4 ms·

> 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

> 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
    Well, if you haven’t been paying attention, the FTC hasn’t exactly been batting 1000 when it came to their lawsuits against BigTech… > It's not that the App Store provides value, it's that PWAs are not a viable alternative. So the App Store doesn’t provide value except for having features that app developers need that provide value?
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > Well, if you haven’t been paying attention, the FTC hasn’t exactly been batting 1000 when it came to their lawsuits against BigTech… Meh, they've been doing decent. The current admin is pushing antitrust in a way that we haven't seen since the early days of the Internet, and I'm excited to see where it goes. The last time the US pushed antitrust this hard we ended up with one of the biggest booms of innovation in the history of the Internet. > So the App Store doesn’t provide value except for having features that app developers need that provide value? By this definition, literally every single monopoly "provides value". Seriously, what's going on here? You're bouncing all over the place. You go from, "Apps can launch PWAs and they just don't because they need easy monetization, and the fact that the App Store provides easy access to predatory monetization schemes is somehow something to be lauded", to "okay, apps can't launch PWAs and that's even more proof that the app store provides value, because restricting APIs to a specific storefront is a value proposition somehow". This is nonsensical. At least now it sounds like we're both finally agreeing that in-app purchases through an Apple ID are not the only reason why PWAs aren't more popular, and there are actually limitations at play here? But also, no, Google and Apple both holding back the web as an app platform is not the same thing as providing value to developers. This is getting silly. If I construct a dam in front of the local river, drain the aquifers, and then starve everyone of water and start selling bottled water for $10 a pop, that doesn't make me an innovator, it makes me a parasite. Which is, again, what everyone has been saying about the companies involved (both Apple and Google, I need to apparently specify that since you have trouble believing that 2 companies can be bad at the same time). When Google and Apple hold back capabilities from the web in order to force developers into unwanted contracts, that is predatory behavior. You started this out by asking why devs don't launch PWAs and positing it was because the app store provided an easy monetization model that was worth 30%. In actuality, the reason is because PWAs can't be used for serious app development regardless of how they monetize. Apple could port the App Store's IAP system fully to the web, and these developers still wouldn't be able to use PWAs. Apple has claimed that they can; Apple has repeatedly made the claim that PWAs are a viable alternative to the app store. But they're lying. Factually, observably lying. PWAs lack critical capabilities that are available to native applications, which makes them a non-serious alternative to the app store. Coincidentally, these are capabilities that Apple and Google are able to hold back because of their collective dominance over the browser space and their use of (in Google's case) default browser placement and anticompetitive promotion which makes Chrome the defacto standard of what is and isn't supported, as well as direct interference with web standards (see Notifications), and in Apple's case by outright blocking capabilities from the iPhone that would neither harm security or privacy (app badges, reliable offline storage, etc...). Which is what everyone has said a dozen times already, and you keep dancing around the point even though you've so far come up with zero arguments against it except to confidently assert over and over that it's all fine. This is a difficult point to get across because you don't seem to have a really concrete idea of what anticompetitive behavior is. Apparently forced bundling, price fixing, vertical integration, etc... don't count in your eyes as anticompetitive behavior. Thankfully, both the FTC and Europe disagree, the current administration has been historically good about antitrust (although there's obviously still a long way to go). And hopefully, the courts will agree as well. Certainly Europe does not appear to be buying the arguments that Apple pushed in American courts, and even in American courts, the renewed interest in going after Google might lead to followup scrutiny of Apple's very similar positions that were dismissed before. ---- But none of this changes anything about your claims: > But they want access not only to Apple’s customers but also to in app purchases so they can use every psychological trick to take advantage of the whales. No, the situation is more complex. It's not only Apple's payment methods that keep people in the store. > Okay, developers can choose on Android. No, they can't. Android has many of the same PWA limitations that iOS does, and Google has gone out of its way to make it hard to access alternative stores and to punish distributors who load alternative stores. This is part of the lawsuit against them. "But what about Google" is not a convincing argument in favor of Apple's behavior. > Local storage is not the answer. Yes, it is part of the answer, consumers expect reliable offline storage in addition to cloud syncing, neither of which are available in a reliable way for PWAs. It's kind of my mistake for allowing you to focus in on local storage so much as well, since the reality is that both local storage and synchronization are borked for PWAs on iOS. So you're wrong that local storage doesn't matter, but also PWA storage would still be broken anyway even if we were only talking about online storage. > Because for the majority of users - they don’t need a separate account because all of their state can either be saved by the app just saving locally and letting iCloud take care of it. No, they can't, not with PWAs. You keep repeating the same things over and over again, and they're just not true. And you can keep looping through them and coming up with new ways to push the same ideas (apparently now Apple and Google holding back the web is evidence for the App Store as a competitive platform? Sure, whatever, that's very convincing /s), but it doesn't change anything about the provably incorrect things you've said to get to this point.

