pantheon Books
| in 2017. The publisher offered me boxes of them at dirt-cheap
| prices and I took them up on their offer. So I started selling on
| Amazon, and I set my price as the lowest possible for "New"
| condition hardcover.
|
| For a while my price got listed on the main book product page.
| Only briefly though. Then it disappeared, and another seller got
| the glory of the link for a "New" 3rd party seller, and their
| price was HIGHER than mine.
|
| Amazon does not want to advertise your price if you are too low
| for their liking...
|
| Suddenly, in July, my mom dies. I have to travel to the east
| coast for the funeral, etc., so I put a hold on the one and only
| item in my inventory -- my book. Effectively this takes me
| offline temporarily as an Amazon Seller which was fine.
|
| BUT . . . when i get back home, I try to re-activate the account
| and find I cannot. INSTEAD, I get this notice from Amazon that my
| account is suspended, and that it's mandatory I go watch all
| these training videos about COUNTERFEIT products, how to spot
| them, why not to sell them, why it's illegal, etc, and that I do
| not have permission to sell counterfeit "Pantheon products." And
| I'm like, WTF? I'm selling the real deal, from Pantheon, and I AM
| THE EFFING AUTHOR AND THESE ARE MY OWN BOOKS.
|
| I try to communicate with Amazon Seller Program and get nowhere
| (I think they deliberately hire only people who don't understand
| English). They refuse to explain anything about this absurd
| counterfeit stuff.
|
| So I contact Pantheon. They just laugh. They had nothing to do
| with it, but weren't surprised -- they kind of hate Amazon.
|
| THEN I get a new notice from Amazon that my account is disabled
| permanently due to lack of use.
|
| WTF!?
|
| So: here is my theory. They were pissed I had a super-low price,
| and when they saw me temporarily disable my inventory as I'd be
| away for a week for a funeral, they swept in and shut me down,
| with some kind of made-up lie about COUNTERFEIT (I mean, can you
| believe these guys!?). And nothing is resolved, and we're on the
| verge of October.
|
| Amazon sucks.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > They were pissed I had a super-low price... they swept in and
| shut me down, with some kind of made-up lie about COUNTERFEIT
|
| If true, we have a name for this, its called fraud. Little
| people like you and me go to prison for it.
| no_wizard wrote:
| It is funny, that small and even sometimes medium business
| owners go to jail over things like fraud, failure to pay
| taxes, even labor violations. I remember local instances
| being reported on in the our (thankfully still around) local
| paper.
|
| Yet, if you are big enough, the government can barely muster
| the strength to issue a fine. Rarely to executives at big
| firms go to jail unless there was something Enron sized
| egregious happening
| eitally wrote:
| My nextdoor neighbor is a shoe salesman (in the US). He
| traditionally dealt with a region of retailers on behalf of his
| employer, a multi-brand company like VF, Clarks, Born, etc. In
| his previous role, he was asked to try to figure out how to add
| Amazon as a B2C channel. He did, and it essentially became his
| full time job. A couple of years ago he was laid off, and when
| his new employer (differently shoe company) learned he knew how
| to "use Amazon" he was immediately reassigned from field sales
| to full time online. According to him, there are so many quirky
| and esoteric things about selling through Amazon it's nearly
| impossible to figure out how to get started, much less
| understand nuances of pricing, taxes, shipping and returns, and
| -- as you said -- Amazon support is conflicting and
| inconsistent at best.
|
| Nowadays, I'm fine buying consumables from Amazon if I need
| them asap, but for any name brand stuff I specifically want, I
| prefer purchasing elsewhere. If reviews were trustworthy, it'd
| be one thing, but with Amazon having turned into AliExpress,
| it's impossible to know whether any of the Chinese brands are
| actually trustworthy and of high quality.
| dirtyid wrote:
| >it's impossible to know whether any of the Chinese brands
| are actually trustworthy and of high quality.
|
| IMO people buy cheap generic Chinese brands for the same
| reason they buy cheap dollar store products. They're gambling
| they can pay 30% the price for 90% of the function. Amazon
| reseller premium = they're paying slightly more for returns
| in case things break. They can save more buying from Ali
| resellers. Even more while temu subsidizing orders. The only
| people looking for quality are people who order from resalers
| of established PRC brands, i.e. Xiaomi. In the days before
| Amazon cracked down, you had brands like MPOW decide better
| marketting strategy was to give people gift cards for reviews
| and give no question asked replacements well outside of
| warranty period. Pretty win-win for consumers.
| redbell wrote:
| Your story is a true _tragedy_ and hearing such stories makes
| me feel sad.
|
| I believe it's, mostly, these unfair, monopolistic practices
| that made those companies _giants_ because they can,
| technically, crush anyone willing to swim in their _red ocean_.
|
| Normally, you could easily file a lawsuit against them and got
| them pay you 10x the damage they caused.
| drewbeck wrote:
| tragedy ... giants ... red ocean ...
|
| Manchurian commenter activated ... proceeding to step 2 ...
| jm4 wrote:
| Amazon became a giant because they were genuinely good before
| they became what they are now. For a long time, they offered
| a superior online shopping experience. The prices were good,
| the processing time was faster than anyone else, the shipping
| was fast and reliable, the site was easy to use, etc. Then
| all the third party sellers, whack-a-mole Chinese brands, and
| counterfeits took over the site. I thought Amazon was great
| when they were the retailer instead of a marketplace.
| jrockway wrote:
| I guess we figured out their algorithm. `if random() < 0.01:
| make_user_watch_training_video_about_counterfeits`. Even if
| they actually fixed the problem by having an alarmingly high
| false positive rate, I don't see how I would ever trust them.
| For example, some places don't do business with them, so if you
| see like an Apple cable on there, it wasn't shipped from Apple
| to their warehouse. Maybe it's real or maybe it's counterfeit,
| but why gamble?
|
| What's great about Amazon is that they kicked their competitors
| into gear and there are a lot of reputable vendors that offer
| cheap overnight shipping now. (B&H is my go to for
| electronics.)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Sue them in small claims court. It's perfect for this, you just
| bring in your documentation and write up a timeline for the
| judge.
| musicale wrote:
| Interesting idea - has anyone tried this?
|
| Does Amazon retaliate and ban you permanently if you win?
| no_wizard wrote:
| If you're already banned, you might as well try to get what
| you can out of the situation.
| EGreg wrote:
| Can't the court file an injunction against banning?
|
| I always wondered what would courts do about
| extrajudicial retaliation
| hippich wrote:
| Afaik, small claims courts are for specific monetary damages
| only. I feel like it would be hard to prove specific cash
| amount lost due to Amazon actions. It is also very likely one
| or more of documents one have to accept in order to open
| seller Central account requires signing away the right of
| settling dispute in courts, and instead use arbitration
| process.
