4 ms·

I don't think they're arguing that it doesn't work for the company doing it. I think they're arguing along the the lines that it's unfair or unethical (anticomp

I don't think they're arguing that it doesn't work for the company doing it. I think they're arguing along the the lines that it's unfair or unethical (anticompetitive) and comes with costs for the broader society.

ideamotor 5y ago
For example companies like door dash that run at a loss while forcing restaurants to take in less profits (because restaurants must pay door dash and can’t raise prices just for door dash users). It’s a ponzi scheme of investors. The real business for many SV companies is keeping the investor money flowing in.
- ddtrafficking 5y ago
  And on top of that some of these companies work by exploiting labor while not being held accountable for that. I recently learned from a doordash courier that he and other Bangladeshi men had paid tens of thousands of dollars to a human trafficking organization to work doordash in exchange for getting to the United States. Of course he didn't have this money, it was debt to the organization, and he has to pay it out of his DoorDash wages, plus interest, to the organization. He lived in an apartment with dozens of other men in the same situation. He had a gps tracker around his ankle and everything. How are you supposed to compete with a company that uses modern slavery in order to deliver your meal for $5 or less?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > because restaurants must pay door dash and can’t raise prices just for door dash users All the restaurants I know charge higher prices if you order online than if you call directly or go in person. I do not use food delivery apps, but I assume prices are similarly inflated there since people willing to purchase online or via app are amenable to paying more. It is absolutely crazy to me the amount of premium people are willing to pay just to not have to pick up the phone or drive 5 min.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    > It is absolutely crazy to me the amount of premium people are willing to pay just to not have to pick up the phone or drive 5 min. Crazy and awesome. It means people value their time highly, and can afford to buy it back.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I hope. I suspect many or probably most cannot afford to buy their time back though, based on who I mostly see using online food ordering and delivery.
  - taurath 5y ago
    It’s crazy expensive when you aren’t getting a discount, and even with many discounts. Tech money doesn’t really care about the amounts though. Whenever a food delivery app recruiter calls me up I tell them I don’t think delivering burritos to other programmers is much value to the world.
lostcolony 5y ago
Yep. Of course companies do it when they can; it works for them. It's the effect on other companies, on actual market competition, and ultimately the consumer, that is a problem. Heck, Amazon is a fun example; they've long used their monopoly power to dictate to publishers, and are currently seeking to leverage their monopoly, Kindle Unlimited, etc, to help drive self-publishing on their platform, to cut out Publishers entirely. I'm not saying that removal of publishers is innately a bad thing, I -am- saying that making Amazon the largest publisher and the largest distributor of books in the world probably is. And they've achieved it not by simply being the best, but also via predatory pricing, and using money from AWS to cover costs in their retail arm to help gain market share, at the expense of smaller retailers who don't have a massively profitable cloud service to offset their losses with.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > And they've achieved it not by simply being the best, but also via predatory pricing, and using money from AWS to cover costs in their retail arm to help gain market share, at the expense of smaller retailers who don't have a massively profitable cloud service to offset their losses with. Source? Their financials do not indicate that they were or are subsidizing losses in their retail business with AWS. https://dazeinfo.com/2019/11/06/amazon-net-income-by-year-graphfarm/ https://dazeinfo.com/2019/11/06/amazon-net-income-by-year-gr... AWS income did not even ramp up until a few years after it came out in 2006. Their main competitive advantage was having a decent website and shipping operation early on when other retailers did not, and being able to sell goods to customers in most states without charging sales tax until the 2010s for most states.
  - hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
    In fairness to the parent commenter, Amazon never had a net profitable year until 2004. Most new non-Silicon Valley retailers can't operate for ten years with yearly losses. Certainly not most smaller retailers.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago

ideamotor 5y ago

For example companies like door dash that run at a loss while forcing restaurants to take in less profits (because restaurants must pay door dash and can’t raise prices just for door dash users). It’s a ponzi scheme of investors. The real business for many SV companies is keeping the investor money flowing in.

ddtrafficking 5y ago
And on top of that some of these companies work by exploiting labor while not being held accountable for that. I recently learned from a doordash courier that he and other Bangladeshi men had paid tens of thousands of dollars to a human trafficking organization to work doordash in exchange for getting to the United States. Of course he didn't have this money, it was debt to the organization, and he has to pay it out of his DoorDash wages, plus interest, to the organization. He lived in an apartment with dozens of other men in the same situation. He had a gps tracker around his ankle and everything. How are you supposed to compete with a company that uses modern slavery in order to deliver your meal for $5 or less?
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> because restaurants must pay door dash and can’t raise prices just for door dash users All the restaurants I know charge higher prices if you order online than if you call directly or go in person. I do not use food delivery apps, but I assume prices are similarly inflated there since people willing to purchase online or via app are amenable to paying more. It is absolutely crazy to me the amount of premium people are willing to pay just to not have to pick up the phone or drive 5 min.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  > It is absolutely crazy to me the amount of premium people are willing to pay just to not have to pick up the phone or drive 5 min. Crazy and awesome. It means people value their time highly, and can afford to buy it back.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I hope. I suspect many or probably most cannot afford to buy their time back though, based on who I mostly see using online food ordering and delivery.
- taurath 5y ago
  It’s crazy expensive when you aren’t getting a discount, and even with many discounts. Tech money doesn’t really care about the amounts though. Whenever a food delivery app recruiter calls me up I tell them I don’t think delivering burritos to other programmers is much value to the world.

lostcolony 5y ago

Yep. Of course companies do it when they can; it works for them. It's the effect on other companies, on actual market competition, and ultimately the consumer, that is a problem. Heck, Amazon is a fun example; they've long used their monopoly power to dictate to publishers, and are currently seeking to leverage their monopoly, Kindle Unlimited, etc, to help drive self-publishing on their platform, to cut out Publishers entirely. I'm not saying that removal of publishers is innately a bad thing, I -am- saying that making Amazon the largest publisher and the largest distributor of books in the world probably is. And they've achieved it not by simply being the best, but also via predatory pricing, and using money from AWS to cover costs in their retail arm to help gain market share, at the expense of smaller retailers who don't have a massively profitable cloud service to offset their losses with.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> And they've achieved it not by simply being the best, but also via predatory pricing, and using money from AWS to cover costs in their retail arm to help gain market share, at the expense of smaller retailers who don't have a massively profitable cloud service to offset their losses with. Source? Their financials do not indicate that they were or are subsidizing losses in their retail business with AWS. https://dazeinfo.com/2019/11/06/amazon-net-income-by-year-graphfarm/ https://dazeinfo.com/2019/11/06/amazon-net-income-by-year-gr... AWS income did not even ramp up until a few years after it came out in 2006. Their main competitive advantage was having a decent website and shipping operation early on when other retailers did not, and being able to sell goods to customers in most states without charging sales tax until the 2010s for most states.
- hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
  In fairness to the parent commenter, Amazon never had a net profitable year until 2004. Most new non-Silicon Valley retailers can't operate for ten years with yearly losses. Certainly not most smaller retailers.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago