5 ms·

> Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today Observing that Amazon may be monopolizing isn't a new observation. When they began competing against their vend

> Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today Observing that Amazon may be monopolizing isn't a new observation. When they began competing against their vendors is when they crossed the line, in my opinion. The same goes for any marketplace. It is one thing to provide your vendors the tools and information they need to operate better, but then to act on that information yourself - the operator of the marketplace - that is pretty shady.

kevinsundar 7y ago
Yes but EVERY retailer does this. Every single store brand product you see (Costco, Target, Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, etc.) is a result of this. Cheaper products that meet the same demand as brand name vendor goods. In fact customers are already trained for this. I walk into a store and I immediately price compare against the store brand. So if people doing the same on Amazon, why shouldn't Amazon be allowed to fulfill that? This was a thing in retailers a long time before Amazon started doing it. If you look around in retail stores today its easy to see how everyone strong arms vendors just the same. For example, ever notice that all of Target's pen section all have a certain color and text printed on the bottom of their packaging indicating the type of pen (Gel, ballpoint, etc)? Target has forced every single vendor (massive companies like Bic, Sharpie, etc.) that sells writing implements in Target to change their packaging, create new SKUs, do different production runs, and handle the logistics of different versions of the same pen. All to be undercut in price by the Target brand pen.
- __jal 7y ago
  > why shouldn't Amazon be allowed Antitrust law used to address this. Monopolies are not allowed to do things that non-monopolies are allowed to do, because the effects of monopolies doing them are different than the effects of non-monopolies doing it. Of course, Bork rewrote monopoly policy in a way that opens the door to exactly the sort of monopolies we now have. But it isn't as if this is some new notion invented because people hate Amazon; it used to be the rule.
  - kevinsundar 7y ago
    Monopolies weren't allowed to do things that non-monopolies are allowed to do because they would have an outsized ability to harm consumers as a monopoly. But Amazon has repeatedly shown that it isn't harming consumers. In fact, it's pushed other retailers to better the customer experience or go out of business. Should a company be split up just because it's doing its customers good and got too big because... they're doing their customers good and people like that and want to give them their money?
    - shard972 7y ago
      > But Amazon has repeatedly shown that it isn't harming consumers. Oh so that whole dash buttoon thing where they doubled the price of your items without telling you, that wasn't harming the consumer, it just knew they wanted to spend double on those amazon basics batteries.
    - __jal 7y ago
      That is a reasonable restatement of parts of the Bork doctrine, yes. Suffice to say this is a recent legal innovation, and many, many people believe ignoring other monopoly effects is myopic.
      - kevinsundar 7y ago
        Agreed. It basically comes down to if you agree with his viewpoints on M&A and monopolies. Looks like thats where we differ :)
indopedia 7y ago
Never said it was a "new" observation. They could shut down all sellers in the Marketplace and take it on themselves. Would that suck? Yes. But is that legal for them to do? Also yes. This isn't a charity business people, we don't all own Amazon, this is some guys painstaking work remember.
- youeseh 7y ago
  Let's say you run a business. You're still supposed to abide by laws in your location of business, despite how hard you work. There are laws to protect vendors against marketplaces. They're called anti-trust laws. Amazon is a very big business. It doesn't need your sympathy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Every operator of a marketplace seems to compete with its participants. The iOS App Store. Amazon.com. Stock markets have "market makers". Not saying it's correct by any measure, but it doesn't seem like an unusual practice.

kevinsundar 7y ago

Yes but EVERY retailer does this. Every single store brand product you see (Costco, Target, Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, etc.) is a result of this. Cheaper products that meet the same demand as brand name vendor goods. In fact customers are already trained for this. I walk into a store and I immediately price compare against the store brand. So if people doing the same on Amazon, why shouldn't Amazon be allowed to fulfill that? This was a thing in retailers a long time before Amazon started doing it. If you look around in retail stores today its easy to see how everyone strong arms vendors just the same. For example, ever notice that all of Target's pen section all have a certain color and text printed on the bottom of their packaging indicating the type of pen (Gel, ballpoint, etc)? Target has forced every single vendor (massive companies like Bic, Sharpie, etc.) that sells writing implements in Target to change their packaging, create new SKUs, do different production runs, and handle the logistics of different versions of the same pen. All to be undercut in price by the Target brand pen.

__jal 7y ago
> why shouldn't Amazon be allowed Antitrust law used to address this. Monopolies are not allowed to do things that non-monopolies are allowed to do, because the effects of monopolies doing them are different than the effects of non-monopolies doing it. Of course, Bork rewrote monopoly policy in a way that opens the door to exactly the sort of monopolies we now have. But it isn't as if this is some new notion invented because people hate Amazon; it used to be the rule.
- kevinsundar 7y ago
  Monopolies weren't allowed to do things that non-monopolies are allowed to do because they would have an outsized ability to harm consumers as a monopoly. But Amazon has repeatedly shown that it isn't harming consumers. In fact, it's pushed other retailers to better the customer experience or go out of business. Should a company be split up just because it's doing its customers good and got too big because... they're doing their customers good and people like that and want to give them their money?
  - shard972 7y ago
    > But Amazon has repeatedly shown that it isn't harming consumers. Oh so that whole dash buttoon thing where they doubled the price of your items without telling you, that wasn't harming the consumer, it just knew they wanted to spend double on those amazon basics batteries.
  - __jal 7y ago
    That is a reasonable restatement of parts of the Bork doctrine, yes. Suffice to say this is a recent legal innovation, and many, many people believe ignoring other monopoly effects is myopic.
    - kevinsundar 7y ago
      Agreed. It basically comes down to if you agree with his viewpoints on M&A and monopolies. Looks like thats where we differ :)

indopedia 7y ago

Never said it was a "new" observation. They could shut down all sellers in the Marketplace and take it on themselves. Would that suck? Yes. But is that legal for them to do? Also yes. This isn't a charity business people, we don't all own Amazon, this is some guys painstaking work remember.

youeseh 7y ago
Let's say you run a business. You're still supposed to abide by laws in your location of business, despite how hard you work. There are laws to protect vendors against marketplaces. They're called anti-trust laws. Amazon is a very big business. It doesn't need your sympathy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Every operator of a marketplace seems to compete with its participants. The iOS App Store. Amazon.com. Stock markets have "market makers". Not saying it's correct by any measure, but it doesn't seem like an unusual practice.