| bombcar wrote:
| You haven't even begun to enter the world of unscrupulous
| activity, and Amazon is mostly 'hands off' because they don't
| care - but other 3rd party sellers DO and they know _all the
| tricks_ about how to pump alternative sellers off the page,
| etc.
|
| The whole thing is a worthless Alibaba ripoff now.
| brianstorms wrote:
| Do you think some other seller falsely "reported" me,
| claiming my copies my be counterfeit, for surely there was no
| way I could offer them so cheaply to beat out the next
| cheapest seller by, what, 50 cents?
| teruakohatu wrote:
| > Do you think some other seller falsely "reported" me,
| claiming my copies my be counterfeit
|
| That seems the most likely reason. I am sure there are
| services to automate these kind of blackhat actions.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Or maybe some machine learning deduced you were
| "counterfeit". Who knows. The common denominator is -
| Amazon doesn't care, it's just a machine, even more so than
| corporations by nature are.
| naikrovek wrote:
| never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity,
| EXCEPT when money is involved. if money is involved, and it can
| be explained by malice, then it is malice, _every time._
|
| the other seller likely reported you as counterfeit, and Amazon
| believed them.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > never attribute to malice what can be explained by
| stupidity, EXCEPT when money is involved
|
| The FAANG corollary:
|
| When you make it a point of pride to _only_ hire the
| smartest, most elite engineers on the planet, presumption of
| stupidity no longer applies.
| moregrist wrote:
| Grueling rounds of leetcode interviews and system
| architecture questions doesn't exactly select for either
| common sense or detailed knowledge of either human nature
| or even retail.
| lief79 wrote:
| No one knows how to hang onto a dumb idea like a smart
| person.
|
| Just because the average person can't prove them wrong by
| argument doesn't mean their right.
| costco wrote:
| Amazon makes more gross profit in a day than the FTC has revenue
| in a year. Good luck!
| smugma wrote:
| Time to buy AMZN?
|
| https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/the-hedge-fund-that-made-a-k...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| My prediction (you can check my results):
|
| AMZN price will be largely unchanged.
|
| There does seem to be some antitrust exposure there:
|
| ========= Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and
| deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than
| Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet.
| For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering
| lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting
| sellers so far down in Amazon's search results that they become
| effectively invisible.
|
| Conditioning sellers' ability to obtain "Prime" eligibility for
| their products--a virtual necessity for doing business on
| Amazon--on sellers using Amazon's costly fulfillment service,
| which has made it substantially more expensive for sellers on
| Amazon to also offer their products on other platforms. This
| unlawful coercion has in turn limited competitors' ability to
| effectively compete against Amazon.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _Conditioning sellers' ability to obtain "Prime" eligibility
| for their products--a virtual necessity for doing business on
| Amazon--on sellers using Amazon's costly fulfillment service_
|
| Isn't Prime a fulfillment service in this context? How would
| a seller be Prime eligible without using Amazon fulfillment?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Good point. Weakening FTC's case still further.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Prime is both a fulfillment service _and_ an exclusive
| marketplace category.
|
| I do think the FTC should be more direct about prosecuting
| the vertical integration of Amazon's marketplace,
| fulfillment, and delivery services.
| [deleted]
| gorbachev wrote:
| Nah. You buy stock in the law firm(s) representing Amazon on
| this. Assuming they're a publicly traded.
| bpicolo wrote:
| Publicly traded law firms aren't currently a thing in the US,
| because non-lawyer ownership (or in this case, partial
| ownership) of law firms has been against legal ethics codes
| for a long time:
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/practice-
| innovat...
| cosmonoot wrote:
| Why now?
| gigatexal wrote:
| Was there a similar action taken against Walmart when they were
| crushing small and large suppliers alike?
| sparrc wrote:
| Nope, the FTC has been historically toothless from 1990-2020 or
| so. Some people (such as Lina Khan and Joe Biden) are trying to
| turn that around.
|
| Doesn't seem likely to fully turn around as the next Republican
| president will likely appoint another toothless chair of the
| FTC.
|
| Democrat presidents for the foreseeable future will probably be
| going after big companies more than their predecessors in the
| 90s and early-2000s did.
| iteratethis wrote:
| What this world needs is pro-active legislation.
|
| The current state of Amazon is the result of a very slow
| trajectory taking 20 years. It happened in plain sight and still
| we allow it to grow until it's a monster where most of commerce
| has to submit to.
|
| We allow Google to become the leading search engine, advertiser,
| browser maker, mobile operating system maker. Effectively owning
| the internet. These should be 4 companies, not one. And even the
| 4 companies should not be of the current size.
|
| Stop allowing companies to grow into platforms, gatekeepers,
| monopolists that squeeze everybody dry.
|
| The current state is anti-market and anti-capitalistic. There no
| longer is any market when you allow these monstrosities.
| billy99k wrote:
| I was an Amazon seller 10 years ago. I noticed that as soon as I
| started getting some traction, Amazon would start selling
| alternatives and undercut me. At some point they started asking
| for proof of sales. This was then further used to compete against
| me.
|
| At some point, I had a complaint, refunded the customer
| completely, and they outright banned my account and held my money
| for 90 days (I got all of my money back after the 90 days). It
| completely wiped my business out and I never looked back.
|
| I was banned to the point where if another seller was associated
| why my account at all, they were also banned. All of my calls
| went nowhere and I was pushed to automated responses.
|
| 12+ years later and I have my seller account back. Not like I'm
| ever going to sell anything on Amazon again.
| adra wrote:
| It sounded like their audiobook division was acting in anti-
| competitive ways to push authors into single platform
| exclusivity. I wonder what else they're up to.
| skilled wrote:
| Maybe interesting to some, but during the recent Google updates
| (core and "helpful"), Amazon had more than $100M of search
| traffic value wiped out,
|
| https://i.imgur.com/5HpZT6Z.jpg
|
| Google absolutely launched a nuke at Amazon.
| summerlight wrote:
| Is it a meaningful volume for Amazon at all? I thought the
| majority of US/EU customers begin their search from Amazon and
| just skip Google when it comes to shopping.
| skilled wrote:
| I would say yes, for first-time customers for sure it is
| significant.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well that depends on how many people still use Google to search
| for products, and how many go directly to Amazon...
| jedberg wrote:
| Where did that chart come from?
| skilled wrote:
| Ahrefs. It's basically a backend UI for how Google rankings
| change over time for the entire web.
| jedberg wrote:
| Fascinating, thank you. I haven't been in the SEO space for
| a while, so I haven't seen all the fancy tools. Appreciate
| the info.
| eh_why_not wrote:
| > ... during the recent Google updates (core and "helpful")...
|
| What were those updates exactly?
| skilled wrote:
| https://status.search.google.com/incidents/nBtYtBeex4GYBbdDS.
| ..
|
| https://status.search.google.com/incidents/53diuQvcEsgzqXTPB.
