5 ms·

Can we just rule that internet marketplaces cannot offer competing products on their own platforms? The fundamental conflicts of interest will always persist o

by cowpig 5y ago

Can we just rule that internet marketplaces cannot offer competing products on their own platforms? The fundamental conflicts of interest will always persist otherwise. This is going to sound radical but I think Google Search should be broken away from everything else and/or Google products should not be accessible via the search page (or allowed to buy ad space)

neolog 5y ago
If you make something and sell it in a store, does that mean you're not allowed to sell other people's products in your store?
- cowpig 5y ago
  A store is bound to a physical location, whereas online platforms seem to tend toward monopoly
idiotsecant 5y ago
Should walmart be able to produce and offer generic versions of brand name items on their shelves? Why or why not?
- cowpig 5y ago
  I don't think they're similar. There are many stores in my neighborhood, but there's only one google, only one app store on my phone, and only one Amazon. I also think the degree to which the platform can exploit data related to producers (and consumers) is totally different with online marketplaces.
  - google234123 5y ago
    One Amazon? There many competing sites on the internet.
  - bhupy 5y ago
    You're correct that they're probably not similar, but they are different in ways that undercuts your original argument. There are almost certainly more than one search engine (Bing, DuckDuckGo) and more than one online retail platform (Shopify, Walmart.com, eBay). But unlike physical businesses, they are literally "just a click away"; whereas in the real world, you'd have to schlep to the physical location of the competing store. Moreover, the barrier to entry to actually spinning up an online retail platform is much much lower than spinning up a brick-and-mortar location (permits, employed labor per location, rent/property costs). Finally, the theoretical reach once you spin up an online retail platform is infinite; whereas one has to go through all of the aforementioned brick-and-mortar barriers for every incremental customer in the world... IMO, the concept of abolishing generic store brands strikes me as fundamentally hostile to the poor. The other day I was at a Walgreen's picking up some Neosporin ointment, and I found the Walgreen's store brand right next to at half the price. I'm privileged enough to be able to afford the name-brand Neosporin without having to think about it, but I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people that are grateful that the store brand exists. I'm sure Johnson & Johnson would love for the government to prevent Walgreen's from selling its cheaper store brand, but I'm skeptical that this would be good for anybody except Johnson & Johnson. Likewise, Amazon provides "generic" versions of commodity products. Insofar as it's difficult to compete with Amazon, it's because it's generally difficult to run sustainable businesses solely on the back of commodity products.

by cowpig 5y ago

neolog 5y ago

If you make something and sell it in a store, does that mean you're not allowed to sell other people's products in your store?

cowpig 5y ago
A store is bound to a physical location, whereas online platforms seem to tend toward monopoly

idiotsecant 5y ago

Should walmart be able to produce and offer generic versions of brand name items on their shelves? Why or why not?

cowpig 5y ago
I don't think they're similar. There are many stores in my neighborhood, but there's only one google, only one app store on my phone, and only one Amazon. I also think the degree to which the platform can exploit data related to producers (and consumers) is totally different with online marketplaces.
- google234123 5y ago
  One Amazon? There many competing sites on the internet.
- bhupy 5y ago
  You're correct that they're probably not similar, but they are different in ways that undercuts your original argument. There are almost certainly more than one search engine (Bing, DuckDuckGo) and more than one online retail platform (Shopify, Walmart.com, eBay). But unlike physical businesses, they are literally "just a click away"; whereas in the real world, you'd have to schlep to the physical location of the competing store. Moreover, the barrier to entry to actually spinning up an online retail platform is much much lower than spinning up a brick-and-mortar location (permits, employed labor per location, rent/property costs). Finally, the theoretical reach once you spin up an online retail platform is infinite; whereas one has to go through all of the aforementioned brick-and-mortar barriers for every incremental customer in the world... IMO, the concept of abolishing generic store brands strikes me as fundamentally hostile to the poor. The other day I was at a Walgreen's picking up some Neosporin ointment, and I found the Walgreen's store brand right next to at half the price. I'm privileged enough to be able to afford the name-brand Neosporin without having to think about it, but I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people that are grateful that the store brand exists. I'm sure Johnson & Johnson would love for the government to prevent Walgreen's from selling its cheaper store brand, but I'm skeptical that this would be good for anybody except Johnson & Johnson. Likewise, Amazon provides "generic" versions of commodity products. Insofar as it's difficult to compete with Amazon, it's because it's generally difficult to run sustainable businesses solely on the back of commodity products.