>>> Basically, what is even one practical thing I should care about with regards to this issue? >>> I really, really don't care if some of those brands go out

>>> Basically, what is even one practical thing I should care about with regards to this issue? >>> I really, really don't care if some of those brands go out of business. There is an immediate positive impact to the consumer, that you're getting a good, cheap thing possible from a well-known brand on their own site - Amazon. However, there are second-order effects to this. How did those dozen-version-products actually come into being? Amazon didn't discover in the beginning that, usb cables were high-demand products. Those no-name-brands 'seeded' that idea. Amazon noticed that there was demand and supply for something that they could easily scale; they discovered it without being in the usb-cable-selling-business. Going forward, those no-name-brands could either: - not risk coming up with such products (dont think this will happen, but bad for consumer) - move away from Amazon (they could, but at a huge loss of eyeballs) - continue operating at lower margins by making cheaper products (bad for consumer) - compete amongst themselves for being the Amazon producer for rebranded product. (all your products are now mine) >>> but stops showing any iPads altogether, and I can only buy the Fire tablet? I don't really care about that either, I would buy it from a different retailer. You are comparing 2 known big giants (Amazon, Apple) in your example. What if it was an unknown company that didn't have the budget to get ad space on your Search results for 'best tablet'. (reviewers would look at amazon for 'best tablets', those perpetuating the best-tablet-cycle)? I guess my point is - if a single company 'runs' a marketplace, and wants to win top products on it as well, its not a marketplace, its a casino from the sellers POV - the house always wins. The game is skewed. You, as, the consumer (and spectator in the casino), will, I guess, win?