| ..
| eh_why_not wrote:
| Thanks. For others like me not in the SEO world, extracted
| below the links for what "core updates" [0] and "helpful
| content updates" [1] are, according to Google.
|
| [0] https://developers.google.com/search/updates/core-
| updates
|
| [1] https://developers.google.com/search/updates/helpful-
| content...
| topicseed wrote:
| And nuked affiliate sites that promoted Amazon links primarily,
| wild.
| rob74 wrote:
| > _Conditioning sellers' ability to obtain "Prime" eligibility
| for their products--a virtual necessity for doing business on
| Amazon--on sellers using Amazon's costly fulfillment service_
|
| I'm no fan of Amazon, but that kind of makes sense - if they use
| another fulfillment service, Amazon wouldn't be able to guarantee
| next-day delivery for their products?
| MarCylinder wrote:
| Amazon does currently have a "seller fulfilled" Prime service.
| They disabled for awhile, and recently brought it back
|
| Consumers pay for Prime, and with it the 2 day shipping on
| eligible items, and so they prefer buying items with Prime
| eligibility. I must disagree with the "costly" description, as
| cost incurred shipping with Amazon and drastically lower than
| shipping with other services.
|
| Having worked with dozens of businesses on establishing their
| Amazon account, there are very few that can move the volume
| needed to achieve the economies of scale necessary to match the
| costs of using FBA services.
| xyst wrote:
| Decouple Amazon Warehouse division from Amazon Web Services (AWS
| largely subsidizes losses incurred by warehouse division), then
| we will see change.
|
| Right now FTC going after low hanging fruit. But we all know
| Amazon will challenge it in court, appeal, appeal, appeal, pay
| the reduced fine, slow roll any changes, and business will
| continue as usual.
|
| Break up the tech giants and each individual unit cannot survive
| as-is.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yep. I'd say Amazon should be split at least four ways: AWS,
| their delivery/fulfillment operation, the web shopping
| platform, and the "Amazon Basics" and other product brands.
|
| Edit: just saw that ihaveajob posted the same idea in another
| reply.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Just breaking off AWS would be enough to see change. I see
| people saying they should spin off their house brands but that
| wouldn't fly when other big retailers also sell their own
| brands along side third parties.
| jollofricepeas wrote:
| FBA seller here.
|
| A lot of mom and pop businesses (~$20 million) have been built on
| Amazon over the past 10 years. Most of us are in the $250k to $5
| million dollar range.
|
| The impact of Amazon's monopoly power is felt big time by us as
| we're being squeezed with no place left to go online especially
| post-iOS change.
|
| Our second option used to be the Facebook/Instagram/TikTok to
| Shopify connection but with that being dead in the water most of
| us have had to commit 100% to FBA to be able to stay afloat.
|
| With the increase in inflation and Amazon abusing its power to
| significantly raise its prices for FBA and force us to use its
| advertising services our revenues have been severely impacted.
|
| This doesn't include their unwillingness to meaningfully fight
| counterfeits
|
| Or that they penalize you if you attempt to drive sales elsewhere
| with lower pricing on other sites
|
| Bloomberg did a write up on this a few months back:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-13/amazon-am...
| mvdtnz wrote:
| How much do you personally shop at Amazon versus other outlets?
| karaterobot wrote:
| I had to look this up, so for other ignoramuses like me:
|
| FBA is Fulfillment by Amazon, where you sell things on Amazon
| and they handle payments and shipping to customers.
| m463 wrote:
| I think this is basically becoming a de-facto monopsony for
| some folks:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
| barryrandall wrote:
| And the vast majority of the products are just rebrands from
| Alibaba. As a matter of fact, there's an entire economy
| centered around finding products on Alibaba to resell on
| Amazon.
| avereveard wrote:
| It's a super interesting segment there are like millions
| details for the system to work even if the basic product is
| the same you can have your own barcode and serial number
| label attached, you can personalize the packaging, you will
| have to translate the manual, the are entire microverticals
| that exist just between the no brand manufacturer and the
| guy flipping the product on a marketplace even before
| shipping takes it out of the factory you're already paying
| like four or more services provider, plus coordinators to
| make all that happen.
| blibble wrote:
| it's a genius business for a "retailer"
|
| normally they'd need to pay for storage, stock, liquidation
| of stock they didn't sell, returns etc
|
| and instead now you pay for all of that for them
|
| and what do you get in return? - a listing
| on page 17 of their ever increasingly shitty website behind
| legions of MINFARTO, PATRONICS and GIBRANKER aliexpress
| garbage - customer service staff with an inability to
| understand simple english or basic problems - your
| genuine stock mixed with counterfeits, that then they
| penalise you for - paying to give your sales
| information to them as a potential competitor, as if you do
| well they'll ripoff your product
|
| and they take essentially absolutely no risk whatsoever
|
| not a good deal at all
| musicale wrote:
| I would believe those are actual brand names.
|
| Has anyone created software or a web site to generate
| hilarious Amazon brand names automatically?
|
| Edit: Looks like there are lots of AI-fueled
| Amazon/business name generators. Most of the names weren't
| as funny as your examples, though I got some good ones
| (electrofakes.com, etc.) from prompts like "low quality
| tech products" and "cheap knockoff technology products."
|
| Another site gave me the more Amazon-appropriate LAMOFY,
| HOROLY, YORBAX, etc. (all with .com domains and premade
| logos.)
|
| As the NYT noted, "Amazon is to fake products as Facebook
| is to fake news."
| civilitty wrote:
| My favorites are HILETGO, KeeYees, AITRIP, "Oi ya gai",
| Treedix, and Gikfun.
|
| I bought products from all these Amazon vendors last
| year, hilariously they're still around.
| toast0 wrote:
| I mean, MINFARTO has legs.
|
| But then again, I remember seeing COBY products right
| next to SONY products and I guess they're still around.
| :)
| ilkke wrote:
| SQMY is my fav SONY 'tribute brand'
| internet101010 wrote:
| Oh and if you want your inventory isolated so that it
| doesn't it mixed in with counterfeits... that's another
| fee.
