7 ms·

Reading this, one gets the feeling that Amazon advertise their products on some sort of public place, and that this is perhaps not right. But in reality they s

Reading this, one gets the feeling that Amazon advertise their products on some sort of public place, and that this is perhaps not right. But in reality they simply own the whole thing and it is perfectly reasonable to do however they want.

Fauntleroy 6y ago
Oh definitely, if you ignore the whole monopoly aspect.
- dmoy 6y ago
  Doesn't Amazon have like less than 40% of US online retail, and less than 10% of US retail total? I guess rephrasing, what's the definition of monopoly here?
  - jcheng 6y ago
    Monopoly is the wrong word but I think Elizabeth Warren made a good case for why similar regulation is needed for very large, powerful platforms today (regardless if you agree with her proposed solution). https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257965/elizabeth-warren-break-up-apple-monopoly-antitrust https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257965/elizabeth-warren-...
- dhruvkar 6y ago
  I see this argument a lot for Amazon. monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Aren't suppliers free to start their own store, drive traffic to it and make money? Aren't suppliers free to list their products on Amazon, Ebay, Craigslist, Etsy, Shopify etc.? How is this considered a monopoly? I'm actually interested in an answer. I might be missing something.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I think the strongest case I could make is that the advantage of stores like Amazon (and Target) is customer acquisition. They're where customers go to discover products and comparison shop. The limited resource they control is the supply of customers who are there to buy a specific type of good. And buy favoring certain products they can choose the winners/losers in this game and edge their own products in.
benologist 6y ago
Their predatory conduct is being investigated in the EU [1] and US [2] which suggests it is far from "perfectly reasonable" and may not even be legal. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/eu-to-investigate-amazon-over-possible-anti-competitive-practices.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/eu-to-investigate-amazon-ove... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/01/amazon-jeff-bezos-testify-house-antitrust https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/01/amazon-je...
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I refer you to the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft owned the desktop OS, and was using that to give preference to IE. That... didn't fly. Using a monopoly in one area to gain market share in another area is in fact an antitrust violation.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  The antitrust case was about Microsoft giving away a free browser. Every operating system comes with a free browser. My phone comes with a free browser. My kindle comes with a free browser.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    No. The antitrust case was about Microsoft using their control of the OS to push users to use Microsoft's browser. The issue wasn't that Microsoft gave away IE for free. Netscape gave away Navigator for free, too. The issue was that Microsoft tried to "leverage" Windows to increase IE's market share.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well. Microsoft tried to use their monopoly as the supplier of one piece of software (the OS) to distort the market for another piece of software (the browser). Netscape did not give Navigator away to PC builders for free originally; selling volume licenses was their business model, and Microsoft illegally destroyed it. Hence the prosecution.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the distribution, not about barriers to the installation of Netscape.

Fauntleroy 6y ago

Oh definitely, if you ignore the whole monopoly aspect.

dmoy 6y ago
Doesn't Amazon have like less than 40% of US online retail, and less than 10% of US retail total? I guess rephrasing, what's the definition of monopoly here?
- jcheng 6y ago
  Monopoly is the wrong word but I think Elizabeth Warren made a good case for why similar regulation is needed for very large, powerful platforms today (regardless if you agree with her proposed solution). https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257965/elizabeth-warren-break-up-apple-monopoly-antitrust https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257965/elizabeth-warren-...
dhruvkar 6y ago
I see this argument a lot for Amazon. monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Aren't suppliers free to start their own store, drive traffic to it and make money? Aren't suppliers free to list their products on Amazon, Ebay, Craigslist, Etsy, Shopify etc.? How is this considered a monopoly? I'm actually interested in an answer. I might be missing something.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think the strongest case I could make is that the advantage of stores like Amazon (and Target) is customer acquisition. They're where customers go to discover products and comparison shop. The limited resource they control is the supply of customers who are there to buy a specific type of good. And buy favoring certain products they can choose the winners/losers in this game and edge their own products in.

benologist 6y ago

Their predatory conduct is being investigated in the EU [1] and US [2] which suggests it is far from "perfectly reasonable" and may not even be legal. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/eu-to-investigate-amazon-over-possible-anti-competitive-practices.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/eu-to-investigate-amazon-ove... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/01/amazon-jeff-bezos-testify-house-antitrust https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/01/amazon-je...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I refer you to the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft owned the desktop OS, and was using that to give preference to IE. That... didn't fly. Using a monopoly in one area to gain market share in another area is in fact an antitrust violation.

WalterBright 6y ago
The antitrust case was about Microsoft giving away a free browser. Every operating system comes with a free browser. My phone comes with a free browser. My kindle comes with a free browser.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  No. The antitrust case was about Microsoft using their control of the OS to push users to use Microsoft's browser. The issue wasn't that Microsoft gave away IE for free. Netscape gave away Navigator for free, too. The issue was that Microsoft tried to "leverage" Windows to increase IE's market share.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well. Microsoft tried to use their monopoly as the supplier of one piece of software (the OS) to distort the market for another piece of software (the browser). Netscape did not give Navigator away to PC builders for free originally; selling volume licenses was their business model, and Microsoft illegally destroyed it. Hence the prosecution.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the distribution, not about barriers to the installation of Netscape.