6 ms·

ANTITRUST! If Microsoft can get hammered for packaging Internet Explorer with Windows (and probably rightly so, given the market conditions at the time), there

ANTITRUST! If Microsoft can get hammered for packaging Internet Explorer with Windows (and probably rightly so, given the market conditions at the time), there is a direct analogy to be made here. Pick what you want to be: if you want to be the greatest goods index and shipment company in the world, fantastic. But you have to accept that you cannot sneak some of your own other-products to the top using that power. In this case, spin off your Kindle etc companies or have them broken up.

toasterlovin 7y ago
No, there is not a direct analogy because Amazon is not a monopoly. They aren't even the largest retailer.
- pixelpoet 7y ago
  I feel there's an argument to be made for Amazon having a near-monopoly on online sales and distribution in many countries, even outside America. They've simply nailed it and scaled it. In New Zealand a company called TradeMe got there first and successfully fended off Amazon, but that's a minority case. There are pros (e.g. consumers love it) and cons (e.g. human toll when optimising efficiency without robots) to having Amazon dominate in whatever country, but you can't deny, they get the job done. There isn't really another company competing with them at that level, is there? And that's why I think it's an effective monopoly. To abuse this wide-reaching power, in making your own stuff rise to the top of world sales, is absolutely a concern and we should honestly be grateful that there are laws and funded agencies giving a shit about this.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    We are so early in the shift to online retailing. People using Amazon for stuff other than books, DVDs, and CDs only became a thing in the last 10 years. Walmart has barely started to get their shit together with online retailing. Same for the major supermarket chains. They have an incredible physical presence with huge transaction volume that they can leverage into their online efforts.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - hbosch 7y ago
    >I feel there's an argument to be made for Amazon having a near-monopoly on online sales and distribution in many countries. Can you share more? This is quite a grand statement to submit based on your "feeling"...
- agumonkey 7y ago
  who is it ? I thought amazon was #1 in many metrics
  - jonknee 7y ago
    Walmart dwarfs Amazon in annual sales (and also plays hardball with its vendors).
    - agumonkey 7y ago
      ah well, what a pleasure to read
- benologist 7y ago
  It was actually abusing their platform to deliberately harm other companies that sparked the antitrust. That abuse created a monopoly but the monopoly was not why they got in trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    The only reason bundling IE was an issue is because Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - benologist 7y ago
      Microsoft had a monopoly, and they leveraged it to create a monopoly, but that does not mean abuse requires a monopoly. Abuse does not require emulating any particular prior instance of abuse.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        But the abuse only becomes a problem when a monopoly creates a lack of alternatives for consumers or suppliers. Amazon sellers have a plethora of other retailers who they can use to reach customers if they don't like Amazon's behavior. Netscape had no such options.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
- TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
  That was the wonderful realization I came to a few months back. They're not even close to the only game in town. It's pretty amazing that they marketed this attitude that they were the de facto online marketplace, based on the goodwill of "free" 2 day shipping, and a highly-curated catalog (at first) for so, so long, until the problems have become more hassle than I'm willing to deal with. I've dropped Prime, and just avoid the whole thing now. At this point, I'd literally rather drive over to a physical store than try to decipher whether I'm getting crap from them, and whether that crap is coming on a slow boat from the orient, every, single time I try to buy something. The future is CURATION. That's what the physical store does for me, by nature of the fact that their shelf space is limited. Amazon would be wise to throw 90% of the items off their platform, and stop being a storefront for every jerk with a computer and some junk lying around. Leave that crap for Ebay!
  - nickfromseattle 7y ago
    According to the article Amazon owns 35% of online retail in the US. Google isn't the only search engine, but it has a de facto monopoly on search. When does Amazon hit that same threshold?
agumonkey 7y ago
It's actually way worse than MS monopoly. I don't think MS impact on society is as hurtful as amazon's. I may be wrong but I'm really not sure.
emiliobumachar 7y ago
Tangential, but MS got hammered for a package of practices, including worst stuff (IMO, IIRC), such as exclusivity deals, i.e. hiking Windows prices or outright refusing to sell Windows to PC manufacturers unless they ditched Linux from all product lines. For some reason, the browser bundling is what stuck to the public consciousness.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  The objection to MS bundling a browser with Windows looks weirder and weirder with each passing year. Every PC and mobile OS today bundles a browser, and would seem totally broken and useless if it didn't. Hell, one currently popular OS is a browser.
  - chungus_khan 7y ago
    Something that's easy to forget is that web browsers generally cost money (or were at best adware like Opera) back then. Microsoft bundling IE in gave them an advantage because users didn't have to pay additional money for a web browser in addition to windows, and so were very unlikely to bother with something like Netscape. These days browsers are considered more valuable as platforms than as products, so nobody really sells them like that anymore.