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| > Our second option used to be the Facebook/Instagram/TikTok to
| Shopify connection but with that being dead in the water most
| of us have had to commit 100% to FBA to be able to stay afloat.
|
| Can you explain this further?
| catiopatio wrote:
| > post-iOS change
|
| What is the iOS change you're referring to?
| [deleted]
| loldk wrote:
| [dead]
| likpok wrote:
| ATT, where apple hobbled other ad networks running on iOS. It
| used to be that DTC companies could use the fine-grained
| targeting offered by FB and Google to reach consumers without
| needing to go through a major distributor. Since the
| targeting is much less effective it's more expensive
| (potentially uneconomically so) to reach people. As a result,
| sellers are forced back to Amazon.
| fsckboy wrote:
| was there also any change related to Apple wanting a cut of
| anything sold through an app, and how the Amazon shopping
| app works on iOS, and could that also affect 3rd parties?
| turquoisevar wrote:
| No, physical goods have always been excluded from Apple's
| commission
|
| In fact they explicitly prohibit using in-app purchases
| for physical goods, presumably because they don't want to
| deal with the headache that comes with providing customer
| support for those transactions.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Businesses got along just fine before all that intense user
| tracking was even possible. If your business absolutely
| needs it to survive, then your business doesn't deserve to
| survive.
|
| "boo hoo, I can't invade my users privacy anymore! Waaaaah!
| It's unfair"
| kmeisthax wrote:
| A lot of the old machinery for small businesses to find
| their customers - e.g. news, hobbyist magazines, etc - is
| no longer around, and so there's nothing for those
| businesses to return to. The Internet, and specifically
| advertising companies, killed them off. What's unfair is
| not that they can't violate privacy, but that Amazon
| still can.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Weren't those outlets even _less_ targeted?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The key was that people self-selected into those outlets.
| If you were selling, say, game controller skins; you'd be
| making a pretty sure bet buying ads in GameInformer or on
| Joystiq. The problem with going back to that kind of
| business model is that these dedicated websites with
| specific niche audiences are dead or dying because the ad
| dollars moved elsewhere.
| morkalork wrote:
| Shouldn't the ad dollars be moving back in after super
| targeted advertising got neutered?
| Schiendelman wrote:
| It kind of is. Look at magazines like Monocle, and
| websites like Uncrate, Hiconsumption, and Gearpatrol.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Is Amazon somehow exempt from the App Store's privacy
| rules?
| comex wrote:
| For one thing, the privacy rules only cover sharing data
| with third parties. They don't cover Amazon using its own
| data for product recommendations.
|
| But also, Amazon doesn't rely on product recommendations
| in the first place. When I want to purchase something, I
| usually go to amazon.com and type in exactly what I'm
| looking for. No need for Amazon to guess. Amazon does
| make recommendations, but at least in my case they
| represent a tiny fraction of purchases.
|
| In that way I'm voluntarily contributing to Amazon's
| monopoly. I feel bad about that. But I use Amazon anyway
| because there are no alternatives that offer even a
| remotely comparable buyer experience.
| _jal wrote:
| Amazon has its own enormous scale, it doesn't need
| Apple's complicity.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Business didn't have to compete with Amazon in so
| stringent conditions. People even were able to (gasp!)
| maintain physical stores, etc etc etc
| lancesells wrote:
| I work with DTC Shopify brands and I personally haven't
| found the ATT hurting ads performance in both Meta and
| Google. I'm sure YMMV but I've not seen it since it
| started. Maybe I work with very broad targeting compared to
| others.
| crznp wrote:
| Lots of TLAs:
|
| ATT: Apple's App Tracking Transparency, not AT&T
|
| FBA: Fulfillment by Amazon, not related to FB
|
| DTC: Direct To Consumer, not Depository Trust Company
| oezi wrote:
| What is a TLA?
| ayewo wrote:
| TLA = Three Letter Acronym
| adolph wrote:
| TIL TLA's meaning
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| TIL = Today I Learned
|
| Sorry, couldn't resist :)
| Damogran6 wrote:
| and ETLA = Extended Three Letter Acronym
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| pcurve wrote:
| wow... that BB article makes me sad.
|
| https://archive.ph/yw3Bv
|
| In 2016, they collected 35.2%. In 2022, they collected 51.8% in
| fee.
|
| That's insane.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > they collected 51.8% in fee. That's insane.
|
| Back in the 80's, my company sold compilers through third
| party mail order houses. They all demanded providing the
| product to them at 50% of their selling price.
|
| It's what having somebody else advertise, collect orders,
| process payments, ship, and deal with returns is always going
| to cost you.
|
| If it's unacceptable to your business, sell directly. My
| company did both.
| Guvante wrote:
| You can't offer lower prices directly so Amazon forces all
| your customers to pay for their services whether they get
| them or not.
|
| Or you can not be on Amazon but "just don't sell Windows if
| you don't want to pay extra" didn't work for Microsoft...
|
| Amazon charges for all of those things still. This isn't
| 50% off and we deal with everything it is ~50% but you
| still take all economic risk.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| This is not a defense of Amazon.
|
| A neighbor of mine who makes high end silver jewelry was
| doing fine with the gallery he used (in Santa Fe). The
| gallery collected about 30% of his sales price in fees.
|
| Another gallery approached him, asked to represent him
| instead. They took 50% in fees. He switched anyway.
|
| His income went up (and stayed up). Presumably the new
| gallery provides some combination of better environs, more
| and/or different customers, better salespeople.
|
| It still seems wrong that fees could be this high, for a
| jewelry gallery or for amzn. But it shouldn't be assumed that
| the high fees necessarily mean reduced income for the
| original seller.
| pcurve wrote:
| "But it shouldn't be assumed that the high fees necessarily
| mean reduced income for the original seller."
|
| I agree. It just gets passed down to the customers. Most of
| my shock was directed at the 50% increase in fee in just a
| few short years. You can't do that without having a lot of
| leverage.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > It just gets passed down to the customers.
|
| That's a common but not an accurate belief:
|
| As a business owner pricing a product or service, if your
| costs increase you can either take the marginal cost out
| of your net income or increase the price.
|
| Taking it out of your net income is simple: You keep
| prices the same, revenue remains the same, and profit
| drops a bit.
|
| Increasing the price is more complex; you are changing
| one component in a system of dynamic feedback: When you
| raise the price, fewer people buy your product, so the
| outcome may be less revenue and less profit. The impact
| of price changes on purchasing is called _elasticity_ :
| Some products - e.g., fancy restaurant meals - are easily
| forgone and are thus price sensitive. Others, like
| necessary healthcare, can be priced extortionately and
| people will still buy it.
|
| Arguably, if you are the mythical optimal manager, you've
| already priced your product to maximize revenue and
| therefore any change will decrease it. In that case,
| price increases will only worsen your profit.
|
| The reason for your price increase is orthogonal to the
| customer's purchase decision - you raise the price, they
| buy less. They usually don't know and don't care why - do
| it for greed, to cover additional cost (and maintain your
| beloved profit margin), because your finger slipped on
| the price-your-goods app, whatever.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's not just elasticity. The main weight on your prices
| is your competitors' prices.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| s0rce wrote:
| Depending on what services they provide that might not be
| terrible, its basically high end art gallery margins, but for
| consumer products with low margins that seems unsustainable.
| I'm curious how much AliExpress takes.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Between 5-8% commission, and you're responsible for your
| own warehousing and shipping.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yup, it makes me wonder what % of consumer goods for sale via
| FBA are from retail theft rings. 52% fees on stuff that cost
| you $0 ain't bad. Otherwise, it's very very bad.
