6 ms·

Isn't this anti-competitive?

by Zikes 11y ago

savanaly 11y ago
I thought anti-competitive would be Amazon selling its fire tv stick at a loss for a period of time long enough to force competitors to drop out of the market. Surely what they want to sell in their store should only be up to them?
- potatolicious 11y ago
  That would be one form of anti-competitive behavior. Using one's market dominance in one field in order to defeat competitors in another field is also sometimes considered anti-competitive, though of course subject to a lot of considerations (e.g., how big your dominance is and what the behavior is specifically). This is precisely how MS got nailed in the 90s - they were using their dominance of OSes to spread IE and prevent the spread of competing browsers (well, Netscape at the time). Amazon isn't quite a monopoly like MS was in the 90s, but they're large enough that maybe it matters.
- Coding_Cat 11y ago
  Both are. Legally I believe Amazon is allowed to discriminate against competitors products as long as they're not a monopoly or using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video-market". I'm not sure of the exact definition, but in the EU at least Google has gotten in hot-waters before over something similar. Generally speaking, you are being anticompetitive if you're strong-arming the competition out of the market as opposed to challenging them based on the relative quality of your product. But at what point exactly it becomes illegal I wouldn't know.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    To you and me though, it does kind of sound like Amazon is using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video market", doesn't it? To me, it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing. Whether it seems that way to the FTC or to a lawyer who understands the relevant laws is another question. You would _think_ Amazon would run this by their lawyers first.... and do it only if their lawyers thought they could get away with it? I dunno.
    - Coding_Cat 11y ago
      Yeah, as I said I don't know the exact border of legality. I wouldn't be surprised if: a) This would only be an issue in the EU, and Amazon is sticking to blocking on .com. b) The wording of the law is intentionally vague ("Such that a reasonable person would expect..." etc.) and Amazon believes to either be in the clear or that at least the risk/reward is good enough. To name another example of "kinda maybe I'm not sure"-legality. Supermarket home-brands. I remember a few years a go here in the Netherlands there was a price war going on between supermarkets and the producers were caught in the middle, and as a result of ever-dropping prices they did start to complain that it was anti-competitive to allow supermarkets to also be producers as in an ideal market it would be impossible for the producers to offer the same price-point for the same products. I don't believe it went anywhere, but I do feel they kinda have a point. Although I wouldn't be for banning supermarkets from having their own brand (not that it would really be possible anyway, given modern corporate structures).
pen2l 11y ago
Is amazon prime not working on Apple TV anti-competitive?
- RavingGoat 11y ago
  Agreed. Apple not allowing Amazon Prime on the Apple TV was far more anti-competitive. That should end when the new Apple TV comes out though.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace.
- outside1234 11y ago
  In the US. I'm not sure that's true in the EU.
- slight 11y ago
  You don't have to have a literal monopoly afaiui, I think leveraging a strong market position in one area to benefit a different market can still apply. Not a lawyer though.
- pm24601 11y ago
  No. The only requirement is a "dominant" player. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices This is the reason why Microsoft and Google have both been investigated for anti-competitive behavior even though neither one of them was a monopoly. The Sherman Act prohibits using a dominant position in one area as leverage to exclude competitors in the same or different area. In other words, a dominant player has to play (more than) fair in any new markets. I say "more than" because if Amazon was not so dominate in ecommerce this behavior would be perfectly fine.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace. An antitrust "monopoly" is defined by market/pricing power. I wouldn't be all that confident that Amazon's online retail operation wouldn't be found to have such power.
debacle 11y ago
Yes. They're going to get sued.
- Borjez 11y ago
  The Apple Store doesn't sell Amazon devices, does that make the Apple Store anti-competitive?
  - spdustin 11y ago
    Probably not. Apple Stores are in business to sell Apple products, always have been. Amazon sells everything, always has. So that's one point. Also, we don't know that Apple would not carry FireTV if Amazon solicited for space in Apple's retail store the same as any other 3rd party vendor. I don't necessarily think this is anticompetitive on the part of Amazon, either. I DO think it's a cheap shot, and alienates me as a decade-long customer of Amazon.
    - gtremper 11y ago
      Amazon only sold books originally, and they still don't sell "everything"
      - Zikes 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History > Since June 19, 2000, Amazon's logotype has featured a curved arrow leading from A to Z, representing that the company carries every product from A to Z, with the arrow shaped like a smile.
- apetresc 11y ago
  How is this different from suing Apple for not selling Chromecasts in Apple stores?
  - dntrkv 11y ago
    Because Apple stores don't hold a significant share of the retail market and Apple stores have never sold Chromecasts and aren't expected to sell them, Amazon on the other hand did sell them and is expected to sell them. If Amazon was an Amazon-product-only type store, this would be viewed very differently. This is blatantly anti-competitive behavior, the equivalent of Google de-indexing Spotify to "prevent confusion" with their Google Music product. I'll bet that this decision will be either quickly reversed, if not, they can expect retaliation from Google/Apple in the form of lawsuits and/or their own versions of this rule.
bduerst 11y ago
Probably not anymore. Their claim of customer confusion would have been bunk because their fire phone used to support prime on chromecast. Now that the fire phone is no longer being produced, they can say that prime is not available on chromecast and it's "confusing" for customers. At least, I think that's how their lawyers probably green lighted it, seeing as their the online retail market leader.

