7 ms·

I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. However if they stifle competition, that's a problem. From what I have read and my exp

I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. However if they stifle competition, that's a problem. From what I have read and my experience, they are stifling competition. For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. Also I have an ebook on amazon and in order to get exposure you have to exclusively sell on amazon. I get why he does these things, but that's just not right. Amazon isn't a horrible corporation, but I think some of the things they do are anticompetitive and should be changed. So are they too big? No being big is fine and helps them be more efficient. The real question in my mind is if they are using their size to compete unfairly.

amelius 9y ago
> I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. I'm seriously wondering what about Amazon (the store) is so great. They are just a shop. They may have a little more inventory than anybody else. Their ordering system works fine. They have good user reviews. But all that does not justify the enormous negative effect they have on competition. And they also have problems, e.g. with counterfeit products. In other words, saying "more power to the best" does not make much sense if "the best" is only marginally better than everybody else.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Where Amazon absolutely kills it is in their logistics. As a store they're... frankly terrible. Search is complete garbage. Filtering is clunky. The product categories are an absolute disaster. And it's often impossible to tell genuine product from counterfeit (a fact that, by the way, has me terrified for folks inadvertently buying fake solar observation glasses for use during the 2017 solar eclipse) It's honestly a terrible shopping experience in almost every way imaginable. But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost (edit: to the consumer). IMO, that is what puts Amazon above the rest. With Prime I'm honestly dismayed when I see an arrival date that's more than 2-3 days out... that's the level of expectation they've set in the market. Of course, competitors are starting to match them. Walmart, for example, is really advancing in this space. But IMO Amazon is still the king of logistics. For now, anyway.
  - amelius 9y ago
    > But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost. What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right? When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. I don't see the difference with Amazon, except that I have to find that small shop through a Google search, whereas I can order on Amazon directly.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right? I had a feeling that would be confusing. Zero cost to the consumer. When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. Well, maybe this is unique to Canada, but that's absolutely not my experience. Not even close. 7-10 days is optimistic for smaller retailers. 14-21 is not unexpected.
  - mostly_harmless 9y ago
    You mention "fake solar observation glasses". do you mind elaborating a bit: how do you tell if they are fake? Is there something missing in the knockoffs? What is the effect of a fake?
    - jackcarter 9y ago
      Worst-case, the effect could be that they don't protect eyes properly, causing blindness.
      - zzalpha 9y ago
        This exactly. They claim certifications and safety ratings they do not have. If they're not actually suitable, the result can be severe eye damage. As for identifying the "real thing", I found the specific brand NASA recommends, and then tried to find a reputable supplier through Amazon with reviews indicating, by people who've tested them, that they were genuine. It's still not foolproof, but at least it's something. At minimum, if you're in the market for glasses for the eclipse, if you can see anything other than the sun when you put them on, they're not dark enough. Solar glasses are REALLY dark.
- seretogis 9y ago
  As they've focused more and more on third-party resellers and rebranded/white labeled products their store experience has gone down-hill. Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for. Even if you navigate through their categories to "Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry : Men : Shoes : Athletic : White", 20% of the results are not white athletic shoes for men. The relevance tanks even further if you're searching for specific computer components -- I have fled to NewEgg or NCIX for this purpose.
  - amelius 9y ago
    I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product", or they could find a nearby internet shop so shipping is fast. They should be able to replicate the same experience as Amazon, and make it better, and apply it to the whole internet. I don't understand what is taking Google so long to figure this out. This is where the money seems to be. (Otoh ... maybe they are afraid of becoming too large.)
    - reaperducer 9y ago
      >I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product Google already does that. At least in my area. Type in a search. Click "Shopping" and it shows stores nearby that could have the item. It's not 100% perfect because it'll be decades before retailers allow Google to monitor their inventory in real-time, but it at least gives me leads, especially when I'm in an unfamiliar city.
  - sib 9y ago
