8 ms·

"Last year, Amazon captured nearly $1 of every $2 Americans spent online. As recently as 2015, most people looking to buy something online started at a search e

"Last year, Amazon captured nearly $1 of every $2 Americans spent online. As recently as 2015, most people looking to buy something online started at a search engine. Today, a majority go straight to Amazon." You know all those scifi movies where corporations in the future are the government in space and have giant armies and space ships? Well at this rate I am betting one of those solar empires will have "Amazon" on its flag. In all seriousness though, people need to take the rise of companies like amazon and really think hard what we are loosing by enabling them to take over our lives. This is not a rant against corporations though, or even Amazon or the great people that work there, but its more about what we as a society allow.

devoply 9y ago
> people need to take the rise of companies like amazon and really think hard Consumers don't think, they consume. Much like zombies. If you want consciousness in the system that has to come from gasp government. But that would be against what we all stand for. And it will continue to win until there is some major paradigm change. It has nothing to do with any choices, and everything to do with consumer and corporate behavior.
- _red 9y ago
  >Consumers don't think, they consume. Much like zombies. Nearly every part of that statement is false. >If you want consciousness in the system that has to come from gasp government. So, the masses are too stupid to know where to buy toilet-paper, but they are intelligent enough to elect the right politicians whom will enforce the right regulations?
  - nefitty 9y ago
    I avoid the cognitive dissonance of consumption by explicitly not thinking of the environmental and societal impact my purchases make. What is false about the statement, "consumer's don't think, they consume"?
    - johnny22 9y ago
      you're a consumer. Are you thinking or not? Seems like avoiding thinking about it means that you know it's a thing.
      - devoply 9y ago
        Well there is thinking and then there is thinking. Consumers on the mass consumer level, my self included, think about how we can get the most benefit from the limited amount of resources that we have. So how can I get good shit for the cheapest price. I am not concerned for instance about the global effect of my consumption or even local. That's how consumers in general think on the mass scale. Now you can say that this is not all consumers, but that doesn't really change the effects of their actions. Sure there are wealthy sub-genre of consumers that might think local. But that's not he mass of them. For a corporation like Amazon or Walmart to survive they only need the masses. The small minority of conscious consumers don't affect them... and even if they do, it's not as if lots of conscious consumers don't buy from Amazon and Walmart anyway, despite the fact that they might disagree with their business practices or business philosophy. Consumers in general in America and Europe don't care that much about these things... and even if they do massive corporations can buy other corporations and sell to them through that brand while still furthering their own business philosophy, business practices: example Whole Foods.
    - Govindae 9y ago
      >What is false about the statement, "consumer's don't think, they consume"? There exists at least one consumer/thinker.
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        Humans are bipedal and walk upright. IMO, that statement doesn't become "false" by the existence of an amputee or someone wheelchair-bound. Similarly, I believe the "consumers..." thought has relevance and information content even With awareness that there exists a particularly thoughtful consumer.
  - Retric 9y ago
    There is a vast difference between a person and groups of people. If there was only one thing to ever get upset about then sure crowds would resemble people. The problem is everything has issues when you look close enough so you can only meaningful think about a tiny fraction of these isssues at a time. Net result Exxon did not even need to change it's name after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. BP, paid a fine and then moved on after causeing 10's of billions in dammages without any real consumer backlash. In part because which oil company are you going to turn to?
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    So, it turns out that voter-based democratic government may have some stumbling blocks as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/donald-trump-democracy-brexit-2016-election-europe https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/do...
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    People spend more time on each of their consumer decisions than evaluating each of the items on a political candidate's platform (despite consumer decisions far outnumbering platform positions). Handing the economy over to government is eliminating individual agency and practically all semblance of accountability.
clamprecht 9y ago
I thought really hard and then I bought some AMZN a few years ago.
- jjaredsimpson 9y ago
  Index funds mean we all own a lot of amzn.
drdeadringer 9y ago
I remember hearing about a fictional story about a mediocre backwater planet called YourNameHere. No company had ever purchased the planet or planetary naming rights because it's a rather dull planet. Now, corporate-named planets litter the known galaxy. There is literally no planet, asteroid, or moon without a name on it. Planet Starbucks, the Amazon System, the Microsoft Belt. Somebody on YourNameHere gets wise to this. Suddenly, they have something worth a lot of money -- being the last place in the known galaxy without a corporate name on it, worthless backwater mediocrity be damned.
- ge96 9y ago
  That reminds me of the insomnia scene in Fight Club haha, IBM stellar sphere
plandis 9y ago
Or Google for that matter. My search is pretty much exclusively Google in the same way my shopping is almost all Amazon.
agumonkey 9y ago
One thing that still makes me wonder, is what's the structure behind the rise a separate silos (amazon = online) that depletes energy from other silos (physical stores) to then .. reimplement them because they were useful. This wave/backwave is so strange to me.
stale2002 9y ago
To be honest though, as far as companies go, one that claims to be radically focused on the customer isn't the worst kind of company to become a sci-fi overlord.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  A rancher is radically focused on his cattle.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    Oh, I want to play! A parent is radically focused on their children.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Focus itself is not a sign of benign interest. I can think of the children, er, think of other instances of radically focusing on children which might not be so positive.
