3 ms·

This seems little different to walmart or any other grocer or retailer with own brand products alongside other suppliers in their ‘marketplace’. Should bricks a

This seems little different to walmart or any other grocer or retailer with own brand products alongside other suppliers in their ‘marketplace’. Should bricks and mortar stores also be dumb pipes? Is there evidence of Amazon driving a company out of business by abusing this position? If there is then that could be a problem.

toasterlovin 7y ago
> Is there evidence of Amazon driving a company out of business by abusing this position? If there is then that could be a problem. No, it really is not a problem. Amazon does not have a monopoly on consumer purchases. If your livelihood is dependent on selling on Amazon, a company which sells tons of products first party, then you need to be prepared from day one for the possibility that Amazon is going to bring a product to market in your category under the Amazon Basics brand, or that they will go directly to the manufacturer whose products you are selling. Period. Amazon isn't running their business so you can make money. They're running it so they can make money. As long as they think their interests are aligned with yours, then there's a chance for you to participate profitably on their platform. The minute that changes, you better have a plan B.
- Alupis 7y ago
  Is that not a conflict of interest then? To operate a 3rd Party Marketplace while also harvesting said marketplace's data and then deliberately targeting top products, killing those 3rd parties in the process?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    They're not your lawyer. They're allowed to have a conflict of interest. Especially one that you are fully aware of going into the relationship. I just don't get it. Do you think someone selling a generic product that only differentiates on price has some unalienable right to make money on Amazon.com? Or that some wholesaler buying branded products has an inalienable right to somehow not get squeezed out when the only value they provide is placing POs with a vendor?
    - Alupis 7y ago
      We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that. It's not about what intrinsic value any particular seller can bring - it's whether or not Amazon has become a defacto monopoly and/or practices anti-competitive behaviors.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly. They sell less than Walmart. You can take your products elsewhere. Your problem is with Amazon doing on their platform what every brick and mortar does in their own stores.
      - dodobirdlord 7y ago
        > We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that. It's not anti-competitive behavior, it's just ordinary competitive behavior. Sometimes Amazon decides to compete with the sellers on its platform, and woe betide them when it happens because Amazon is an extremely competitive business. Anti-competitive behavior is when you interfere in someone else's ability to compete with you. No amount of outcompeting competitors can make a business anti-competitive. It's almost a tautology.

toasterlovin 7y ago

> Is there evidence of Amazon driving a company out of business by abusing this position? If there is then that could be a problem. No, it really is not a problem. Amazon does not have a monopoly on consumer purchases. If your livelihood is dependent on selling on Amazon, a company which sells tons of products first party, then you need to be prepared from day one for the possibility that Amazon is going to bring a product to market in your category under the Amazon Basics brand, or that they will go directly to the manufacturer whose products you are selling. Period. Amazon isn't running their business so you can make money. They're running it so they can make money. As long as they think their interests are aligned with yours, then there's a chance for you to participate profitably on their platform. The minute that changes, you better have a plan B.

Alupis 7y ago
Is that not a conflict of interest then? To operate a 3rd Party Marketplace while also harvesting said marketplace's data and then deliberately targeting top products, killing those 3rd parties in the process?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  They're not your lawyer. They're allowed to have a conflict of interest. Especially one that you are fully aware of going into the relationship. I just don't get it. Do you think someone selling a generic product that only differentiates on price has some unalienable right to make money on Amazon.com? Or that some wholesaler buying branded products has an inalienable right to somehow not get squeezed out when the only value they provide is placing POs with a vendor?
  - Alupis 7y ago
    We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that. It's not about what intrinsic value any particular seller can bring - it's whether or not Amazon has become a defacto monopoly and/or practices anti-competitive behaviors.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly. They sell less than Walmart. You can take your products elsewhere. Your problem is with Amazon doing on their platform what every brick and mortar does in their own stores.
    - dodobirdlord 7y ago
      > We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that. It's not anti-competitive behavior, it's just ordinary competitive behavior. Sometimes Amazon decides to compete with the sellers on its platform, and woe betide them when it happens because Amazon is an extremely competitive business. Anti-competitive behavior is when you interfere in someone else's ability to compete with you. No amount of outcompeting competitors can make a business anti-competitive. It's almost a tautology.