6 ms·

Right, so Target, grocery stores, hardware stores, and everyone else, can't sell their own value products too then right? Seems like those shelves are platforms

Right, so Target, grocery stores, hardware stores, and everyone else, can't sell their own value products too then right? Seems like those shelves are platforms to me. I'm fine with 'big tech' not being able to sell products/services on their platform, but i want the same standard for other businesses as well.

naringas 6y ago
a store (even a multi-location physical retailer) is not the same thing as a digital platform the crucial difference is due to the digial aspect. digital "material" does not have physical contraints. this simple fact changes everything.
- andreilys 6y ago
  Sure they aren't the same thing, but doesn't mean you can't manipulate the physical layout among other variables in order to push your own products at the expense of your competitors. You also have access to sales trends for competitors, giving you a leg-up in market research (i.e. Target decides to enter Chips market because they see Lays data). I mean it's not that dissimilar to what Amazon does, it's just done in the physical world.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    It's not the same as what Amazon does, not even close. Target owns the products on its shelves so it can do with them what it wants, even give them away for free. Importantly, the product manufacturers are not its competitors because they aren't in the retail business; they are in the wholesale business of making and selling to retailers. Amazon does not own the products in its marketplace. The sellers in the marketplace do not sell their products to Amazon. They are all sellers, like Amazon, and that is why Amazon's practices are an antitrust issue.
ben_w 6y ago
Potentially — loss-leaders, company towns with company stores, and state-run businesses all come to mind — but at the moment I don’t know of any examples of physical stores having this problem even across a single capitalist nation. First-party apps made a lot of sense in the early days, and still do for brand-new features, but I think it would have been better if Apple had promoted existing AR tape measures rather than preinstalling their own; ditto time monitoring.
- dantheman 6y ago
  Yeah, I mean why have nice built in stuff - far better to go and buy everything separately. For instance cars should have seats, stereos, gps, etc... it'd be better for you to go to 3rd party sellers and buy them.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I think the analogy in this case would be a car company which gives you a choice of three different types of seat, five different types of stereo, and the option of built-in GPS from whoever when you configure your new car in the first place. I’m not even against first-party apps, I just want them to be competing fairly instead of being mandatory pre-installs (with the exception of security-critical parts like the OS, the phone and SMS apps, the wallet apps, the App Stores themselves; but even then, there is room for them to be opened securely, it is just harder to do right, and should probably be replaceable later rather than during setup).
- qppo 6y ago
  > at the moment I don’t know of any examples of physical stores having this problem even across a single capitalist nation. Retailers bully wholesalers and manufacturers all the time when they represent a significant amount of total sales. You always hear stories of "this was great until the bean counters told us we needed to shave 25c off the production costs and that killed its longevity." What you don't hear is that the bean counters were told by the sales managers that the retailer wouldn't list the product at $X because they didn't think their customers would pay more than $Y, and $Y would make the project unprofitable. And the retailer does 50% of our sales in the US, so we can't tell them to screw off! One solution to all these problems is to enshrine direct-to-consumer sales in law, for digital and physical goods.
gamblor956 6y ago
Not the same thing. Retailers are the customers of the product manufacturers. They pay for all of the products that show up on their shelves, even the store brands. (Note: only trial products operate on a consignment arrangement where the manufacturer only gets paid for units actually sold on.)
- treis 6y ago
  >Not the same thing. Retailers are the customers of the product manufacturers. They pay for all of the products that show up on their shelves, even the store brands That's not really true. They force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product and have met 30-90 day payment terms. The effect is that these large retailers don't buy the product until after it's sold. They also just rent shelf space to companies and have little if anything to do with what is stocked there and how it's priced.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    They force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product and have met 30-90 day payment terms. The effect is that these large retailers don't buy the product until after it's sold. This is false. Net payment terms don't change who holds title to the product, just when the money changes hands. Additionally, retailers only force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product for products that overwhelming failed to sell. They don't return small batches of unsold product. They also just rent shelf space to companies and have little if anything to do with what is stocked there and how it's priced. True, but this is such a small portion of the retail market that it would be a rounding error of a rounding error. Generally, most retail companies don't do this.
    - treis 6y ago
      Holding title and nitpicking return policy doesn't change the core of my point. Retailers haven't paid for the products on their shelves. Holding title doesn't change that nor does having a minimum return size.