| nwiswell wrote:
| The 52% is dominated by small crap items that basically
| cost $0 in bulk from China (cables, phone cases, etc)
|
| On these items Amazon fully realizes they can charge 90%
| and the seller is still making a profit, so they do.
|
| If you're selling appliances or TVs or computers the % is
| not nearly that bad.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Would be curious to see numbers on the bigger items. Have
| you used FBA?
|
| The warehouse and shipping fees on such large & heavy
| items would be onerous would be my guess.
| nwiswell wrote:
| > Would be curious to see numbers on the bigger items.
| Have you used FBA?
|
| Yeah, I've done enough FBA to rank somewhere between a
| serious hobbyist and an actual lifestyle business.
|
| There is a sweet spot. If you're selling lightweight crap
| items, even the small shipping and fulfillment costs
| still tend to dominate. If you sell huge stuff, the
| shipping will bite, but not as bad as you'd expect --
| Amazon has very good rates. The big problem for bulky
| items tends to be warehouse fees, and also the logistics
| of getting it to the FBA warehouse in the first place.
|
| I'd say around 1 cubic foot is exactly where you want to
| be (with the dimensions carefully chosen to keep you in a
| favorable category, of course). I believe 18"x14"x8" is
| the biggest legal standard package.
|
| Somewhat counter-intuitively, if you miss that standard
| cutoff, you might as well go big (3+ cubic feet) since
| you're paying the same oversize rate either way, the only
| drawback is warehouse costs. There's sort of a no-
| man's-land in between toaster-size and microwave-size.
|
| Anyway, here's the actual fulfillment fees, if you're
| curious (notice how reasonable the rates are in the
| "Large Standard" range):
|
| https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/exter
| nal...
|
| https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/exter
| nal...
| seatac76 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your experience. Do you think Amazon dropped
| the planned fee they were going to charge for those sellers who
| don't use prime, in anticipation of this suit? Would that have
| impacted you?
| nwiswell wrote:
| I can't help but think that Amazon should be replaced with a
| non-profit or regulated public utility that provides a single
| unified online marketplace, part of internet infrastructure
| like ICANN. Sellers would select among competing fulfillment
| services (warehouse+shipping). Platform referral fees would go
| toward customer remediation, anti-counterfeiting, and review
| integrity.
|
| I don't merely say this as a "fuck Amazon" reflex or a "fuck
| capitalism" reflex. I say it because it obviously would allow
| so much of the dying segment of mom and pop small business to
| become viable again. Just from a policy perspective it's a home
| run because it's a way to juice GDP, improve consumer
| purchasing power, AND reduce income inequality.
|
| As a matter of fact I would suggest that Amazon as it exists is
| _anti-capitalist_. It is feudal. Capitalism is the deployment
| of capital and assumption of risk in pursuit of new value
| creating activity. Amazon is not marshalling new capital to
| innovate or improve its digital marketplace. Rather, Amazon
| simply owns digital real estate and extracts rent, like some
| kind of futuristic dystopian corpo-baron.
|
| The best part of all this is that Amazon doesn't have to be
| forcibly nationalized or broken up or anything like that. The
| government just needs to support and endorse a good
| alternative, because _Amazon seriously sucks._
| blibble wrote:
| > I can't help but think that Amazon should be replaced with
| a non-profit or regulated public utility that provides a
| single unified online marketplace, part of internet
| infrastructure like ICANN.
|
| if the market was working correctly Amazon's profits would be
| driven down to zero and you'd effectively have this
|
| > As a matter of fact I would suggest that Amazon as it
| exists is anti-capitalist. It is feudal.
|
| absolutely
| nwiswell wrote:
| > if the market was working correctly Amazon's profits
| would be driven down to zero and you'd effectively have
| this
|
| Are you sure? Consumer behavior seems to be to simply go to
| their default marketplace rather than to search the whole
| internet (which is slow, painful, and low-trust), so it
| ends up being a winner-take-all system where alternative
| marketplaces like eBay are almost irrelevant and Amazon
| charges whatever they like and basically ignores
| counterfeiting and review fraud.
|
| There are "natural monopolies", like with roads and power
| distribution networks, and I would argue that online
| marketplaces have turned out to be another one, and we
| should modify our public policy to reflect that.
| ben0x539 wrote:
| What's the recourse if the market isn't working correctly?
| drc500free wrote:
| Currently, the FTC suing them. Eventually, some sort of
| breakup and strict rules about counterfeits and house
| brands.
| reagan83 wrote:
| Great insight overall - can you describe more on the FB/IG/TT
| to Shopify connection not working or now dead?
| deltree7 wrote:
| [dead]
| reagan83 wrote:
| Context on my question: I run one of the that works on this
| connector at IG - email me rbw at fb.com I'd be happy to
| connect and filter this feedback.
| lokar wrote:
| Apple mostly prevents narrow targeting on iOS now
| pmarreck wrote:
| So basically, Apple's focus on user privacy had the knock-
| on effect of ruining Amazon's potential competition?
|
| That's astoundingly rich
| babypuncher wrote:
| what on earth did iOS change that impacts your amazon business?
| deltree7 wrote:
| [dead]
| beckingz wrote:
| Privacy. The iOS improvements to privacy with advertiser ID
| becoming opt-in instead of opt-out has been brutal on
| targeted advertising.
| babypuncher wrote:
| sounds like a good thing to me
| mrraj wrote:
| From the Bloomberg article :
|
| "Chuck Gregorich, who sells fire pits and outdoor furniture,
| says turning a profit on Amazon is getting harder. One of his
| popular fire pits costs $200, of which Amazon takes $112 for
| its commission, warehouse storage, delivery and advertising.
| That leaves him with $88 to pay the manufacturer, ship the
| product in from China and cover his overhead."
|
| I have a hard time sympathizing here. They farm out
| manufacturing to China and logistics/warehousing to Amazon, and
| then also lend brand to a marketplace they don't own. Assuming
| this is how FBA selling works on Amazon, it sounds like the low
| profits they make are just a byproduct of them not actually
| doing much work.
| afavour wrote:
| There's maybe a chicken/egg scenario here. Perhaps, knowing
| the cut they would have to give to Amazon, they had no option
| but to manufacture in China?
| BeetleB wrote:
| Yes - some of the complaints seem legitimate (e.g. burying
| search results really far low - that hurts me as a buyer, and
| hurts the seller).
|
| But complaining that you need to use Amazon's warehouses to
| be part of Prime? That's rather obvious! You can always sell
| as non-Prime. Many do and are successful at it!
|
| Basically, Amazon allowed many businesses to exist by
| creating a very convenient way to sell. Chances are a lot of
| businesses selling on Prime who are complaining would not
| have been able to exist at all.
|
| (Source: I'm a former FBA seller).
