5 ms·

By what metric Amazon IS monopoly?

by nixass 3y ago

munk-a 3y ago
By the metric of market control and by the metric of being able to leverage anti-competitive practices without feeling any market pushback.
- taeric 3y ago
  Examples? Because, by most evidence that I am aware of, they aren't actually doing that well? Certainly not bad. But not clear to me that they have any real online advantage now that other stores have online payment that they can use between them. I've certainly been far more willing to buy direct from brands for the past few years.
  - cj 3y ago
    The examples are listed in the article. The last point is pretty damning if they can prove it. > Biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality. > Degrading the customer experience by replacing relevant, organic search results with paid advertisements > Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on Amazon to stay in business. [...] > Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible.
    - taeric 3y ago
      First, disclaimer that I do not mean my post as a reason not to pursue antitrust concerns. By all means, look for them. If they are found, make rules about them. That said, I have specific doubts. For one, search has always been crap on Amazon. I could believe they tried some of these tricks, but I confess I have my doubts they would execute on them well. For second, some of this is standard BS that retail has just accepted. That is, bringing on "experts" from in the retail industry would almost certainly bias you in some of these directions. The standard contracts that retail stores have pushed for a long time are such that they absolutely should be curtailed. They can be good tools for small companies, but it is clear that as companies get larger, they amplify power imbalances.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - Robotbeat 3y ago
      The last one is the most problematic IMO
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 3y ago
  I wish we could make this more well-defined because this is every company ever entering a new market supported by their existing business. If you actually outlawed all of it it would kill every medium or larger business (which isn't to say I'm not opposed to outlawing it) because that's just the game. The business that has to take on funding and pay interest will struggle against the conglomerate with a war chest larger than your TAM. Amazon has some shitty practices but I expect a lot of pushback in this lawsuit as a bunch of other companies see a target on their back for stuff they've been doing for longer than Amazon's been around.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    it was well defined enough for the FTC to bring this suit with a pretty detailed complaint, I think we're good there "other companies" don't have the same market power here, or indeed engage in the same anticompetitive behavior, but again, that's all explained when you read the FTC complaint detailing the actual behaviors in question
    - taeric 3y ago
      Sadly, no it isn't. Them calling out that they are not going after Amazon because they are too big, but because they did thing X is very problematic for the clear definitions. That is, as well defined as some concerns are, this complaint actually throws out a ton of that and makes it even less clear.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        fortunately, it was, hence the existence of the complaint if the FTC didn't know whether their rules applied, they wouldn't have been able to draft a complaint explaining how they do penalizing suppliers for offering lower prices elsewhere, for example, is pretty clearly anticompetitive
        taeric 3y ago
        Don't confuse criticism of the FTC with praise for Amazon here. The FTC seems to be continuing weak cases, and at least some of us view that as very problematic. If we are going to rebuild some of the surrounding rules such that these practices are illegal, I'm all for it. If it turns out that I'm wrong and they do manage to make the market healthier with a suit against Amazon, great. This doesn't look strong in that direction, though. This reeks of populist appeal from folks that know it is a politically savvy move to bash Amazon.
neogodless 3y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-t... 37.8% of online retail. Walmart is #2 at 6.3%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly > The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with a decrease in social surplus. > Product substitutability: Product substitution is the phenomenon where customers can choose one over another. This is the main way to distinguish a monopolistic competition market from a perfect competition market.
- wordsarelies 3y ago
  37.8 seems low, I suspect the "shipped goods" percentage is higher.

By what metric Amazon IS monopoly?

by nixass 3y ago

By what metric Amazon IS monopoly?

By the metric of market control and by the metric of being able to leverage anti-competitive practices without feeling any market pushback.

taeric 3y ago
Examples? Because, by most evidence that I am aware of, they aren't actually doing that well? Certainly not bad. But not clear to me that they have any real online advantage now that other stores have online payment that they can use between them. I've certainly been far more willing to buy direct from brands for the past few years.
- cj 3y ago
  The examples are listed in the article. The last point is pretty damning if they can prove it. > Biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality. > Degrading the customer experience by replacing relevant, organic search results with paid advertisements > Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on Amazon to stay in business. [...] > Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible.
  - taeric 3y ago
    First, disclaimer that I do not mean my post as a reason not to pursue antitrust concerns. By all means, look for them. If they are found, make rules about them. That said, I have specific doubts. For one, search has always been crap on Amazon. I could believe they tried some of these tricks, but I confess I have my doubts they would execute on them well. For second, some of this is standard BS that retail has just accepted. That is, bringing on "experts" from in the retail industry would almost certainly bias you in some of these directions. The standard contracts that retail stores have pushed for a long time are such that they absolutely should be curtailed. They can be good tools for small companies, but it is clear that as companies get larger, they amplify power imbalances.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    The last one is the most problematic IMO
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 3y ago
I wish we could make this more well-defined because this is every company ever entering a new market supported by their existing business. If you actually outlawed all of it it would kill every medium or larger business (which isn't to say I'm not opposed to outlawing it) because that's just the game. The business that has to take on funding and pay interest will struggle against the conglomerate with a war chest larger than your TAM. Amazon has some shitty practices but I expect a lot of pushback in this lawsuit as a bunch of other companies see a target on their back for stuff they've been doing for longer than Amazon's been around.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  it was well defined enough for the FTC to bring this suit with a pretty detailed complaint, I think we're good there "other companies" don't have the same market power here, or indeed engage in the same anticompetitive behavior, but again, that's all explained when you read the FTC complaint detailing the actual behaviors in question
  - taeric 3y ago
    Sadly, no it isn't. Them calling out that they are not going after Amazon because they are too big, but because they did thing X is very problematic for the clear definitions. That is, as well defined as some concerns are, this complaint actually throws out a ton of that and makes it even less clear.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      fortunately, it was, hence the existence of the complaint if the FTC didn't know whether their rules applied, they wouldn't have been able to draft a complaint explaining how they do penalizing suppliers for offering lower prices elsewhere, for example, is pretty clearly anticompetitive
      - taeric 3y ago
        Don't confuse criticism of the FTC with praise for Amazon here. The FTC seems to be continuing weak cases, and at least some of us view that as very problematic. If we are going to rebuild some of the surrounding rules such that these practices are illegal, I'm all for it. If it turns out that I'm wrong and they do manage to make the market healthier with a suit against Amazon, great. This doesn't look strong in that direction, though. This reeks of populist appeal from folks that know it is a politically savvy move to bash Amazon.

neogodless 3y ago

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-t... 37.8% of online retail. Walmart is #2 at 6.3%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly > The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with a decrease in social surplus. > Product substitutability: Product substitution is the phenomenon where customers can choose one over another. This is the main way to distinguish a monopolistic competition market from a perfect competition market.

wordsarelies 3y ago
37.8 seems low, I suspect the "shipped goods" percentage is higher.