naringas 6y ago

a store (even a multi-location physical retailer) is not the same thing as a digital platform the crucial difference is due to the digial aspect. digital "material" does not have physical contraints. this simple fact changes everything.

andreilys 6y ago
Sure they aren't the same thing, but doesn't mean you can't manipulate the physical layout among other variables in order to push your own products at the expense of your competitors. You also have access to sales trends for competitors, giving you a leg-up in market research (i.e. Target decides to enter Chips market because they see Lays data). I mean it's not that dissimilar to what Amazon does, it's just done in the physical world.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It's not the same as what Amazon does, not even close. Target owns the products on its shelves so it can do with them what it wants, even give them away for free. Importantly, the product manufacturers are not its competitors because they aren't in the retail business; they are in the wholesale business of making and selling to retailers. Amazon does not own the products in its marketplace. The sellers in the marketplace do not sell their products to Amazon. They are all sellers, like Amazon, and that is why Amazon's practices are an antitrust issue.

ben_w 6y ago

Potentially — loss-leaders, company towns with company stores, and state-run businesses all come to mind — but at the moment I don’t know of any examples of physical stores having this problem even across a single capitalist nation. First-party apps made a lot of sense in the early days, and still do for brand-new features, but I think it would have been better if Apple had promoted existing AR tape measures rather than preinstalling their own; ditto time monitoring.

dantheman 6y ago
Yeah, I mean why have nice built in stuff - far better to go and buy everything separately. For instance cars should have seats, stereos, gps, etc... it'd be better for you to go to 3rd party sellers and buy them.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I think the analogy in this case would be a car company which gives you a choice of three different types of seat, five different types of stereo, and the option of built-in GPS from whoever when you configure your new car in the first place. I’m not even against first-party apps, I just want them to be competing fairly instead of being mandatory pre-installs (with the exception of security-critical parts like the OS, the phone and SMS apps, the wallet apps, the App Stores themselves; but even then, there is room for them to be opened securely, it is just harder to do right, and should probably be replaceable later rather than during setup).
qppo 6y ago
> at the moment I don’t know of any examples of physical stores having this problem even across a single capitalist nation. Retailers bully wholesalers and manufacturers all the time when they represent a significant amount of total sales. You always hear stories of "this was great until the bean counters told us we needed to shave 25c off the production costs and that killed its longevity." What you don't hear is that the bean counters were told by the sales managers that the retailer wouldn't list the product at $X because they didn't think their customers would pay more than $Y, and $Y would make the project unprofitable. And the retailer does 50% of our sales in the US, so we can't tell them to screw off! One solution to all these problems is to enshrine direct-to-consumer sales in law, for digital and physical goods.

gamblor956 6y ago

Not the same thing. Retailers are the customers of the product manufacturers. They pay for all of the products that show up on their shelves, even the store brands. (Note: only trial products operate on a consignment arrangement where the manufacturer only gets paid for units actually sold on.)

treis 6y ago
>Not the same thing. Retailers are the customers of the product manufacturers. They pay for all of the products that show up on their shelves, even the store brands That's not really true. They force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product and have met 30-90 day payment terms. The effect is that these large retailers don't buy the product until after it's sold. They also just rent shelf space to companies and have little if anything to do with what is stocked there and how it's priced.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  They force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product and have met 30-90 day payment terms. The effect is that these large retailers don't buy the product until after it's sold. This is false. Net payment terms don't change who holds title to the product, just when the money changes hands. Additionally, retailers only force manufacturers to accept returns of unsold product for products that overwhelming failed to sell. They don't return small batches of unsold product. They also just rent shelf space to companies and have little if anything to do with what is stocked there and how it's priced. True, but this is such a small portion of the retail market that it would be a rounding error of a rounding error. Generally, most retail companies don't do this.
  - treis 6y ago
    Holding title and nitpicking return policy doesn't change the core of my point. Retailers haven't paid for the products on their shelves. Holding title doesn't change that nor does having a minimum return size.