    - dwd 9y ago
      "Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every single feeding will firm up the bird's belief that it is the general rule of life to be fed every day by friendly members of the human race 'looking out for its best interests,' as a politician would say." - Taleb's Thanksgiving Turkey
kjhlkjh 9y ago
One fascinating niche are online retailers which fill market voids Amazon deliberately creates out of corporate policy. For instance in the US one can readily purchase firearms and ammunition through the internet. Due to various legal formalities, Amazon won't touch that particular market segment. Visiting sites like www.sgammo.com, www.palmettostatearmory.com, or www.midwayusa.com, is like stepping into an uncanny PHP laden alternate reality where Amazon never existed. This federation of specialized retailers offers a glimpse into what the online shopping experience _could_ have become, if it weren't for Amazon's hegemony.
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  It doesn't sound that great, to be honest. None of those tiny institutions could ever reach the same amount of consumer trust that Amazon has engendered with its customer service/experience.
  - kjhlkjh 9y ago
    Agreed, it's one of those "be careful what you wish for" scenarios. A bunch of smaller retailers with disjointed UX and idiosyncratic service policies is the alternative to a giant monolith such as Amazon.
    - ghthor 9y ago
      Or, you know, we could work together to build a standard protocol so anyone could start an online retailing site and interop with any other online marketplace. Lack of cooperation builds these monopolies like Google and Amazon.
      - kogepathic 9y ago
        > we could work together to build a standard protocol so anyone could start an online retailing site and interop with any other online marketplace. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ If I recall correctly, US telcos couldn't even agree on which mobile payment system to use, because every company wanted to partner with someone and get a larger piece of the pie. Now it seems the only mobile payment system anyone actually uses is Apple Pay. That anecdote aside, I agree it would be awesome if such a standard existed. I just don't see it working out since retail is such a cut throat business and everyone will be looking to undercut their competitors. Remember, competition is good for the consumer and bad for companies.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Those movies are also essentially retellings of early capitalism -- the British East India Company comes to mind. Arms, slaves, drugs, trade. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-com...
tomrod 9y ago
I think many people fail to understand Amazon's approach. From watching their business over the years, Amazon isn't about books, or online purchasing, or data, or Whole Foods. Amazon's secret sauce is lowering costs, especially transaction costs. Monetization and business case are easy to justify when lowered costs are provable (not just expected). Google was the same for search and ads, but seems to forget these lessons in other fields and experimental ventures (Google Reader, etc.). Both tend to bring high quality (from this user's experience). But the reason they are so fascinating to watch really is due to the reduction of transaction costs.
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > Amazon's secret sauce is lowering costs, especially transaction costs. Monetization and business case are easy to justify when lowered costs are provable (not just expected). I disagree. Walmart is obscenely good at this cost-lowering too. Indeed, I'm able to price-match a better deal from Best Buy, Target, and so forth today. I prefer buying used (and new) games from Gamestop, even online. Almost explicitly because even with free "Prime" shipping, Amazon's prices are slightly higher. These other online shops simply wouldn't exist if the prices were cheaper at Amazon. Amazon is people's first choice online now. It is no longer the cheapest deal in my experience. Instead, Amazon's main benefit is the social network, its marketplace (as full of counterfeits and cheap Alibaba peddled goods are... that's a lot of business Amazon has on its marketplace), and AWS. None of those things make Amazon the cheapest. (Cheap questionable crap can be bought from Alibaba at much lower prices. Especially since USB-C cables from Amazon may blow up your computer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11021665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11021665) Brand-name stuff is never cheaper at Amazon. The Brands are powerful, and they make sure that their prices are the same at Target or Walmart as they are at Amazon (ex: PS4 or Nintendo Switch). Designer Clothing from Amazon has questionable quality (See: http://amazonadviser.com/2017/06/22/nike-partners-amazon-help-fight-counterfeit-shoes/ http://amazonadviser.com/2017/06/22/nike-partners-amazon-hel... Nike recognized the problem, and is now directly selling on Amazon to try and stamp-out the fakes and counterfeits.) Again: if I wanted fakes, I go to Alibaba for cheaper prices. -------------------- Amazon just wants you to think they're good at lowering costs. But they haven't been a market leader in cost-cutting for... several years now.
digitalzombie 9y ago
Also Amazon isn't that cheap either. They try their best to keep third party websites from displaying historic price. MassDrop doesn't show their past price too. I find often now that you can go the a publisher website and their book will be cheaper to order from there. Sure you won't have 2 day shipping but standard shipping is free.
- SomewhatLikely 9y ago
  CamelCamelCamel seems to have no problem providing historical price. I find that most people can't be bothered to check it, perhaps similarly to why they're skipping the search engine these days.
  - calvano915 9y ago
    Price history and price alerts make CCC a necessary step when buying from Amazon :)
    - tehlike 9y ago
      there are better ways. stay tuned, or contact me.
      - bobshaftoe 9y ago
        what ways are better? Camelcamelcamel has five years history, and I think the user experience is simple and effective.
        tehlike 9y ago
        just reach out to me. the better way is "not caring about the price and if it drops you get money back".
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
At somepoint does it become a national security concern? Could a large nation-state buy a controlling interest in a company like Amazon? And effectively use it against the US?