    <Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for.> While I understand your frustration, there is an explanation. You are thinking of search & filtering as some sort of mathematical / boolean algebra process (hey, it's ok, I'm a CS grad). Amazon is thinking about it as, "what does our show show that customers who have searched for [white nike hightops] have actually purchased in the past?" This is their search fitness function and they don't think they are wrong. I agree on the broader point that 3p sellers and counterfeit products along with spam listings are a mess.
- jsolson 9y ago
  The ordering systems works fantastically given the volume, Prime shipping is huge, and their inventory really is broader. The combination of (a) not needing to log in again to place an order (b) most things I'm interested in ordering being in their inventory (c) receiving most orders within 48 hours (and many within 24) is really potent. I've placed maybe a half-dozen non-Amazon orders online in the last six months, and apparently 163 with Amazon. When possible, I avoid anything that's not fulfilled by Amazon due to point (c) above -- I'll find alternatives or even pay slightly more to get prime shipping.
- jakub_g 9y ago
  Most people already have Amazon account, and the lock-in effect is huge. I also have one, though I buy occasionally (few items per year max). Recently I wanted to buy some electronics, and I found a good offer on a non-Amazon website. But when I wanted to proceed with the purchase, they asked for so many of my personal data (all of it required) that I decided I prefer to pay slightly more and buy from Amazon, than to hand my personal data to yet another third party.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  Their search is pretty terrible. Everything else (the ordering process, delivery options, delivery time, returns system, etc.) is pretty fantastic. From my phone, I can order, say, another batch of my favourite kitchen towel brand in about 5 seconds. It will be in my hallway the next day. I don't know of anyone else that does that. Amazon is scary in that way, because the ease of which you can magically manifest goods through its app means it becomes ingrained your routine, even to the point where you're itching to order something, even if you don't need it. They've really nailed the worst of consumerist culture, too. It's also scary in the sense that they're slowly becoming the source of everything I buy. Whether I want household stuff, electronics, a suitcase, some hardware tool -- I invariably reach for Amazon unless it's something I know that Amazon doesn't have. (Amazon is still pretty useless for high-end, quality home decor and furniture, for example.) As for the search, I suspect it works fine from Amazon's point of view. It's designed to offer you products that Amazon thinks you will buy, not what you searched for, and it tries very hard not to return "no results found". It is very frustrating for "power users", though.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    The single source payment system is pretty nice too... I don't like entering my CC on random sites, and given Paypal's reputation, they're far worse than Amazon from what I can tell. My bigger issue is the spammy/counterfeit products.
MichaelGG 9y ago
They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV). So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position. Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action. The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year. I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
    - hinkley 9y ago
      Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly. When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble. Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off. By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.
slice_of_life 9y ago
This is the most unbiased view of Amazon I've seen.
marcosdumay 9y ago
The only fix available for big companies doing anticompetitive practices is splitting them. The question of "are they too big?" is basically interchangeable with "are they harming the market?" Well, ok, there are others fixes around, tried more often. They have an unbeatable track record of failure. Thus it's perfectly fine for the author to ignore them.
gozur88 9y ago
>For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. Every distribution contract I've seen has that clause. I worked for a game company that used to give away (to friends and family) the games they couldn't sell through their distributor because they weren't allowed to sell directly below list.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  You're allowed to list on Amazon at whatever price you want, you just need to charge at least as much everywhere. That said, I'm not aware of recent enforcement of this, but it is in the terms.
vacri 9y ago
> For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. How is it stifling competition to say "If you want access to our marketplace, you can't charge a premium"?
- gertef 9y ago
  The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    > The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are? Not that I have any insider information but from what I read above I assume (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me if I am incorrect) that these agreements only apply to "ships from and sold by" and "ships from" Amazon.com.
  - vacri 9y ago
    So don't put it on Amazon. It's their ballpit; they're not stopping you from selling elsewhere, and they're not the only game in town when it comes to online sales. I can't buy a Honda from a Toyota dealer, but that doesn't mean Toyota is stifling the market.
am1988 9y ago
At what point is something anti-competitive? Facebook cloning snap features? They are dominant in social media, should they be allowed to do that? Google and their ad blocker plans? Being willing and able to lose money for a few years to drive a startup out of a new market?
- RodericDay 9y ago
  Yeah I'd say those are all anti-competitive.
andrepd 9y ago
>Amazon isn't a horrible corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies. I call your attention to "Anti-competitive practices" and "Treatment_of_workers".
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I mean, all warehouse work sucks. It's $12-15/hr work with literally zero educational requirements and no people skills required. Any warehouse job paying more than $10 is going to be fairly miserable. Is Amazon evil? Maybe. But no more or less evil than most every other organization that runs a large warehouse.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Appaling thinking. Firstly, I don't know that all warehouse work sucks. Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same. Secondly, if that were the case, it would be only more reason to be outraged! What, companies paying workers under minimum wage (as low as 2.70£ an hour), treating their employees as cattle without the bare minimum conditions of dignity, all the while making its CEO the richest man on earth? We're supposed to be okay with this?? Shrug our shoulders and say "eh maybe they're evil, so what", say "a company that makes 150,000,000,000$ a year can't pay its workers minimum wage, their work will be miserable but that's life"? What an appalling way to see things.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same. What? Hot summers with lots of heavy lifting and long shifts for low pay, all while being treated by management as a completely replaceable cog (because at-will employment, union busting, and the low-skill nature of the job means YOU ACTUALLY ARE a replaceable cog)? That's warehouse work. I'm not even sure if there are studies about this because it's just... completely common knowledge among the populations who work these jobs. Here's a blog post for example from 2011, describing exactly this conditions at probably-not-amazon from a former employee. Note he talks in broad strokes -- not "my employer sucked", but "warehouse work sucks". https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehouse-work-sucks/ https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehou... > What an appalling way to see things. I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm describing reality. I don't think positive descriptions of reality can ever be appalling, unless your goal is to bury your head in the sand. Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior. Realizing that working conditions for low-skill blue collar folk are systematically crappy, and that we need a systematic solution, is not "appalling". It's realistic and pragmatic. Besides which, counting on the beneficence of particular corporations and/or particular instances of PR pressure has never been a sustainable method for producing good working conditions or livable wages. Focusing on specific company's workers instead of focusing on systematic improvements to the negotiating power of labor is what's appalling. It takes a serious political problem and turns it into a corporate PR problem that's solvable without addressing the underlying problems. Because the empirically effective PR expenditures -- installing air conditioning, clamping down on loud mouths, token improvements to workplace culture, marginally shorter shifts... none of this makes manual labor on $12/hr with zero workplace protections and a minimal social safety net any less dehumanizing. (And Bezos's net work has absolutely nothing to do with whether working conditions in warehouses suck -- IDC if the CEO is making 100K or 100B, and neither do the employees working in the warehouse because their job sucks just as much either way.(
samnwa 9y ago
That's a fairly standard retailer request. Walmart doesn't want you selling them something for $15 that they sell for $20 at $15 on your web site either.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Walmart is in fact even worse to 3p sellers: they will remove your offer if they decide it's too expensive, which tends to be (from what I hear from active sellers) in the double digit percentages of the time. They monitor against other sites and may remove if yours is too much more than other sites.
debaserab2 9y ago
> . For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. I don't know how much of a choice Amazon really has here. Amazon is the ubiquitous online marketplace for everything. If I find your product on amazon, and then later find it for cheaper on your website, I'm not going to visit amazon anymore to purchase said product. You just used amazon as an advertising platform against itself.
- mcappleton 9y ago
  You make a good point. However I still think it's underhanded an unnecessary. People are going to buy from amazon for a host of other reasons such as convenience and maybe free shipping if they are prime members. I think amazon needs to compete based on value add, not with an underhanded contract. I will almost never sign a so-called "standard" software development contract because standard practice is to treat the little guy poorly. I think the same goes with amazon. Just because it is standard doesn't mean it's right.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    Most vendors don't charge that much less for direct sales, at least no more than is probably likely for Amazon's fees for "fullfilled by Amazon"
pikewood 9y ago
>amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. Why not create an Amazon exclusive SKU, the same way manufacturers do for Costco and the like?
jethro_tell 9y ago
Amazon is like 5-10% of the US retail market. Most companies are anti-competitive, it's when they are anti competitive and a big chunk of the market that it's a problem. Am I missing something?