Isn't this anti-competitive?

by Zikes 11y ago

Isn't this anti-competitive?

I thought anti-competitive would be Amazon selling its fire tv stick at a loss for a period of time long enough to force competitors to drop out of the market. Surely what they want to sell in their store should only be up to them?

potatolicious 11y ago
That would be one form of anti-competitive behavior. Using one's market dominance in one field in order to defeat competitors in another field is also sometimes considered anti-competitive, though of course subject to a lot of considerations (e.g., how big your dominance is and what the behavior is specifically). This is precisely how MS got nailed in the 90s - they were using their dominance of OSes to spread IE and prevent the spread of competing browsers (well, Netscape at the time). Amazon isn't quite a monopoly like MS was in the 90s, but they're large enough that maybe it matters.
Coding_Cat 11y ago
Both are. Legally I believe Amazon is allowed to discriminate against competitors products as long as they're not a monopoly or using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video-market". I'm not sure of the exact definition, but in the EU at least Google has gotten in hot-waters before over something similar. Generally speaking, you are being anticompetitive if you're strong-arming the competition out of the market as opposed to challenging them based on the relative quality of your product. But at what point exactly it becomes illegal I wouldn't know.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  To you and me though, it does kind of sound like Amazon is using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video market", doesn't it? To me, it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing. Whether it seems that way to the FTC or to a lawyer who understands the relevant laws is another question. You would _think_ Amazon would run this by their lawyers first.... and do it only if their lawyers thought they could get away with it? I dunno.
  - Coding_Cat 11y ago
    Yeah, as I said I don't know the exact border of legality. I wouldn't be surprised if: a) This would only be an issue in the EU, and Amazon is sticking to blocking on .com. b) The wording of the law is intentionally vague ("Such that a reasonable person would expect..." etc.) and Amazon believes to either be in the clear or that at least the risk/reward is good enough. To name another example of "kinda maybe I'm not sure"-legality. Supermarket home-brands. I remember a few years a go here in the Netherlands there was a price war going on between supermarkets and the producers were caught in the middle, and as a result of ever-dropping prices they did start to complain that it was anti-competitive to allow supermarkets to also be producers as in an ideal market it would be impossible for the producers to offer the same price-point for the same products. I don't believe it went anywhere, but I do feel they kinda have a point. Although I wouldn't be for banning supermarkets from having their own brand (not that it would really be possible anyway, given modern corporate structures).

pen2l 11y ago

Is amazon prime not working on Apple TV anti-competitive?

RavingGoat 11y ago
Agreed. Apple not allowing Amazon Prime on the Apple TV was far more anti-competitive. That should end when the new Apple TV comes out though.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace.

outside1234 11y ago
In the US. I'm not sure that's true in the EU.
slight 11y ago
You don't have to have a literal monopoly afaiui, I think leveraging a strong market position in one area to benefit a different market can still apply. Not a lawyer though.
pm24601 11y ago
No. The only requirement is a "dominant" player. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices This is the reason why Microsoft and Google have both been investigated for anti-competitive behavior even though neither one of them was a monopoly. The Sherman Act prohibits using a dominant position in one area as leverage to exclude competitors in the same or different area. In other words, a dominant player has to play (more than) fair in any new markets. I say "more than" because if Amazon was not so dominate in ecommerce this behavior would be perfectly fine.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace. An antitrust "monopoly" is defined by market/pricing power. I wouldn't be all that confident that Amazon's online retail operation wouldn't be found to have such power.

debacle 11y ago

Yes. They're going to get sued.

Borjez 11y ago
The Apple Store doesn't sell Amazon devices, does that make the Apple Store anti-competitive?
- spdustin 11y ago
  Probably not. Apple Stores are in business to sell Apple products, always have been. Amazon sells everything, always has. So that's one point. Also, we don't know that Apple would not carry FireTV if Amazon solicited for space in Apple's retail store the same as any other 3rd party vendor. I don't necessarily think this is anticompetitive on the part of Amazon, either. I DO think it's a cheap shot, and alienates me as a decade-long customer of Amazon.
  - gtremper 11y ago
    Amazon only sold books originally, and they still don't sell "everything"
    - Zikes 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History > Since June 19, 2000, Amazon's logotype has featured a curved arrow leading from A to Z, representing that the company carries every product from A to Z, with the arrow shaped like a smile.
apetresc 11y ago
How is this different from suing Apple for not selling Chromecasts in Apple stores?
- dntrkv 11y ago
  Because Apple stores don't hold a significant share of the retail market and Apple stores have never sold Chromecasts and aren't expected to sell them, Amazon on the other hand did sell them and is expected to sell them. If Amazon was an Amazon-product-only type store, this would be viewed very differently. This is blatantly anti-competitive behavior, the equivalent of Google de-indexing Spotify to "prevent confusion" with their Google Music product. I'll bet that this decision will be either quickly reversed, if not, they can expect retaliation from Google/Apple in the form of lawsuits and/or their own versions of this rule.

bduerst 11y ago

Probably not anymore. Their claim of customer confusion would have been bunk because their fire phone used to support prime on chromecast. Now that the fire phone is no longer being produced, they can say that prime is not available on chromecast and it's "confusing" for customers. At least, I think that's how their lawyers probably green lighted it, seeing as their the online retail market leader.