3 ms·

Amazon is far more than a store. For one, they are a monopoly on any content that's exclusive to Prime. And for a lot of us, that's meant choosing between our P

Amazon is far more than a store. For one, they are a monopoly on any content that's exclusive to Prime. And for a lot of us, that's meant choosing between our Prime accounts and our preferred streaming device. I personally would've probably chosen to buy an AppleTV except for the fact that Prime isn't available on the platform (though it appears that finally Amazon's spat with Apple on this front is coming to an end). Instead, I'm using a Roku because I don't want to reward Amazon for this crappy behavior by buying a FireTV. And Google isn't really a monopoly on internet videos. In addition to many smaller competitors, Facebook and Twitch are competitors. It's hard to find reliable numbers, but from what I've seen YouTube gets around 2/3 or the hours watched in this category (i.e. excluding streaming sites like Netlifx and Prime). That's big, but not monopoly big.

mattmanser 9y ago
You misunderstand what we're talking about. Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. You can watch other shows. YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches. They're using their dominance in one market to try and give themselves an advantage in another, which is usually illegal. Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.
- curun1r 9y ago
  > Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. Cable companies don't generally produce content. In the case of the ones that do (like Comcast, after their acquisitions), they've absolutely used their content for anti-competitive purposes. This is exactly what Amazon has done with Prime...tried to leverage it to support their less established products. And it's exactly what Google is doing with YouTube. Amazon is getting the same treatment they've given others. > You can watch other shows. And you can watch other user-uploaded videos. There's plenty of other sites that host user-generated videos. > YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches. This is just incorrect. YouTube is the biggest, but it's nowhere near "almost all" videos. As I said before, the numbers I've seen are around 1/3 of the watched hours are on platforms other than YouTube with Facebook being the biggest. > Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc. Hulu and Netflix don't manufacture streaming devices like FireTV. Walmart and eBay don't stream video or sell their own devices. Google and Apple are the only competitors relevant to this discussion since they're the only ones that compete on multiple products. And all three have artificially limited their cloud services to lock consumers into their platforms. All three should be reined in. But acting like Amazon is somehow the helpless victim in all this is just hypocritical. They're getting the same treatment they've given Google and Apple.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    You're misunderstanding the meaning of the concepts you're using. I'm not being rude, as I used to misunderstand them too. You need to read more about anti-competitive behaviour and the terms used. Anti-competitive behaviour has specific meaning and nothing you're talking about meets those criteria, but everything I'm talking about does.

mattmanser 9y ago

You misunderstand what we're talking about. Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. You can watch other shows. YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches. They're using their dominance in one market to try and give themselves an advantage in another, which is usually illegal. Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.

curun1r 9y ago
> Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. Cable companies don't generally produce content. In the case of the ones that do (like Comcast, after their acquisitions), they've absolutely used their content for anti-competitive purposes. This is exactly what Amazon has done with Prime...tried to leverage it to support their less established products. And it's exactly what Google is doing with YouTube. Amazon is getting the same treatment they've given others. > You can watch other shows. And you can watch other user-uploaded videos. There's plenty of other sites that host user-generated videos. > YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches. This is just incorrect. YouTube is the biggest, but it's nowhere near "almost all" videos. As I said before, the numbers I've seen are around 1/3 of the watched hours are on platforms other than YouTube with Facebook being the biggest. > Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc. Hulu and Netflix don't manufacture streaming devices like FireTV. Walmart and eBay don't stream video or sell their own devices. Google and Apple are the only competitors relevant to this discussion since they're the only ones that compete on multiple products. And all three have artificially limited their cloud services to lock consumers into their platforms. All three should be reined in. But acting like Amazon is somehow the helpless victim in all this is just hypocritical. They're getting the same treatment they've given Google and Apple.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding the meaning of the concepts you're using. I'm not being rude, as I used to misunderstand them too. You need to read more about anti-competitive behaviour and the terms used. Anti-competitive behaviour has specific meaning and nothing you're talking about meets those criteria, but everything I'm talking about does.