3 ms·
> The definition of a marker isn’t arbitrary, the question is what’s an equivalent good and where can you get it. Correct. Exactly my point. > That alone des
by huitzitziltzin 4y ago
> The definition of a marker isn’t arbitrary, the question is what’s an equivalent good and where can you get it.
Correct. Exactly my point.
> That alone destroys the argument that retail is a single uniform market.
This is not my claim. My claim is that (at a bare minimum) the market Amazon competes in includes Walmart, target and other large retailers. The market is not “online retail.”
> Considering everything they bundle into Amazon Prime they are on serious thin ice.
No. Bundling is a totally separate antitrust issue. Also none of the items in the Prime bundle raise antitrust concerns.
If you want an example of a tech firm taking a serious antitrust risk with a bundled good, the best example right now is Microsoft teams.
- Retric 4y ago> My claim is that (at a bare minimum) the market Amazon competes in includes Walmart, target and other large retailers. The market is not “online retail.” Walmart and Amazon do compete in many markets, but that doesn’t mean Walmart competes in every market that Amazon does. Rare books are available from Amazon but not Walmart. Also online retail is the only market in areas that are only served by online retail. Just as it’s irrelevant if there are multiple ISP’s nationally or internationally if only one ISP serves your island. > Also none of the items in the Prime bundle raise antitrust concerns. It’s not that Prime is inherently a problem, the issue is it meets the second half of an anti trust case where if they have any actual monopoly then proving unfair competition becomes easy. Free shipping is a great tag line, but risky from a legal standpoint.