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Considering they have to pay 56% of their revenue to Amazon,
| how do you expect them to be able to afford locally
| manufactured products?
| verdverm wrote:
| Do the fees and commissions scale linearly with product
| price? Are any of them flat fees or capped?
|
| Perhaps selling a higher priced product would find a lower
| share going to Amazon?
|
| I don't know myself
| highwaylights wrote:
| It wouldn't matter if they could, Amazon can still acquire
| and sell them for less regardless.
|
| The only viable business here would be a product you have a
| patent on and/or
| meesles wrote:
| You make a good point, but I think the parent point is true
| as well. You still have people actually producing work,
| unable to compete on these platforms where Amazon will
| literally make a copy of their product at a lower price.
|
| This is the result of commoditizing 'starting a business' to
| the point of near-worthlessness in the bottom 50%+. Like you
| say, I don't value the businesses that simply re-sell re-
| labeled products without ever interacting with anything very
| much. But let's not confuse the 'spam' of the problem with
| the squashing of actual business that this is historically
| known to cause.
| newsclues wrote:
| "This is the result of commoditizing 'starting a business'
| to the point of near-worthlessness in the bottom 50%+."
|
| Is this not just a market effect of saturating the market
| with competition because suddenly running a business is
| comparatively easy (communications technology, platforms
| and existing logistics and production networks) to any
| other era.
|
| I can probably start a company drop shipping crap on Amazon
| in a short amount of time with a smartphone from my
| bedroom. The barrier to entry has dropped, rather quickly.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Amazon is basically allowing sellers to carry all the risk
| while product testing and marketing a product.
|
| If it does well enough, Amazon can use the same
| manufacturer and release a branded "Amazon Basics" version
| that pops up in the same search for the same product but
| cheaper as Amazon doesn't have to pay someone else $112 for
| the listing and warehousing, and the original seller that
| did all of the actual "work" (as far as making it a
| profitable venture) is SOL.
|
| Throw in a few dozen word salad named drop shippers who
| undercut Amazon in exchange for increased shipping times
| and the originator is wedged out of the market or cut to
| razor thin margins for years of effort.
|
| Rinse and repeat.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Yes, but the argument is that drop-shippers aren't really
| producing any value.
|
| It's not like they're putting banners over their product
| pics saying "hey, you know you can buy this exact same
| product for like half the price on alibaba if you're
| willing to wait a couple more weeks for it right?".
|
| I don't like Amazon consolidating this much power either
| but if they can push you out of your business that easily
| you weren't the critical component of it.
| abduhl wrote:
| What's the problem here? If you don't have a durable
| competitive advantage then you're going to get eaten up.
| First movers should not get a license to continue to reap
| a profit in a competitive market absent real innovation,
| which would come in the form of reputation (trademark) or
| technology (patent). Drop shippers who can be displaced
| by Amazon in the way you discuss have neither. They
| already made a profit on the front end, so don't feel bad
| for them just because they can't continue to rent-seek.
| letsdothisagain wrote:
| The anti-competitive bit is they have all the sales
| information that would typically be a trade secret for a
| company.
|
| Go ahead, call up your local 7-11 and ask them what their
| sales were for the quarter. They'll tell you to fuck off.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| The problem is being both the platform and a competitor.
|
| They have an inside advantage that no one else on the
| planet outside of ebay and Alibaba (and its ilk) have.
|
| It entrenches them and enriches them unjustly. They make
| profit off of their competitors and have the option of
| destroying anyone who rubs them the wrong way without
| repercussion. The capitalistic market cannot speak on the
| matter as there is a monoposonistic gatekeeper on the
| market path.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Is drop shopping the kind of business to fight for
| supporting? That's all this is.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Ding ding ding. Middlemen get squeezed and are mad about it
| would be equally fair headline here.
| omnimus wrote:
| Amazon is also the middlemen.
| mlsu wrote:
| I know that there's the "5x rule" -- BOM cost is supposed to
| be 5x less than retail.
|
| Is there such a rule for fulfillment and delivery?
|
| Of course, 56% seems monstrously high to me, but then again,
| so did 5x BOM cost before I had that explained.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I ran a small FBA business for a year nowhere near any scale
| and it was an interesting lesson. People who weigh in on these
| tech topics should actually try these things out to understand
| them better.
|
| It's nothing like listing on eBay where there's some haircut
| off the top and that's that.
|
| There are fees for - accepting inventory, holding inventory,
| returning unsold inventory, shipping sales, processing returns,
| destroying returns, transaction fees, ads to promote your
| listings in market, and probably 5 other things I forget.
| Depending on the fee it is - fixed, % of $, weight based,
| volume based, or some combination.
|
| The fees change constantly with not much notice. So every time
| you think you've got just the right size/weight/price balance
| you get screwed. And where else are you going to go?
|
| Like Uber drivers, I imagine some % of FBA sellers don't know
| they are losing money in real time. You need to do some decent
| accounting to track as all these different fees hit at
| different times. It's not like Amazon gives you the data &
| tools to track your all-in costs per sale.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Ebay doesn't do fulfillment, which is why they take a smaller
| cut.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Correct. My point is that people only casually familiar
| don't realize how vertically integrated the FBA model is.
|
| FBA is like eBay, PayPal, FedEx, Google Ads and a warehouse
| all wrapped into one. But they charge you varying types of
| fees based on different measures, at different times, for
| each of those parts of the stack. And you cannot cross
| shop, mixing and matching other vendors in to keep them
| honest on pricing.
|
| It's easy to use, but you are locked in to their stack.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Why shouldn't they? You've arranged to have product you
| didn't create shipped to a warehouse you don't operate to
| be stored by a system you don't maintain to be sold on a
| storefront under a brand you made up and that you didn't
| create to be fulfilled by a shipping apparatus instead of
| you going to the UPS Store. What exactly are _YOU_ doing
| here that merits a payday? Mediating a relationship
| between Amazon and a Chinese manufacturing firm? They
| already have tons of those.
|
| The entitlement these entrepreneur types exhibit is the
| economic equivalent of wind-drag. If buying stuff from
| random AliExpress sellers and charging 300% markup to
| sell it to people who don't know better on Amazon isn't
| working out for you, maybe you should find a way to
| contribute to the economy instead of just inserting
| yourself between existing profitable businesses and
| demanding money for sending some emails.
| svpk wrote:
| If it's legal they should do it because it's evidently
| profitable. If it's not legal then they shouldn't do it
| because it's illegal. Which is really the question at
| hand.
|
| You're criticism seems to be grounded in a distaste for
| the kind of business being done (and I think it's quite
| fair to be critical of the business model based on cheap
| Chinese labor). But that's not really relevant to the
| question of did Amazon utilize anti-competitive behavior
| that violates the laws that govern how businesses are
| allowed to behave.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Disclaimer: Former FBA seller here.
|
| > So every time you think you've got just the right
| size/weight/price balance you get screwed. And where else are
| you going to go?