amelius 9y ago

> I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. I'm seriously wondering what about Amazon (the store) is so great. They are just a shop. They may have a little more inventory than anybody else. Their ordering system works fine. They have good user reviews. But all that does not justify the enormous negative effect they have on competition. And they also have problems, e.g. with counterfeit products. In other words, saying "more power to the best" does not make much sense if "the best" is only marginally better than everybody else.

zzalpha 9y ago
Where Amazon absolutely kills it is in their logistics. As a store they're... frankly terrible. Search is complete garbage. Filtering is clunky. The product categories are an absolute disaster. And it's often impossible to tell genuine product from counterfeit (a fact that, by the way, has me terrified for folks inadvertently buying fake solar observation glasses for use during the 2017 solar eclipse) It's honestly a terrible shopping experience in almost every way imaginable. But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost (edit: to the consumer). IMO, that is what puts Amazon above the rest. With Prime I'm honestly dismayed when I see an arrival date that's more than 2-3 days out... that's the level of expectation they've set in the market. Of course, competitors are starting to match them. Walmart, for example, is really advancing in this space. But IMO Amazon is still the king of logistics. For now, anyway.
- amelius 9y ago
  > But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost. What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right? When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. I don't see the difference with Amazon, except that I have to find that small shop through a Google search, whereas I can order on Amazon directly.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right? I had a feeling that would be confusing. Zero cost to the consumer. When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. Well, maybe this is unique to Canada, but that's absolutely not my experience. Not even close. 7-10 days is optimistic for smaller retailers. 14-21 is not unexpected.
- mostly_harmless 9y ago
  You mention "fake solar observation glasses". do you mind elaborating a bit: how do you tell if they are fake? Is there something missing in the knockoffs? What is the effect of a fake?
  - jackcarter 9y ago
    Worst-case, the effect could be that they don't protect eyes properly, causing blindness.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      This exactly. They claim certifications and safety ratings they do not have. If they're not actually suitable, the result can be severe eye damage. As for identifying the "real thing", I found the specific brand NASA recommends, and then tried to find a reputable supplier through Amazon with reviews indicating, by people who've tested them, that they were genuine. It's still not foolproof, but at least it's something. At minimum, if you're in the market for glasses for the eclipse, if you can see anything other than the sun when you put them on, they're not dark enough. Solar glasses are REALLY dark.
seretogis 9y ago
As they've focused more and more on third-party resellers and rebranded/white labeled products their store experience has gone down-hill. Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for. Even if you navigate through their categories to "Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry : Men : Shoes : Athletic : White", 20% of the results are not white athletic shoes for men. The relevance tanks even further if you're searching for specific computer components -- I have fled to NewEgg or NCIX for this purpose.
- amelius 9y ago
  I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product", or they could find a nearby internet shop so shipping is fast. They should be able to replicate the same experience as Amazon, and make it better, and apply it to the whole internet. I don't understand what is taking Google so long to figure this out. This is where the money seems to be. (Otoh ... maybe they are afraid of becoming too large.)
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    >I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product Google already does that. At least in my area. Type in a search. Click "Shopping" and it shows stores nearby that could have the item. It's not 100% perfect because it'll be decades before retailers allow Google to monitor their inventory in real-time, but it at least gives me leads, especially when I'm in an unfamiliar city.
- sib 9y ago
  <Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for.> While I understand your frustration, there is an explanation. You are thinking of search & filtering as some sort of mathematical / boolean algebra process (hey, it's ok, I'm a CS grad). Amazon is thinking about it as, "what does our show show that customers who have searched for [white nike hightops] have actually purchased in the past?" This is their search fitness function and they don't think they are wrong. I agree on the broader point that 3p sellers and counterfeit products along with spam listings are a mess.
jsolson 9y ago
The ordering systems works fantastically given the volume, Prime shipping is huge, and their inventory really is broader. The combination of (a) not needing to log in again to place an order (b) most things I'm interested in ordering being in their inventory (c) receiving most orders within 48 hours (and many within 24) is really potent. I've placed maybe a half-dozen non-Amazon orders online in the last six months, and apparently 163 with Amazon. When possible, I avoid anything that's not fulfilled by Amazon due to point (c) above -- I'll find alternatives or even pay slightly more to get prime shipping.
jakub_g 9y ago
Most people already have Amazon account, and the lock-in effect is huge. I also have one, though I buy occasionally (few items per year max). Recently I wanted to buy some electronics, and I found a good offer on a non-Amazon website. But when I wanted to proceed with the purchase, they asked for so many of my personal data (all of it required) that I decided I prefer to pay slightly more and buy from Amazon, than to hand my personal data to yet another third party.
lobster_johnson 9y ago
Their search is pretty terrible. Everything else (the ordering process, delivery options, delivery time, returns system, etc.) is pretty fantastic. From my phone, I can order, say, another batch of my favourite kitchen towel brand in about 5 seconds. It will be in my hallway the next day. I don't know of anyone else that does that. Amazon is scary in that way, because the ease of which you can magically manifest goods through its app means it becomes ingrained your routine, even to the point where you're itching to order something, even if you don't need it. They've really nailed the worst of consumerist culture, too. It's also scary in the sense that they're slowly becoming the source of everything I buy. Whether I want household stuff, electronics, a suitcase, some hardware tool -- I invariably reach for Amazon unless it's something I know that Amazon doesn't have. (Amazon is still pretty useless for high-end, quality home decor and furniture, for example.) As for the search, I suspect it works fine from Amazon's point of view. It's designed to offer you products that Amazon thinks you will buy, not what you searched for, and it tries very hard not to return "no results found". It is very frustrating for "power users", though.
- tracker1 9y ago
  The single source payment system is pretty nice too... I don't like entering my CC on random sites, and given Paypal's reputation, they're far worse than Amazon from what I can tell. My bigger issue is the spammy/counterfeit products.

