3 ms·
Wal-Mart has rarely been a terrible company to it's customers, same with Amazon. But the customer is only part of the ecological equation. You can be great to
by modfodder 14y ago
Wal-Mart has rarely been a terrible company to it's customers, same with Amazon. But the customer is only part of the ecological equation. You can be great to the customers but destroy the whole ecosystem. This is what happens with companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon.
Wal-Mart didn't start out destructive. They become destructive once they were large enough to bend the manufacturing companies to their will. Amazon has and is doing the same. And once again, like Wal-Mart before it, the destruction is only seen in the aftermath. I've shopped at Wal-Mart. It's convenient and cheap, the same reason I still shop at Amazon (convenience trumps morality for me many times, as it does for a lot of people). But what you can end up with are corporations that employ a scorched earth policy and will design their business to make little or no money so they can outlive the competitors.
And what happens when they win? Have you ever driven through a small town and seen a vacant Wal-Mart building? I have. They end up destroying the market and then leaving because they know people have no choice but to drive 30-45min to the Super Wal-Mart in the next town. Pure capitalism can easily become parasitic and will kill of the host then move to another.
The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business.
The ideal outcome to all this would be for Amazon to remake publishing into a market where the bulk of the profits go to the author/creator. That would be great to see. But don't think for a second that what Amazon is doing to the publishers, they won't also do to the authors when the time comes. And if there is one (or two) dominant ebook reader(s), that is exactly what will happen. But in your eyes that would be alright because Amazon is making it cheaper for the customer.
- Lewisham 14y agoThe idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business. You read what you wanted to read in that statement, not what I meant. What I meant was: big online companies are vulnerable in a way big offline companies are not. Of course I am not suggesting that Mom and Pop small business is easy. It's not, it's incredibly hard. That's one of the reasons why big offline companies are able to destroy the markets they move in to. It's no mistake that just a week or so ago pg was asking for applications to YC to disrupt Amazon. pg doesn't fund things he doesn't think have a chance of winning.
- modfodder 14y agoYes, you are correct, I read that differently than you intended. My apologies. Online companies typically are more susceptible to competition. But in Amazon's case, they don't have real competition for the same reason Wal-Mart didn't for so many years, they have the economic power to sell at a loss and/or force their suppliers to sell at little to no profit until their competition withers away. The odds of beating Amazon as a new start-up are about as slim as any rigged casino game. PG will fund it because the payout would be huge, not because the odds are good (imho, as I'm not in the mind of PG).