4 ms·
> 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue
by pdabbadabba 8y ago
> 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the practice itself, but rather that the digital marketplace makes it easier and more efficient.
The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power.
> 2) The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are brands trying to sell commodity items at a markup. The play is not to undercut all the power strip sellers (to take an example) and once they are out of business, jack up the price. The play is to take the margin due to marketing and brand equity from the sellers and split it between the consumer and Jeff Bezos, so rather than being harmed, the consumer benefits from this.
That seems like a very charitable way of describing the situation, and even if accurate may only remain true in the short term. Whether undercutting branded sellers is the goal or not, that's exactly what's happening--even as you charitably describe it. What happens ten years down the road when those brands are gone due to Amazon's allegedly benevolent undercutting?
I'm not sure about the ultimate merits here (in fact, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that Amazon has all of the market power that some say it does). But I think you may be dismissing this all a bit too quickly.
- JackFr 8y ago> What happens ten years down the road when those brands are gone due to Amazon's allegedly benevolent undercutting? It doesn't matter. The power strips are still being manufactured at the same factory in China.
- pdabbadabba 8y agoAgain, there's a lot more to think about. What about prices? Even if manufacturing costs remain the same, costs for consumers are likely to rise per unit quality in the absence of meaningful competition. There will also be additional downward pressure on prices paid to those factories if there are fewer (or one one) buyer. As I said before, I'm not convinced that all of these things will actually happen. But the answer can't be as simple as "who cares...Amazon is just cutting out the middle man."
- wvenable 8y ago> The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power. I don't see Amazon as being particularly more of a monopoly than Walmart. If Amazon was a traditional brick and mortar business, would we even be having this conversation?
- Nasrudith 8y agoI think the difference is that they are better at pissing people off essentially by transgressing status quo norms. Most tech companies are too right for the left and too left for the right in addition to their "upsetting their perceptions of the natural order" aspects. A big chain consumes the market and puts others our of businesses and it is just how things are. A new internet company goes from niche to cannot be ignored and it is scary change despite the impact being essentially the same. Combine that with openly envious old media and their selective condemnation. I honestly suspect the real reason is that tech companies don't buy enough TV ads for their liking given the softball treatment of ones that do frequently like cable.