devoply 9y ago

> people need to take the rise of companies like amazon and really think hard Consumers don't think, they consume. Much like zombies. If you want consciousness in the system that has to come from gasp government. But that would be against what we all stand for. And it will continue to win until there is some major paradigm change. It has nothing to do with any choices, and everything to do with consumer and corporate behavior.

_red 9y ago
>Consumers don't think, they consume. Much like zombies. Nearly every part of that statement is false. >If you want consciousness in the system that has to come from gasp government. So, the masses are too stupid to know where to buy toilet-paper, but they are intelligent enough to elect the right politicians whom will enforce the right regulations?
- nefitty 9y ago
  I avoid the cognitive dissonance of consumption by explicitly not thinking of the environmental and societal impact my purchases make. What is false about the statement, "consumer's don't think, they consume"?
  - johnny22 9y ago
    you're a consumer. Are you thinking or not? Seems like avoiding thinking about it means that you know it's a thing.
    - devoply 9y ago
      Well there is thinking and then there is thinking. Consumers on the mass consumer level, my self included, think about how we can get the most benefit from the limited amount of resources that we have. So how can I get good shit for the cheapest price. I am not concerned for instance about the global effect of my consumption or even local. That's how consumers in general think on the mass scale. Now you can say that this is not all consumers, but that doesn't really change the effects of their actions. Sure there are wealthy sub-genre of consumers that might think local. But that's not he mass of them. For a corporation like Amazon or Walmart to survive they only need the masses. The small minority of conscious consumers don't affect them... and even if they do, it's not as if lots of conscious consumers don't buy from Amazon and Walmart anyway, despite the fact that they might disagree with their business practices or business philosophy. Consumers in general in America and Europe don't care that much about these things... and even if they do massive corporations can buy other corporations and sell to them through that brand while still furthering their own business philosophy, business practices: example Whole Foods.
  - Govindae 9y ago
    >What is false about the statement, "consumer's don't think, they consume"? There exists at least one consumer/thinker.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      Humans are bipedal and walk upright. IMO, that statement doesn't become "false" by the existence of an amputee or someone wheelchair-bound. Similarly, I believe the "consumers..." thought has relevance and information content even With awareness that there exists a particularly thoughtful consumer.
- Retric 9y ago
  There is a vast difference between a person and groups of people. If there was only one thing to ever get upset about then sure crowds would resemble people. The problem is everything has issues when you look close enough so you can only meaningful think about a tiny fraction of these isssues at a time. Net result Exxon did not even need to change it's name after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. BP, paid a fine and then moved on after causeing 10's of billions in dammages without any real consumer backlash. In part because which oil company are you going to turn to?
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  So, it turns out that voter-based democratic government may have some stumbling blocks as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/donald-trump-democracy-brexit-2016-election-europe https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/do...
- Jabanga 9y ago
  People spend more time on each of their consumer decisions than evaluating each of the items on a political candidate's platform (despite consumer decisions far outnumbering platform positions). Handing the economy over to government is eliminating individual agency and practically all semblance of accountability.