|
| You've skirted around the obvious question: Why did you pick
| FBA to begin with? Amazon sellers existed long before FBA.
| They did their own shipping, so almost none of those fees
| apply. Many sellers continue to do well on the Amazon
| platform while _not_ being part of FBA.
|
| If you can't succeed without participating in FBA, then all
| that's happened is Amazon created an environment for
| previously unviable businesses to succeed, and has merely
| tightened it.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| I think a more obvious question is how are Amazon making
| this possible if it's not profitable otherwise?
| BeetleB wrote:
| Amazon gets to negotiate good shipping rates, and has
| larger economies of scale than a regular business can
| achieve.
|
| In general, cost per unit is cheaper if you have more
| volume.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| AWS works this way too but I'll get dogpiled by Amazon
| sycophants and other people who have built their careers
| around getting witless companies sucked into the Amazon
| machine.
| fpgaminer wrote:
| At least AWS gives me an invoice each month with a break
| down of fees. GCP just sends an invoice for the total
| amount. No detail, no breakdown. And I have never gotten
| any of GCP's many different pages under their billing
| system to spit out any numbers that make sense. Pick your
| poison?
| smallnix wrote:
| Steve gave examples for the different kind of fees and that
| it's hard to track them and why. I wanted to ask you for
| examples for AWS. Would be good to know concrete pitfalls
| and traps.
| genewitch wrote:
| egress fees, inter-DC transfer fees, IP fees, ebs storage
| fees, transactional fees on things that are
| transactional. If you don't carefully engineer everything
| you'll get left with a $15,000 AWS bill. This doesn't
| cost Amazon anywhere near $15k to provide, so they just
| "waive" the fees if you promise to be a good little user.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Not to be rude but you made millions on the backs of Amazon.
| Now you're complaining that you have competition.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| > on the backs of Amazon.
|
| They were using the Amazon platform for what it was intended
| for, and Amazon made more millions off of them. It was
| supposed to be a mutually beneficial relationship.
| lvl102 wrote:
| And I am saying what Amazon is doing is not anticompetitive
| at all. These "companies" that sell on Amazon are basically
| glorified trade companies that arbitrage low cost Chinese
| manufacturing. I don't feel bad for them at all. If they
| are hurting so bad, go sell the goods on Shopify store or
| Walmart/Target. Oh, what's that? They charge more than
| Amazon? Interesting...
| binarymax wrote:
| You're over generalizing. There are plenty of sellers
| that took the time to develop their own products and sell
| them, only to be copied and undercut by Amazon.
| dtjb wrote:
| How is that different from Walmart selling their Great
| Value store brand? They see what products sell well then
| formulate their own cheaper alternative, maybe even
| giving their product better shelf placement.
|
| Every national grocer does this. It seems to be a pretty
| close analog yet nobody bats an eye at the practice.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The local Kroger supermarket has Kroger branded items on
| the shelf right next to the national brand. The latter is
| always more expensive, I usually buy the Kroger brand.
|
| The supermarket wouldn't stock the national brands at all
| if customers weren't buying them.
| dtjb wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what Amazon is doing?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Yes, that's my point.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > How is that different from Walmart selling their Great
| Value store brand?
|
| Well for one it's different in that store brands are
| often made by the same manufacturing/processing plant as
| the regular brand.
|
| So not only is consent implicitly build in because the
| producer agreed to make the store brand variety, it's
| another income stream.
|
| And secondly the store brands typically go out of their
| way to differentiate themselves from the main brand to
| such a degree that if you hold the two boxes next to each
| other you wouldn't mistake one for the other.
|
| Thirdly they significantly undercut the other brands and
| sellers. They can do so because they don't have to pay
| themselves a commission and all the other fees, which in
| turn forces the other brands and sellers to match or eek
| out a small price difference in which they're cheaper in
| the hopes to get some sales, cutting into the already
| thin margins that are left after paying Amazon's fees.
|
| Amazon is also in a better position because of the
| vertical integration, they have a direct relationship
| with the manufacturer which cuts out the margins of the
| middle men (the sellers and distributors), regular
| sellers on Amazon have the distributor's margins to deal
| with and then their own margins and as opposed to Amazon
| they can't sell their items as a loss leader.
|
| As for Walmart and similar retail, it's a whole different
| situation. The manufacturer sets the price and within it,
| their margin. The retailer then purchases it at that
| price and tacks on their margin, but if it's on the
| shelves then the manufacturer has been paid so there's no
| risk for the manufacturer because the retailer carries
| the risk.
|
| There are some nuances and exceptions, such as
| manufacturers sometimes being able to force a MSRP onto
| the retailer or a retailer being big enough to leverage a
| better price or a risk shifting agreement where the
| retailer doesn't have to pay for delivery until the items
| are sold, nevertheless, in general the relationship is
| entirely different from the relationship Amazon has with
| its sellers.
|
| And lastly, Walmart doesn't hire people to walk beside
| you in the store to swiftly grab a Great Value variant
| and push it in your hand each time you so much as think
| of buying something.
|
| The cereal factory that makes Kellogg's cereal also
| making Great Value cereal is therefore not comparable to
| Amazon.
|
| Amazon typically makes their Basics items look identical
| to the most popular brand and place it at the top of
| search results.
|
| Now the original brand is forced to pay to get their item
| at the top of the list, and even then it'll get second
| place, underneath the Amazon branded one (often barely
| above the fold).
|
| Take this example of me searching for a padlock[0][1].
|
| Not only is the Amazon branded lock identical to the one
| below it, it's placed prominently at the top of the
| results in such a way that it's the only product that can
| be seen in full.
|
| The one immediately below it doesn't get top spot despite
| being "sponsored" (i.e. paid to be prominently displayed)
| and if you look at the price they're trying to be a
| little bit cheaper than Amazon in the hopes to generate
| sales but given how minor the price difference is with
| the Amazon branded lock, it comes across as a painful
| thing for them to do because it seems to me as a
| meaningless difference (but admittedly that's me reading
| into things).
|
| The issue is that when you're the platform holder that
| sets the fees for sellers, controls what people see, have
| insider knowledge on sales and you use that to benefit
| your manufacturing and sales division, then you have too
| much control and are abusing your powers imho.
|
| Brick and mortar retailers don't have this much control
| over and information on their suppliers.
|
| 0: https://pasteboard.co/AZRfDpAtXw4f.jpg
|
| 1: https://pasteboard.co/VEFULgwx2IgB.png
| pixl97 wrote:
| In general there are many different grocery stores, even
| Walmart the massive company it is only represents
| something like 10% of grocery sales in the US.
|
| Amazon represents something like 40% of all online sales.
| Typically having a large plurality in a market raises the
| likelihood of actions against you.
|
| >It seems to be a pretty close analog yet nobody bats an
| eye at the practice.