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
  Well, if you haven’t been paying attention, the FTC hasn’t exactly been batting 1000 when it came to their lawsuits against BigTech… > It's not that the App Store provides value, it's that PWAs are not a viable alternative. So the App Store doesn’t provide value except for having features that app developers need that provide value?
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > Well, if you haven’t been paying attention, the FTC hasn’t exactly been batting 1000 when it came to their lawsuits against BigTech… Meh, they've been doing decent. The current admin is pushing antitrust in a way that we haven't seen since the early days of the Internet, and I'm excited to see where it goes. The last time the US pushed antitrust this hard we ended up with one of the biggest booms of innovation in the history of the Internet. > So the App Store doesn’t provide value except for having features that app developers need that provide value? By this definition, literally every single monopoly "provides value". Seriously, what's going on here? You're bouncing all over the place. You go from, "Apps can launch PWAs and they just don't because they need easy monetization, and the fact that the App Store provides easy access to predatory monetization schemes is somehow something to be lauded", to "okay, apps can't launch PWAs and that's even more proof that the app store provides value, because restricting APIs to a specific storefront is a value proposition somehow". This is nonsensical. At least now it sounds like we're both finally agreeing that in-app purchases through an Apple ID are not the only reason why PWAs aren't more popular, and there are actually limitations at play here? But also, no, Google and Apple both holding back the web as an app platform is not the same thing as providing value to developers. This is getting silly. If I construct a dam in front of the local river, drain the aquifers, and then starve everyone of water and start selling bottled water for $10 a pop, that doesn't make me an innovator, it makes me a parasite. Which is, again, what everyone has been saying about the companies involved (both Apple and Google, I need to apparently specify that since you have trouble believing that 2 companies can be bad at the same time). When Google and Apple hold back capabilities from the web in order to force developers into unwanted contracts, that is predatory behavior. You started this out by asking why devs don't launch PWAs and positing it was because the app store provided an easy monetization model that was worth 30%. In actuality, the reason is because PWAs can't be used for serious app development regardless of how they monetize. Apple could port the App Store's IAP system fully to the web, and these developers still wouldn't be able to use PWAs. Apple has claimed that they can; Apple has repeatedly made the claim that PWAs are a viable alternative to the app store. But they're lying. Factually, observably lying. PWAs lack critical capabilities that are available to native applications, which makes them a non-serious alternative to the app store. Coincidentally, these are capabilities that Apple and Google are able to hold back because of their collective dominance over the browser space and their use of (in Google's case) default browser placement and anticompetitive promotion which makes Chrome the defacto standard of what is and isn't supported, as well as direct interference with web standards (see Notifications), and in Apple's case by outright blocking capabilities from the iPhone that would neither harm security or privacy (app badges, reliable offline storage, etc...). Which is what everyone has said a dozen times already, and you keep dancing around the point even though you've so far come up with zero arguments against it except to confidently assert over and over that it's all fine. This is a difficult point to get across because you don't seem to have a really concrete idea of what anticompetitive behavior is. Apparently forced bundling, price fixing, vertical integration, etc... don't count in your eyes as anticompetitive behavior. Thankfully, both the FTC and Europe disagree, the current administration has been historically good about antitrust (although there's obviously still a long way to go). And hopefully, the courts will agree as well. Certainly Europe does not appear to be buying the arguments that Apple pushed in American courts, and even in American courts, the renewed interest in going after Google might lead to followup scrutiny of Apple's very similar positions that were dismissed before. ---- But none of this changes anything about your claims: > But they want access not only to Apple’s customers but also to in app purchases so they can use every psychological trick to take advantage of the whales. No, the situation is more complex. It's not only Apple's payment methods that keep people in the store. > Okay, developers can choose on Android. No, they can't. Android has many of the same PWA limitations that iOS does, and Google has gone out of its way to make it hard to access alternative stores and to punish distributors who load alternative stores. This is part of the lawsuit against them. "But what about Google" is not a convincing argument in favor of Apple's behavior. > Local storage is not the answer. Yes, it is part of the answer, consumers expect reliable offline storage in addition to cloud syncing, neither of which are available in a reliable way for PWAs. It's kind of my mistake for allowing you to focus in on local storage so much as well, since the reality is that both local storage and synchronization are borked for PWAs on iOS. So you're wrong that local storage doesn't matter, but also PWA storage would still be broken anyway even if we were only talking about online storage. > Because for the majority of users - they don’t need a separate account because all of their state can either be saved by the app just saving locally and letting iCloud take care of it. No, they can't, not with PWAs. You keep repeating the same things over and over again, and they're just not true. And you can keep looping through them and coming up with new ways to push the same ideas (apparently now Apple and Google holding back the web is evidence for the App Store as a competitive platform? Sure, whatever, that's very convincing /s), but it doesn't change anything about the provably incorrect things you've said to get to this point.