8 ms·

From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and

From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and continuing to sell it on their platform… or their competitors filling the void.

endisneigh 3y ago
So what? That's how e-commerce works. Why should Amazon be obligated to fill their store with higher priced items compared to their competitors? No one is going to visit a store where every item could be purchased cheaper somewhere else. This is exactly why price match is a thing, because they don't want their costumers soliciting different stores to begin with. The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Hilarious people are complaining about it. Any second-order effects of this are on the actual seller, not Amazon.
- mjsweet 3y ago
  The market should decide. That’s commerce.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Yes, exactly. These sellers should and can just leave Amazon if they have a problem with it.
    - mjsweet 3y ago
      No, they should be able to set their own pricing as they see fit.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        They are able to do so, but Amazon is not obligated to have them on their platform if they aren't providing the best price to their customers.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Amazon is a product search engine and should be treated as such. Vendors must have the freedom to set pricing on any platform as they see fit. If all product search engines and ecommerce platforms behaved in this anticompetitive behaviour then what would we have? A weird commercial landscape that lacks flexibility… in the end the consumer looses because free market forces are not in play.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Amazon is not a product search engine, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. They are a store and describe themselves as such. You cannot find products on Amazon that are not for sale by them or sellers who agree to their rules, an actual product search engine would allow this.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Good luck with that! Amazon is the most powerful product search engine available. I love it and use it almost every day. Amazon will spend a lot of money trying to convince the feds they are otherwise… no amount of lobbying, PR pieces, paid ops and persistent commenting on boards like this one will stop valid questions being asked in hearings. It’s only a matter of time sorry.
- kibwen 3y ago
  I don't even know where to begin with this comment. Do you know what anticompetitive behavior is? Do you know how markets are supposed to work? Amazon is leveraging their position in the market to unfairly disadvantage their competitors, thereby distorting the market, decreasing its efficiency, and increasing end prices for consumers everywhere. Market-distorting behavior like this is why antitrust regulation is necessary to keep markets functioning efficiently.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Everything you're stating is false. Amazon is trying to do right by its customers, and they are not obligated to let sellers not give their customers the best price available. Sellers are not obligated to sell on Amazon. Your conclusion that this increases end pries for consumers has nothing to do with Amazon, but the sellers themselves.
    - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
      Amazon was already told not to do this for anti-trust reasons, and they promised to oblige. Unless the government, Amazon, and the general public are all incorrect about what constitutes monopolistic behavior, you are. The idea that Amazon is openly defying pro-consumer laws to do right by its customers is absurd.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a shill, lol.
      - ziml77 3y ago
        [flagged]
- woooooo 3y ago
  Some would say that the way commerce works is sellers can sell anywhere at any price that a buyer wants to pay.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    That's not how commerce works. Commerce works by following the rules of places that you are trying to sell at. You can't sell anything anywhere.
    - ARussell 3y ago
      And Amazon needs to follow the rules and laws of the place that IT'S trying to sell at.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        And which law dictates a company must allow people or sellers on its platform?
        ARussell 3y ago
        I'm not GP. I didn't make that argument. I agree that Amazon is not obliged to allow just anyone on their platform. Sellers must abide by the rules that Amazon sets in place. At the same time, Amazon must abide by the laws of the locations at which it wants to sell. So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        > So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced goods compared to competitors.
- EliRivers 3y ago
  The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Yet here we are with sellers WANTING to sell their items at a lower price on places other than Amazon, but if they do, they'll go out of business. That doesn't sound pro-consumer. I'm a consumer. I'd like to be able to buy items for the lowest price the seller wants to offer me. That's not happening in some cases because if they do, Amazon will exclude them and they'll go out of business. Yeah, definitely not pro-consumer. Pro-amazon, sure.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Would Amazon be obligated to list the items regardless? Otherwise just dropping pricing conditions would only help those sellers that Amazon has enough interest to list regardless - for some products the "equilibrium" might not be great.
scarface_74 3y ago
If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?
- jhbadger 3y ago
  Well, here's a real example. About a decade ago there was a simple video conferencing system called Nautilus. A simple LCD screen that let you call other people with the device and talk to them, not having to bother with computers or smartphones. The sort of thing that is good for talking with elderly relatives who may not be very computer or phone savvy. I bought one (from Amazon) for myself and my elderly parents. It worked well, but a few years later Amazon came out with their Echo Show products which are basically the same thing, which killed the Nautilus. I'm sure it was covered by patents and what not, but you can't protect the idea. Amazon obviously saw that it sold reasonably well and used its power as both a marketplace and a technology company to undercut their own seller.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Really? That’s your example? Everyone and their mother has a video conferencing solution and the idea has been around as something to aspire to since the 60s with the Jetsons . Do you agree with the look and feel lawsuit that Apple had against MS? Or think that Roku, Amazon, Google , etc did something untoward because they came after Apple with set top boxes?
    - jhbadger 3y ago
      Well, for historical accuracy, Roku was first in regard to streaming devices you hooked up to your TV. Apple and the rest copied them. And it is pretty much obvious that Microsoft copied Apple (and yes, you can argue that Apple in turn copied PARC). But what makes Amazon copying things different is that they are a marketplace for other people's products and a maker of products themselves. That has an intrinsic conflict of interest.

