4 ms·

As a reminder, both Android and Amazon are being investigated for antitrust, and part of that complaint for Amazon is that they utilized an algorithm called Pro

As a reminder, both Android and Amazon are being investigated for antitrust, and part of that complaint for Amazon is that they utilized an algorithm called Project Nessie to raise prices across the web for consumer goods even on 3rd-party storefronts: https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices... These are maybe not the shining corporate examples you want to compare Apple to.

scarface_74 3y ago
Google is being sued because they sold the idea of “freeduhm” and then changed the terms. There is plenty of precedence for this. This is why they loss thr Epic case and Apple won a similar lawsuit. But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? And before you accuse me of being an Amazon apologist, I’ve mentioned plenty of times that I got Amazoned last year. I have no love loss for the company.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? The FTC put out a blog post going into more detail about their complaints, which go beyond price adjustment to match competitors: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/.... Their full complaint is at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonec... In particular, the FTC is interested in Amazon's pricing requirements which prohibit sellers from offering products at lower prices through other storefronts, its bundling of services like Prime which require sellers to buy unwanted fulfillment services in order to obtain unrelated placements in the Amazon store (and force Prime users to essentially pay twice for shipping if they order products outside of Amazon), and its privileging of discoverability for Amazon's own products and for paid advertisements over products that the FTC alleges Amazon knew were higher quality and better rated than the results it surfaced to customers. The FTC's complaint describes this as a self-reinforcing feedback loop: > Because Amazon suppresses meaningful competition on price and product selection, shoppers lack viable alternatives, further forcing sellers to submit to Amazon’s exclusionary tactics to reach those customers, and further allowing Amazon to accelerate and expand its dominance. Together, Amazon’s conduct blocks off competition, shopper traffic, and seller business in the interrelated relevant markets. In other words, the more that sellers become dependent on Amazon, the more that shoppers become dependent on Amazon since goods and services are not available on other storefronts. This in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon since buyers become even harder to find off-site. Which in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon, and on and on. This has the effect of killing off 3rd-party storefronts since they are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem of trying to attract both sellers and buyers at the same time, and neither group can move off of Amazon individually without suffering financial penalties or losing product placement.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That kind of argues against everything you are saying. Sellers do have a choice today of selling on their own websites. But they get benefits of selling on Amazon. Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce. Tell it to the FTC. Their position is that sellers do not have a choice of whether or not to abandon Amazon, at least not without suffering severe consequences stemming from Amazon's anti-competitive behavior. Go ahead and write them a letter explaining that Amazon has 40% market share if you think they're somehow not aware of that fact. I'm not in charge of who the government sues. --- Look, I'm not here to debate the entirety of antitrust as a concept. You can disagree with the FTC, Amazon obviously does. I'm just telling you that if you compare Apple to other companies that are also being investigated for antitrust, a lot of people are going to say, "yeah, you know what, Apple is like Amazon, which is also an anticompetitive company that uses bundling and abusive seller terms to squash competition while mimicking seller products in-house using seller data and then downranking competing products in search results to steal customers. You're right, Apple is acting like Amazon." You can disagree with antitrust decisions, but you're not arguing from a place of strength when you say that Apple isn't anticompetitive because they're just mimicking [insert anticompetitive company] :) ---- > Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. If this was true, free and Open Source applications or applications that monetized through advertisements exclusively would more often launch as PWAs and avoid the app store. But they don't, because it's not true. There are plenty of applications that don't rely on scammy impulse buys for in-app purchases in order to monetize. They're still on the app store. It's not that the App Store provides value, it's that PWAs are not a viable alternative.
      - scarface_74 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

Google is being sued because they sold the idea of “freeduhm” and then changed the terms. There is plenty of precedence for this. This is why they loss thr Epic case and Apple won a similar lawsuit. But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? And before you accuse me of being an Amazon apologist, I’ve mentioned plenty of times that I got Amazoned last year. I have no love loss for the company.

danShumway 3y ago
> But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? The FTC put out a blog post going into more detail about their complaints, which go beyond price adjustment to match competitors: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/.... Their full complaint is at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonec... In particular, the FTC is interested in Amazon's pricing requirements which prohibit sellers from offering products at lower prices through other storefronts, its bundling of services like Prime which require sellers to buy unwanted fulfillment services in order to obtain unrelated placements in the Amazon store (and force Prime users to essentially pay twice for shipping if they order products outside of Amazon), and its privileging of discoverability for Amazon's own products and for paid advertisements over products that the FTC alleges Amazon knew were higher quality and better rated than the results it surfaced to customers. The FTC's complaint describes this as a self-reinforcing feedback loop: > Because Amazon suppresses meaningful competition on price and product selection, shoppers lack viable alternatives, further forcing sellers to submit to Amazon’s exclusionary tactics to reach those customers, and further allowing Amazon to accelerate and expand its dominance. Together, Amazon’s conduct blocks off competition, shopper traffic, and seller business in the interrelated relevant markets. In other words, the more that sellers become dependent on Amazon, the more that shoppers become dependent on Amazon since goods and services are not available on other storefronts. This in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon since buyers become even harder to find off-site. Which in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon, and on and on. This has the effect of killing off 3rd-party storefronts since they are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem of trying to attract both sellers and buyers at the same time, and neither group can move off of Amazon individually without suffering financial penalties or losing product placement.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That kind of argues against everything you are saying. Sellers do have a choice today of selling on their own websites. But they get benefits of selling on Amazon. Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce. Tell it to the FTC. Their position is that sellers do not have a choice of whether or not to abandon Amazon, at least not without suffering severe consequences stemming from Amazon's anti-competitive behavior. Go ahead and write them a letter explaining that Amazon has 40% market share if you think they're somehow not aware of that fact. I'm not in charge of who the government sues. --- Look, I'm not here to debate the entirety of antitrust as a concept. You can disagree with the FTC, Amazon obviously does. I'm just telling you that if you compare Apple to other companies that are also being investigated for antitrust, a lot of people are going to say, "yeah, you know what, Apple is like Amazon, which is also an anticompetitive company that uses bundling and abusive seller terms to squash competition while mimicking seller products in-house using seller data and then downranking competing products in search results to steal customers. You're right, Apple is acting like Amazon." You can disagree with antitrust decisions, but you're not arguing from a place of strength when you say that Apple isn't anticompetitive because they're just mimicking [insert anticompetitive company] :) ---- > Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. If this was true, free and Open Source applications or applications that monetized through advertisements exclusively would more often launch as PWAs and avoid the app store. But they don't, because it's not true. There are plenty of applications that don't rely on scammy impulse buys for in-app purchases in order to monetize. They're still on the app store. It's not that the App Store provides value, it's that PWAs are not a viable alternative.
    - scarface_74 3y ago