3 ms·

I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you think these claims are strong. Especially with the backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, t

by taeric 3y ago

I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you think these claims are strong. Especially with the backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, these feel weak. It sucks that the only real commentary out right now is the expected appeals online. So, we'll see. Hopefully quickly.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Seems to me, the case is so strong, the complaint speaks for itself. It's convinced me. I'd love to see a longer take, though, addressing the specific points in the complaint, and what makes you think each one is weak. It sucks that most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "if Amazon isn't allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior, the FTC is coming for your mom and pop shop next"/"where's the line???" and similar FUD (with a fair measure of "they don't own 100% of the market so it's not a monopoly so it's not anticompetitive" thrown in, too)
- taeric 3y ago
  You feel in bad faith here. But sure, lets start looking at the points: Paragraph 1, almost literally: "the early days of the internet were great for competition..." I, uh, don't know what to tell you here. Isn't even really a point. Paragraph 2: Amazon is big. Paragraph 3: Amazon is a monopolist. 4: Amazon's fees can be upwards of half the costs of sellers. This point, finally, could be something. The examples that have been made public, though, are for sellers that are basically drop ship sellers. I'd love to see better evidence here. 5: Amazon also sucks. I mean, this is kinda the core of my main counter point. Amazon is losing on its own terms. And if it doesn't get its shit together, it will lose soon. That said, I do think this point muddies my view by discussing the old "relevant, organic searches." All of search has gotten bad. And Amazon's was never good. 6: Amazon sucks, but is getting away with it. Ok... 7: Amazon doesn't enter agreements where people can undercut them directly in costs... Or something? Sadly, I've run out of steam rather quickly on this. The claim here seems to be that Amazon enters all of the same agreements that other retailers do. With similarly bad results happening. I'd be delighted to find that general ruleset changed. I fail to see how this is even pretending to move in that direction. 8: We want to be clear it isn't just that Amazon is big. It is the practices they use. This is the real kicker in all of this. The main practices they keep calling out are not unique to anyone in retail. Please make them illegal, but don't pretend going after Big Tech isn't an optics thing. Skimming the rest: I'm now officially out of steam. What paragraph do you feel is actually strong? There is some neat analysis of the buy box... but it isn't that neat, all told. Amazon was silly proud of their 1-click nonsense for a long time. And it is probably a safe wager that, sure, most people don't make it to page 2 of searches; but also most searches don't result in a sale. I'd almost be willing to take the price harm to consumers as a strong point, but Amazon has NEVER been price competitive for basically anything. It has always been cheaper to buy something somewhere else. This hasn't been a secret for anyone for a long time. It just wasn't egregiously more expensive for Amazon, and their pro consumer return policies made for a loyal customer base. Again, don't take my criticism of FTC here as praise for Amazon. I don't vilify them as much as many do, but I do think they have been doing some hilariously non-forced screwups lately. This is still a pretty shit case.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    for someone who accused me of bad faith in their first breath, you sure don't seem to be trying hard to accurately represent the specific practices Amazon engaged in as described in the complaint, and lazily misrepresenting them isn't the same as proving that they foster competition rather than stifle it.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Then give me the points you feel are strong! :D Seriously, what are the strong points? I don't expect a full paragraph breakdown, as it is an expectedly boring document. Apologies if my misguided attempt is turning you off. I was honestly amused at how much of the document is naked assertions with no real evidence. (Edit: Specifically, I was amused with how much of the document is essentially "Amazon has gotten worse.") I would have just gone on the allegations, but they are only done as assertions by design, and you would have to reference back to the paragraphs heavily. (I suppose the 17 allegations from the states could stand on the basis of the other allegations, but that is somewhat circular.) The points regarding the search getting worse could be promising, maybe. However, I remember all the way back in 2014 that search at Amazon was already laughably bad. And search has been getting worse for everyone, not just Amazon. The points regarding the buy box show a lack of any consideration to how retail generally works. There is a reason "top shelf" is a thing, and why the top shelf items are both more expensive, and likely sell more. Preferred seller agreements and best pricing clauses are the norm in retail. By all means, lets get rid of them. Claims that Amazon has declined in service while raising prices are interesting, but also kind of against the points in question. The services do seem to be declining. And competition outside of Amazon's own site have gotten better. The evidence that they are preventing newcomers feels weak when I consider that I do buy more from non-Amazon today than I bought at all online back in the early days of the internet. Ironically, there would be a strong case here if only talking about books. But this seems to be specifically excluding books and digital. So, again, what are the strong points?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Honestly, I'd like a meaningful rebuttal of the actual behaviors and why they foster competition vs. stifling it. I've already listed one (Amazon penalizing suppliers for listing lower prices elsewhere). Again, pretty clearly anticompetitive. Your excuses of "so and so did it too" are meaningless, as are any slippery slope fallacies, as are your personal anecdotes and observations (the latter of which, no fault to you, simply can't be trusted anyways, as my own observations are the opposite). The only relevant questions are whether Amazon did it (they did) and whether it fosters competition vs. stifling it (seems like the latter). So, again, go ahead and try to honestly list the behaviors like the one above, and explain how either Amazon didn't engage in that behavior, or how the behaviors fostered competition vs. stifling it. Otherwise, it seems like more of the "where's the line???" FUD I mentioned earlier.