endisneigh 3y ago

So what? That's how e-commerce works. Why should Amazon be obligated to fill their store with higher priced items compared to their competitors? No one is going to visit a store where every item could be purchased cheaper somewhere else. This is exactly why price match is a thing, because they don't want their costumers soliciting different stores to begin with. The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Hilarious people are complaining about it. Any second-order effects of this are on the actual seller, not Amazon.

mjsweet 3y ago
The market should decide. That’s commerce.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Yes, exactly. These sellers should and can just leave Amazon if they have a problem with it.
  - mjsweet 3y ago
    No, they should be able to set their own pricing as they see fit.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      They are able to do so, but Amazon is not obligated to have them on their platform if they aren't providing the best price to their customers.
      - mjsweet 3y ago
        Amazon is a product search engine and should be treated as such. Vendors must have the freedom to set pricing on any platform as they see fit. If all product search engines and ecommerce platforms behaved in this anticompetitive behaviour then what would we have? A weird commercial landscape that lacks flexibility… in the end the consumer looses because free market forces are not in play.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Amazon is not a product search engine, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. They are a store and describe themselves as such. You cannot find products on Amazon that are not for sale by them or sellers who agree to their rules, an actual product search engine would allow this.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Good luck with that! Amazon is the most powerful product search engine available. I love it and use it almost every day. Amazon will spend a lot of money trying to convince the feds they are otherwise… no amount of lobbying, PR pieces, paid ops and persistent commenting on boards like this one will stop valid questions being asked in hearings. It’s only a matter of time sorry.
kibwen 3y ago
I don't even know where to begin with this comment. Do you know what anticompetitive behavior is? Do you know how markets are supposed to work? Amazon is leveraging their position in the market to unfairly disadvantage their competitors, thereby distorting the market, decreasing its efficiency, and increasing end prices for consumers everywhere. Market-distorting behavior like this is why antitrust regulation is necessary to keep markets functioning efficiently.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Everything you're stating is false. Amazon is trying to do right by its customers, and they are not obligated to let sellers not give their customers the best price available. Sellers are not obligated to sell on Amazon. Your conclusion that this increases end pries for consumers has nothing to do with Amazon, but the sellers themselves.
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    Amazon was already told not to do this for anti-trust reasons, and they promised to oblige. Unless the government, Amazon, and the general public are all incorrect about what constitutes monopolistic behavior, you are. The idea that Amazon is openly defying pro-consumer laws to do right by its customers is absurd.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a shill, lol.
    - ziml77 3y ago
      [flagged]
woooooo 3y ago
Some would say that the way commerce works is sellers can sell anywhere at any price that a buyer wants to pay.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  That's not how commerce works. Commerce works by following the rules of places that you are trying to sell at. You can't sell anything anywhere.
  - ARussell 3y ago
    And Amazon needs to follow the rules and laws of the place that IT'S trying to sell at.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      And which law dictates a company must allow people or sellers on its platform?
      - ARussell 3y ago
        I'm not GP. I didn't make that argument. I agree that Amazon is not obliged to allow just anyone on their platform. Sellers must abide by the rules that Amazon sets in place. At the same time, Amazon must abide by the laws of the locations at which it wants to sell. So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        > So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced goods compared to competitors.
EliRivers 3y ago
The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Yet here we are with sellers WANTING to sell their items at a lower price on places other than Amazon, but if they do, they'll go out of business. That doesn't sound pro-consumer. I'm a consumer. I'd like to be able to buy items for the lowest price the seller wants to offer me. That's not happening in some cases because if they do, Amazon will exclude them and they'll go out of business. Yeah, definitely not pro-consumer. Pro-amazon, sure.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Would Amazon be obligated to list the items regardless? Otherwise just dropping pricing conditions would only help those sellers that Amazon has enough interest to list regardless - for some products the "equilibrium" might not be great.

scarface_74 3y ago

If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?

jhbadger 3y ago
Well, here's a real example. About a decade ago there was a simple video conferencing system called Nautilus. A simple LCD screen that let you call other people with the device and talk to them, not having to bother with computers or smartphones. The sort of thing that is good for talking with elderly relatives who may not be very computer or phone savvy. I bought one (from Amazon) for myself and my elderly parents. It worked well, but a few years later Amazon came out with their Echo Show products which are basically the same thing, which killed the Nautilus. I'm sure it was covered by patents and what not, but you can't protect the idea. Amazon obviously saw that it sold reasonably well and used its power as both a marketplace and a technology company to undercut their own seller.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Really? That’s your example? Everyone and their mother has a video conferencing solution and the idea has been around as something to aspire to since the 60s with the Jetsons . Do you agree with the look and feel lawsuit that Apple had against MS? Or think that Roku, Amazon, Google , etc did something untoward because they came after Apple with set top boxes?
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    Well, for historical accuracy, Roku was first in regard to streaming devices you hooked up to your TV. Apple and the rest copied them. And it is pretty much obvious that Microsoft copied Apple (and yes, you can argue that Apple in turn copied PARC). But what makes Amazon copying things different is that they are a marketplace for other people's products and a maker of products themselves. That has an intrinsic conflict of interest.