clamprecht 9y ago

I thought really hard and then I bought some AMZN a few years ago.

jjaredsimpson 9y ago
Index funds mean we all own a lot of amzn.

drdeadringer 9y ago

I remember hearing about a fictional story about a mediocre backwater planet called YourNameHere. No company had ever purchased the planet or planetary naming rights because it's a rather dull planet. Now, corporate-named planets litter the known galaxy. There is literally no planet, asteroid, or moon without a name on it. Planet Starbucks, the Amazon System, the Microsoft Belt. Somebody on YourNameHere gets wise to this. Suddenly, they have something worth a lot of money -- being the last place in the known galaxy without a corporate name on it, worthless backwater mediocrity be damned.

ge96 9y ago
That reminds me of the insomnia scene in Fight Club haha, IBM stellar sphere

plandis 9y ago

Or Google for that matter. My search is pretty much exclusively Google in the same way my shopping is almost all Amazon.

agumonkey 9y ago

One thing that still makes me wonder, is what's the structure behind the rise a separate silos (amazon = online) that depletes energy from other silos (physical stores) to then .. reimplement them because they were useful. This wave/backwave is so strange to me.

stale2002 9y ago

To be honest though, as far as companies go, one that claims to be radically focused on the customer isn't the worst kind of company to become a sci-fi overlord.

dredmorbius 9y ago
A rancher is radically focused on his cattle.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  Oh, I want to play! A parent is radically focused on their children.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Focus itself is not a sign of benign interest. I can think of the children, er, think of other instances of radically focusing on children which might not be so positive.
  - dwd 9y ago
    "Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every single feeding will firm up the bird's belief that it is the general rule of life to be fed every day by friendly members of the human race 'looking out for its best interests,' as a politician would say." - Taleb's Thanksgiving Turkey

kjhlkjh 9y ago

One fascinating niche are online retailers which fill market voids Amazon deliberately creates out of corporate policy. For instance in the US one can readily purchase firearms and ammunition through the internet. Due to various legal formalities, Amazon won't touch that particular market segment. Visiting sites like www.sgammo.com, www.palmettostatearmory.com, or www.midwayusa.com, is like stepping into an uncanny PHP laden alternate reality where Amazon never existed. This federation of specialized retailers offers a glimpse into what the online shopping experience _could_ have become, if it weren't for Amazon's hegemony.