toasterlovin 7y ago

No, there is not a direct analogy because Amazon is not a monopoly. They aren't even the largest retailer.

pixelpoet 7y ago
I feel there's an argument to be made for Amazon having a near-monopoly on online sales and distribution in many countries, even outside America. They've simply nailed it and scaled it. In New Zealand a company called TradeMe got there first and successfully fended off Amazon, but that's a minority case. There are pros (e.g. consumers love it) and cons (e.g. human toll when optimising efficiency without robots) to having Amazon dominate in whatever country, but you can't deny, they get the job done. There isn't really another company competing with them at that level, is there? And that's why I think it's an effective monopoly. To abuse this wide-reaching power, in making your own stuff rise to the top of world sales, is absolutely a concern and we should honestly be grateful that there are laws and funded agencies giving a shit about this.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  We are so early in the shift to online retailing. People using Amazon for stuff other than books, DVDs, and CDs only became a thing in the last 10 years. Walmart has barely started to get their shit together with online retailing. Same for the major supermarket chains. They have an incredible physical presence with huge transaction volume that they can leverage into their online efforts.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- hbosch 7y ago
  >I feel there's an argument to be made for Amazon having a near-monopoly on online sales and distribution in many countries. Can you share more? This is quite a grand statement to submit based on your "feeling"...
agumonkey 7y ago
who is it ? I thought amazon was #1 in many metrics
- jonknee 7y ago
  Walmart dwarfs Amazon in annual sales (and also plays hardball with its vendors).
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    ah well, what a pleasure to read
benologist 7y ago
It was actually abusing their platform to deliberately harm other companies that sparked the antitrust. That abuse created a monopoly but the monopoly was not why they got in trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  The only reason bundling IE was an issue is because Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - benologist 7y ago
    Microsoft had a monopoly, and they leveraged it to create a monopoly, but that does not mean abuse requires a monopoly. Abuse does not require emulating any particular prior instance of abuse.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      But the abuse only becomes a problem when a monopoly creates a lack of alternatives for consumers or suppliers. Amazon sellers have a plethora of other retailers who they can use to reach customers if they don't like Amazon's behavior. Netscape had no such options.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
That was the wonderful realization I came to a few months back. They're not even close to the only game in town. It's pretty amazing that they marketed this attitude that they were the de facto online marketplace, based on the goodwill of "free" 2 day shipping, and a highly-curated catalog (at first) for so, so long, until the problems have become more hassle than I'm willing to deal with. I've dropped Prime, and just avoid the whole thing now. At this point, I'd literally rather drive over to a physical store than try to decipher whether I'm getting crap from them, and whether that crap is coming on a slow boat from the orient, every, single time I try to buy something. The future is CURATION. That's what the physical store does for me, by nature of the fact that their shelf space is limited. Amazon would be wise to throw 90% of the items off their platform, and stop being a storefront for every jerk with a computer and some junk lying around. Leave that crap for Ebay!
- nickfromseattle 7y ago
  According to the article Amazon owns 35% of online retail in the US. Google isn't the only search engine, but it has a de facto monopoly on search. When does Amazon hit that same threshold?

agumonkey 7y ago

It's actually way worse than MS monopoly. I don't think MS impact on society is as hurtful as amazon's. I may be wrong but I'm really not sure.

emiliobumachar 7y ago

Tangential, but MS got hammered for a package of practices, including worst stuff (IMO, IIRC), such as exclusivity deals, i.e. hiking Windows prices or outright refusing to sell Windows to PC manufacturers unless they ditched Linux from all product lines. For some reason, the browser bundling is what stuck to the public consciousness.

stickfigure 7y ago
The objection to MS bundling a browser with Windows looks weirder and weirder with each passing year. Every PC and mobile OS today bundles a browser, and would seem totally broken and useless if it didn't. Hell, one currently popular OS is a browser.
- chungus_khan 7y ago
  Something that's easy to forget is that web browsers generally cost money (or were at best adware like Opera) back then. Microsoft bundling IE in gave them an advantage because users didn't have to pay additional money for a web browser in addition to windows, and so were very unlikely to bother with something like Netscape. These days browsers are considered more valuable as platforms than as products, so nobody really sells them like that anymore.