|
| Or, more likely, tech people pay attention to Amazon and
| not the myriad of suits occuring in the retail and
| grocery world.
| sib wrote:
| Walmart has more than 20% share of grocery in the US...
| ctvo wrote:
| > Or, more likely, tech people pay attention to Amazon
| and not the myriad of suits occuring in the retail and
| grocery world.
|
| We're listening. Feel free to toss some examples of these
| myriad of law suits against brick and mortar stores for
| their in-house brands.
| lvl102 wrote:
| If you took the time to develop and market your products,
| you would not have solely relied on Amazon e-commerce.
| Most likely, the single greatest source of traffic was
| Facebook (Instagram) and Reddit. You would only sell on
| Amazon, if you're from EU (or RoW) and that Amazon US
| made sense for you in terms of logistics. In other words,
| if you solely relied on Amazon to make money that means
| your business model was BUILT on fooling consumers on
| Amazon algorithm not your actual product.
| stale2002 wrote:
| That is literally the opposite of anti-competitive.
|
| That is the definition of a _pro_ competitive behavior.
|
| Lower prices for consumers is the whole point of a
| competitive market!
|
| Yes, big companies can compete in the market, by offer
| better quality stuff, for a lower price. Thats what we
| _want!
|
| You are literally arguing in _favor* of monopolies, and
| _against_ competition by saying that other companies
| shouldn 't do a better job.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Reality is far more complex then the simple take you have
| here.
|
| >by offer better quality stuff,
|
| Amazon, for example, offering counterfeits of your
| product as your product is not under the definition of
| "better quality stuff"
|
| >for a lower price
|
| Again, offering a lower price consistently is one thing.
| Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product
| lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a
| product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market
| is not.
|
| If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly
| prices then it is a good thing.
|
| If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and
| staying cheap, thats just competition by definition.
|
| Which is the situation we are seeing with amazon.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Selling things at a loss doesn't mean things are cheap it
| just means the real costs are being subsidized elsewhere.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Amazon was originally the world's largest bookstore. What
| did authors sell then -- commodities manufactured in
| China? Your comments are painting with a very broad
| brush.
| plagiarist wrote:
| The reason you see only low-quality Chinese knockoffs
| with computer-generated names could be because Amazon's
| anti-competitive behavior made selling real products
| unprofitable.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| a competitor that owns and governs the platform you have to
| use is different from another 3rd party that you have to
| compete with
| lvl102 wrote:
| You don't have to use them. That's the point of my
| argument. No one's stopping you from selling it using
| Shopify where you can set up an e-commerce store within a
| couple of hours.
| binarymax wrote:
| The whole point of the case is to show that they control
| a monopoly. When there's a monopoly, you can't go
| anywhere else!
| lvl102 wrote:
| And my point, as someone who's worked in antitrust field
| for over a decade, is that Amazon is a company that does
| the least to exert monopoly power out of all the big tech
| companies. In fact, they do so little that I think they
| are being stupid.
| varelse wrote:
| [dead]
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Do you tip your landlord?
| YeBanKo wrote:
| I heard some stores switched to Shopify, would be interesting
| to learn why it is not an option for stores like yours.
| adrr wrote:
| Shopify requires you to build out performance marketing
| strategy and with the IOS changes, targeting has lost
| efficiency. It's more expensive to acquire customers.
| arbuge wrote:
| Shopify and Amazon are quite different things.
|
| Amazon is a marketplace and provides exposure - in other
| words, they bring you traffic besides providing ecommerce
| functionality. Possibly a lot of traffic if there's not much
| competition already in your space.
|
| With Shopify you have primarily an online store solution.
| It's up to you to do your own marketing somewhere to drive
| traffic. Shopify does have what they call "Shop" now, which
| works like a marketplace, but in my experience that's still a
| relatively small channel for Shopify sellers.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| What about shipping logistic and warehousing? Afaik this is
| something what Amazon FBA helps with as well?
| dnissley wrote:
| Hm, all of a sudden the seemingly outrageous fees don't
| seem so outrageous anymore.
| arbuge wrote:
| It does, yes.
|
| Shopify did try to get into providing those services for
| its clients but they later reconsidered:
|
| https://www.freightwaves.com/news/flexport-acquires-
| shopifys...
| shopifyeocks wrote:
| What's do you mean exactly about the Shopify tiktok Facebook
| connection being dead?
| adamsb6 wrote:
| Probably that Apple's privacy changes made those advertising
| channels far less effective.
| shopifyeocks wrote:
| Thanks yes I reread the comment and that sounds most likely
| pmarreck wrote:
| How much would a "Fulfillment By <Company Other Than Amazon>"
| be worth to you?
|
| Could you get together with a large bunch of other FBA folks
| and somehow fund an alternative?
| jongjong wrote:
| At the root, the problem with big tech is the monopolization of
| people's attention. There is essentially no way to gain any
| meaningful exposure to users without going through big tech
| platforms and they limit the exposure. Even if you buy ads from
| them, you never know if your product is being put in front of
| real users or bots. They seem to favor big, established
| companies.
|
| I also blame modern journalism for being heavily centered around
| corporate interests. They won't cover any product or tech which
| isn't backed by big corporations. That is a major source of anti-
| competitive dynamics. It feels like every journalist has been
| bribed to the eyeballs to only cover products from certain
| companies.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| People say Temu is garbage, but every time Im about to buy an 80
| cent flashlight on Temu, or motorcycle googles, or 100 amp 12v
| circuit breaker for $6... I go to Amazon and find the EXACT same
| part for 300-800% more money with THOUSANDS of reviews.
|
| Amazon still has decent things obviously. But if you're going to
| buy junk, atleast buy it straight from the source for pennies on
| the dollar.
| kypro wrote:
| Amazon should just change their business model. Instead of
| requiring sellers sell their products for a competitive price on
| Amazon they should do the same thing Apple does and just charge
| sellers a large margin on sells on their platform. Obviously this
| would mean higher prices for consumers but if the problem here is
| that Amazon is forcing sellers to price products lower than
| they'd like then that would fix the issue.
| thisgoesnowhere wrote:
| Well yeah but that's the whole point. They don't want to do
| that because they would make less money because you could
| always go to the seller directly to get the product for less.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| You can always go and use Alibaba to buy more directly,
| although still not direct. Small scale producers in China
| learned the value of an e-commerce platform a long time ago,
| you can't usually find them direct anymore.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Hm. From an American law standpoint, this suit is thin on the
| ground for consumer harm. I can see the _competitor_ harm, but
| IIUC US antitrust is generally grounded in consumer harm.
|
| I'll have to see the argument they actually make in court.
| r00fus wrote:
| Loving this action by FTC. Amazon is the worst kind of predatory
| market provider - they are literally aliexpress + "steal good
| ideas from real companies" kind of grift.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-26 23:00 UTC)