4 ms·

So what is iRobot’s bankruptcy evidence of?

sealeck 1y ago
That if Amazon acquired it, this would enable it to horizontally integrate and take control of yet another market? This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...
- bryant 1y ago
  > This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers... What incentive would Amazon have to drop prices after vertical integration is done?
  - tomrod 1y ago
    Economies of scope are the common claim.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      No, that's what lowers Amazon's costs. Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?
      - dgfitz 1y ago
        Are you asking about supply and demand?
        roughly 1y ago
        I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.
        tomrod 1y ago
        *shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.
        margalabargala 1y ago
        The context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        Spooky23 1y ago
        With respect to Amazon? Give us all a break.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    This is sarcasm, right? The “eventually,” the ellipses, and the underlying ridiculousness lead me to believe it is sarcasm.
    - sealeck 1y ago
      Yes
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
CamperBob2 1y ago
Evidence that you can only coast for so long on patents. Eventually you have to get back to work and provide value to customers.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  And also that the patents matter only if your competitors are actually bound by them. If not (China) then there is zero value in them.
conscion 1y ago
That Amazon wasn't acquiring it for it's business acumen and was actually acquiring it for some secondary purpose (i.e. market consolidation, data extraction)
klooney 1y ago
The fact that Chinese dominance in the world of atoms made its position untenable.

That if Amazon acquired it, this would enable it to horizontally integrate and take control of yet another market? This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...

bryant 1y ago
> This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers... What incentive would Amazon have to drop prices after vertical integration is done?
- tomrod 1y ago
  Economies of scope are the common claim.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    No, that's what lowers Amazon's costs. Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      Are you asking about supply and demand?
      - roughly 1y ago
        I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.
        tomrod 1y ago
        *shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        The context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Spooky23 1y ago
        With respect to Amazon? Give us all a break.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  This is sarcasm, right? The “eventually,” the ellipses, and the underlying ridiculousness lead me to believe it is sarcasm.
  - sealeck 1y ago
    Yes
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

CamperBob2 1y ago

Evidence that you can only coast for so long on patents. Eventually you have to get back to work and provide value to customers.

bornfreddy 1y ago
And also that the patents matter only if your competitors are actually bound by them. If not (China) then there is zero value in them.

conscion 1y ago

That Amazon wasn't acquiring it for it's business acumen and was actually acquiring it for some secondary purpose (i.e. market consolidation, data extraction)

klooney 1y ago

The fact that Chinese dominance in the world of atoms made its position untenable.