by taeric 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Seems to me, the case is so strong, the complaint speaks for itself. It's convinced me. I'd love to see a longer take, though, addressing the specific points in the complaint, and what makes you think each one is weak. It sucks that most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "if Amazon isn't allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior, the FTC is coming for your mom and pop shop next"/"where's the line???" and similar FUD (with a fair measure of "they don't own 100% of the market so it's not a monopoly so it's not anticompetitive" thrown in, too)

taeric 3y ago
You feel in bad faith here. But sure, lets start looking at the points: Paragraph 1, almost literally: "the early days of the internet were great for competition..." I, uh, don't know what to tell you here. Isn't even really a point. Paragraph 2: Amazon is big. Paragraph 3: Amazon is a monopolist. 4: Amazon's fees can be upwards of half the costs of sellers. This point, finally, could be something. The examples that have been made public, though, are for sellers that are basically drop ship sellers. I'd love to see better evidence here. 5: Amazon also sucks. I mean, this is kinda the core of my main counter point. Amazon is losing on its own terms. And if it doesn't get its shit together, it will lose soon. That said, I do think this point muddies my view by discussing the old "relevant, organic searches." All of search has gotten bad. And Amazon's was never good. 6: Amazon sucks, but is getting away with it. Ok... 7: Amazon doesn't enter agreements where people can undercut them directly in costs... Or something? Sadly, I've run out of steam rather quickly on this. The claim here seems to be that Amazon enters all of the same agreements that other retailers do. With similarly bad results happening. I'd be delighted to find that general ruleset changed. I fail to see how this is even pretending to move in that direction. 8: We want to be clear it isn't just that Amazon is big. It is the practices they use. This is the real kicker in all of this. The main practices they keep calling out are not unique to anyone in retail. Please make them illegal, but don't pretend going after Big Tech isn't an optics thing. Skimming the rest: I'm now officially out of steam. What paragraph do you feel is actually strong? There is some neat analysis of the buy box... but it isn't that neat, all told. Amazon was silly proud of their 1-click nonsense for a long time. And it is probably a safe wager that, sure, most people don't make it to page 2 of searches; but also most searches don't result in a sale. I'd almost be willing to take the price harm to consumers as a strong point, but Amazon has NEVER been price competitive for basically anything. It has always been cheaper to buy something somewhere else. This hasn't been a secret for anyone for a long time. It just wasn't egregiously more expensive for Amazon, and their pro consumer return policies made for a loyal customer base. Again, don't take my criticism of FTC here as praise for Amazon. I don't vilify them as much as many do, but I do think they have been doing some hilariously non-forced screwups lately. This is still a pretty shit case.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  for someone who accused me of bad faith in their first breath, you sure don't seem to be trying hard to accurately represent the specific practices Amazon engaged in as described in the complaint, and lazily misrepresenting them isn't the same as proving that they foster competition rather than stifle it.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Then give me the points you feel are strong! :D Seriously, what are the strong points? I don't expect a full paragraph breakdown, as it is an expectedly boring document. Apologies if my misguided attempt is turning you off. I was honestly amused at how much of the document is naked assertions with no real evidence. (Edit: Specifically, I was amused with how much of the document is essentially "Amazon has gotten worse.") I would have just gone on the allegations, but they are only done as assertions by design, and you would have to reference back to the paragraphs heavily. (I suppose the 17 allegations from the states could stand on the basis of the other allegations, but that is somewhat circular.) The points regarding the search getting worse could be promising, maybe. However, I remember all the way back in 2014 that search at Amazon was already laughably bad. And search has been getting worse for everyone, not just Amazon. The points regarding the buy box show a lack of any consideration to how retail generally works. There is a reason "top shelf" is a thing, and why the top shelf items are both more expensive, and likely sell more. Preferred seller agreements and best pricing clauses are the norm in retail. By all means, lets get rid of them. Claims that Amazon has declined in service while raising prices are interesting, but also kind of against the points in question. The services do seem to be declining. And competition outside of Amazon's own site have gotten better. The evidence that they are preventing newcomers feels weak when I consider that I do buy more from non-Amazon today than I bought at all online back in the early days of the internet. Ironically, there would be a strong case here if only talking about books. But this seems to be specifically excluding books and digital. So, again, what are the strong points?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      Honestly, I'd like a meaningful rebuttal of the actual behaviors and why they foster competition vs. stifling it. I've already listed one (Amazon penalizing suppliers for listing lower prices elsewhere). Again, pretty clearly anticompetitive. Your excuses of "so and so did it too" are meaningless, as are any slippery slope fallacies, as are your personal anecdotes and observations (the latter of which, no fault to you, simply can't be trusted anyways, as my own observations are the opposite). The only relevant questions are whether Amazon did it (they did) and whether it fosters competition vs. stifling it (seems like the latter). So, again, go ahead and try to honestly list the behaviors like the one above, and explain how either Amazon didn't engage in that behavior, or how the behaviors fostered competition vs. stifling it. Otherwise, it seems like more of the "where's the line???" FUD I mentioned earlier.