kerbalspacepro 9y ago
It doesn't sound that great, to be honest. None of those tiny institutions could ever reach the same amount of consumer trust that Amazon has engendered with its customer service/experience.
- kjhlkjh 9y ago
  Agreed, it's one of those "be careful what you wish for" scenarios. A bunch of smaller retailers with disjointed UX and idiosyncratic service policies is the alternative to a giant monolith such as Amazon.
  - ghthor 9y ago
    Or, you know, we could work together to build a standard protocol so anyone could start an online retailing site and interop with any other online marketplace. Lack of cooperation builds these monopolies like Google and Amazon.
    - kogepathic 9y ago
      > we could work together to build a standard protocol so anyone could start an online retailing site and interop with any other online marketplace. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ If I recall correctly, US telcos couldn't even agree on which mobile payment system to use, because every company wanted to partner with someone and get a larger piece of the pie. Now it seems the only mobile payment system anyone actually uses is Apple Pay. That anecdote aside, I agree it would be awesome if such a standard existed. I just don't see it working out since retail is such a cut throat business and everyone will be looking to undercut their competitors. Remember, competition is good for the consumer and bad for companies.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Those movies are also essentially retellings of early capitalism -- the British East India Company comes to mind. Arms, slaves, drugs, trade. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-com...

tomrod 9y ago

I think many people fail to understand Amazon's approach. From watching their business over the years, Amazon isn't about books, or online purchasing, or data, or Whole Foods. Amazon's secret sauce is lowering costs, especially transaction costs. Monetization and business case are easy to justify when lowered costs are provable (not just expected). Google was the same for search and ads, but seems to forget these lessons in other fields and experimental ventures (Google Reader, etc.). Both tend to bring high quality (from this user's experience). But the reason they are so fascinating to watch really is due to the reduction of transaction costs.

dragontamer 9y ago
> Amazon's secret sauce is lowering costs, especially transaction costs. Monetization and business case are easy to justify when lowered costs are provable (not just expected). I disagree. Walmart is obscenely good at this cost-lowering too. Indeed, I'm able to price-match a better deal from Best Buy, Target, and so forth today. I prefer buying used (and new) games from Gamestop, even online. Almost explicitly because even with free "Prime" shipping, Amazon's prices are slightly higher. These other online shops simply wouldn't exist if the prices were cheaper at Amazon. Amazon is people's first choice online now. It is no longer the cheapest deal in my experience. Instead, Amazon's main benefit is the social network, its marketplace (as full of counterfeits and cheap Alibaba peddled goods are... that's a lot of business Amazon has on its marketplace), and AWS. None of those things make Amazon the cheapest. (Cheap questionable crap can be bought from Alibaba at much lower prices. Especially since USB-C cables from Amazon may blow up your computer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11021665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11021665) Brand-name stuff is never cheaper at Amazon. The Brands are powerful, and they make sure that their prices are the same at Target or Walmart as they are at Amazon (ex: PS4 or Nintendo Switch). Designer Clothing from Amazon has questionable quality (See: http://amazonadviser.com/2017/06/22/nike-partners-amazon-help-fight-counterfeit-shoes/ http://amazonadviser.com/2017/06/22/nike-partners-amazon-hel... Nike recognized the problem, and is now directly selling on Amazon to try and stamp-out the fakes and counterfeits.) Again: if I wanted fakes, I go to Alibaba for cheaper prices. -------------------- Amazon just wants you to think they're good at lowering costs. But they haven't been a market leader in cost-cutting for... several years now.

digitalzombie 9y ago

Also Amazon isn't that cheap either. They try their best to keep third party websites from displaying historic price. MassDrop doesn't show their past price too. I find often now that you can go the a publisher website and their book will be cheaper to order from there. Sure you won't have 2 day shipping but standard shipping is free.

SomewhatLikely 9y ago
CamelCamelCamel seems to have no problem providing historical price. I find that most people can't be bothered to check it, perhaps similarly to why they're skipping the search engine these days.
- calvano915 9y ago
  Price history and price alerts make CCC a necessary step when buying from Amazon :)
  - tehlike 9y ago
    there are better ways. stay tuned, or contact me.
    - bobshaftoe 9y ago
      what ways are better? Camelcamelcamel has five years history, and I think the user experience is simple and effective.
      - tehlike 9y ago
        just reach out to me. the better way is "not caring about the price and if it drops you get money back".

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

At somepoint does it become a national security concern? Could a large nation-state buy a controlling interest in a company like Amazon? And effectively use it against the US?