4 ms·

My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest

by ipnon 4y ago

My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!

hetspookjee 4y ago
You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.
- ipnon 4y ago
  I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone
Apocryphon 4y ago
Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one else's place to tell them what they should prioritize. Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it doesn't help consumers. Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and reach get, their competitors are still one click away. Finding out about competitors is one search query away, one media article away, or one advertisement away. Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a product, they're basically not trying at all. And not trying is their choice.
cute_boi 4y ago
People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?
- 0xLaMDA 4y ago

by ipnon 4y ago

My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!

hetspookjee 4y ago

You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.

ipnon 4y ago
I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone

Apocryphon 4y ago

Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.

themacguffinman 4y ago
So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one else's place to tell them what they should prioritize. Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it doesn't help consumers. Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and reach get, their competitors are still one click away. Finding out about competitors is one search query away, one media article away, or one advertisement away. Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a product, they're basically not trying at all. And not trying is their choice.

cute_boi 4y ago

People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?

0xLaMDA 4y ago