MichaelGG 9y ago

They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV). So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position. Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action. The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year. I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly. When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble. Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off. By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.

slice_of_life 9y ago

This is the most unbiased view of Amazon I've seen.

marcosdumay 9y ago

The only fix available for big companies doing anticompetitive practices is splitting them. The question of "are they too big?" is basically interchangeable with "are they harming the market?" Well, ok, there are others fixes around, tried more often. They have an unbeatable track record of failure. Thus it's perfectly fine for the author to ignore them.

gozur88 9y ago

>For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. Every distribution contract I've seen has that clause. I worked for a game company that used to give away (to friends and family) the games they couldn't sell through their distributor because they weren't allowed to sell directly below list.

ikeboy 9y ago
You're allowed to list on Amazon at whatever price you want, you just need to charge at least as much everywhere. That said, I'm not aware of recent enforcement of this, but it is in the terms.

vacri 9y ago

> For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. How is it stifling competition to say "If you want access to our marketplace, you can't charge a premium"?

gertef 9y ago
The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  > The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are? Not that I have any insider information but from what I read above I assume (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me if I am incorrect) that these agreements only apply to "ships from and sold by" and "ships from" Amazon.com.
- vacri 9y ago
  So don't put it on Amazon. It's their ballpit; they're not stopping you from selling elsewhere, and they're not the only game in town when it comes to online sales. I can't buy a Honda from a Toyota dealer, but that doesn't mean Toyota is stifling the market.

am1988 9y ago

At what point is something anti-competitive? Facebook cloning snap features? They are dominant in social media, should they be allowed to do that? Google and their ad blocker plans? Being willing and able to lose money for a few years to drive a startup out of a new market?

RodericDay 9y ago
Yeah I'd say those are all anti-competitive.

andrepd 9y ago

>Amazon isn't a horrible corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies. I call your attention to "Anti-competitive practices" and "Treatment_of_workers".

throwawayjava 9y ago
I mean, all warehouse work sucks. It's $12-15/hr work with literally zero educational requirements and no people skills required. Any warehouse job paying more than $10 is going to be fairly miserable. Is Amazon evil? Maybe. But no more or less evil than most every other organization that runs a large warehouse.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Appaling thinking. Firstly, I don't know that all warehouse work sucks. Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same. Secondly, if that were the case, it would be only more reason to be outraged! What, companies paying workers under minimum wage (as low as 2.70£ an hour), treating their employees as cattle without the bare minimum conditions of dignity, all the while making its CEO the richest man on earth? We're supposed to be okay with this?? Shrug our shoulders and say "eh maybe they're evil, so what", say "a company that makes 150,000,000,000$ a year can't pay its workers minimum wage, their work will be miserable but that's life"? What an appalling way to see things.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same. What? Hot summers with lots of heavy lifting and long shifts for low pay, all while being treated by management as a completely replaceable cog (because at-will employment, union busting, and the low-skill nature of the job means YOU ACTUALLY ARE a replaceable cog)? That's warehouse work. I'm not even sure if there are studies about this because it's just... completely common knowledge among the populations who work these jobs. Here's a blog post for example from 2011, describing exactly this conditions at probably-not-amazon from a former employee. Note he talks in broad strokes -- not "my employer sucked", but "warehouse work sucks". https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehouse-work-sucks/ https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehou... > What an appalling way to see things. I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm describing reality. I don't think positive descriptions of reality can ever be appalling, unless your goal is to bury your head in the sand. Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior. Realizing that working conditions for low-skill blue collar folk are systematically crappy, and that we need a systematic solution, is not "appalling". It's realistic and pragmatic. Besides which, counting on the beneficence of particular corporations and/or particular instances of PR pressure has never been a sustainable method for producing good working conditions or livable wages. Focusing on specific company's workers instead of focusing on systematic improvements to the negotiating power of labor is what's appalling. It takes a serious political problem and turns it into a corporate PR problem that's solvable without addressing the underlying problems. Because the empirically effective PR expenditures -- installing air conditioning, clamping down on loud mouths, token improvements to workplace culture, marginally shorter shifts... none of this makes manual labor on $12/hr with zero workplace protections and a minimal social safety net any less dehumanizing. (And Bezos's net work has absolutely nothing to do with whether working conditions in warehouses suck -- IDC if the CEO is making 100K or 100B, and neither do the employees working in the warehouse because their job sucks just as much either way.(

samnwa 9y ago

That's a fairly standard retailer request. Walmart doesn't want you selling them something for $15 that they sell for $20 at $15 on your web site either.

ikeboy 9y ago
Walmart is in fact even worse to 3p sellers: they will remove your offer if they decide it's too expensive, which tends to be (from what I hear from active sellers) in the double digit percentages of the time. They monitor against other sites and may remove if yours is too much more than other sites.

debaserab2 9y ago

> . For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. I don't know how much of a choice Amazon really has here. Amazon is the ubiquitous online marketplace for everything. If I find your product on amazon, and then later find it for cheaper on your website, I'm not going to visit amazon anymore to purchase said product. You just used amazon as an advertising platform against itself.

mcappleton 9y ago
You make a good point. However I still think it's underhanded an unnecessary. People are going to buy from amazon for a host of other reasons such as convenience and maybe free shipping if they are prime members. I think amazon needs to compete based on value add, not with an underhanded contract. I will almost never sign a so-called "standard" software development contract because standard practice is to treat the little guy poorly. I think the same goes with amazon. Just because it is standard doesn't mean it's right.
- tracker1 9y ago
  Most vendors don't charge that much less for direct sales, at least no more than is probably likely for Amazon's fees for "fullfilled by Amazon"

pikewood 9y ago

>amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. Why not create an Amazon exclusive SKU, the same way manufacturers do for Costco and the like?

jethro_tell 9y ago

Amazon is like 5-10% of the US retail market. Most companies are anti-competitive, it's when they are anti competitive and a big chunk of the market that it's a problem. Am I missing something?