ikeboy

169 ms·

841.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The problem is many brands want to have it both ways. Give special discounts to some stores, but have it not affect any other channels. They want the freedom to price discriminate however they want with zero channel conflict, and this doesn
842.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You keep asserting that with no evidence. We can flip this around. If as a brand, you've built a revenue stream that can't be sustained without commiting crimes you don't have a defendable business or any skills.
843.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It used to be harder requiring 10k in purchases, now it's just 10 units. You need from a legit distributor, not a store or a liquidator.
844.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There are some sellers that are scammers, and there are some brands that are scumbags and will lie and commit wire fraud (which is a crime, although unlikely to be prosecuted when it's a big company doing it to a small one) to get rid
845.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It takes effort to segregate products like that, and Amazon doesn't want to put in that effort. For most brands the approval decision is across the entire brand, not individual items. On a handful of items they do have item specific ap
846.
by ikeboy 7y ago
How are sellers the problem here? Brands committing crimes that lead to lawsuits are the issue.
847.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Sure, but simply raising prices doesn't have that same effect.
848.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Yes, Amazon is doing a lot of the same things that Walmart did back in the day.
849.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's a handful of suits out there by Amazon sellers against brands for similar behavior. Here's a list I put together a few months ago: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6742774/abg-prime-group...
850.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That's what happens when Amazon has a monopoly. Many customers will only look on Amazon and won't buy anywhere else.
851.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Nope. Plenty of brands have sued sellers, but few get that kind of treatment. Otterbox, Skullcandy, Standard Process, Popsocket, ecobee, The Noco Company, Prevagen, Rainbow Light have all sued Amazon sellers.
852.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Apple has been hard-restricted for a year. The FTC is investigating the Apple-Amazon deal for antitrust concerns.
853.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>. Included in this move are DVDs and Apple products, which now require similar approval processes to move forward. This is incorrect. You can get approval in DVDs pretty easily if you have invoices from a distributor. It's effectiv
854.
Real-world measurements: structured-lattices and supersingular isogenies in TLS(imperialviolet.org)
2 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
855.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This. And also send DMCA notices to the websites hosting it, should be able to get everything removed fairly quickly.
856.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Looking at att in particular, they settle most of their cases. https://levelplayingfield.io/party/non-consumer-att
857.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I'd imagine there's virtually no cases of consumers and businesses voluntarily using arbitration when there was no contractual agreement. Both sides need to agree to use arbitration. I can dig through the data in a bit: they have
858.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://levelplayingfield.io/ For 2015, it shows the majority of cases settle, about 3k out of 5k. Out of the remaining, more than half get some kind of award.
859.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://levelplayingfield.io/ For 2015, it shows the majority of cases settle, about 3k out of 5k. Out of the remaining, more than half get some kind of award. But reporting this data goes against the NYTimes narrative so t
860.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Arbitration is cheaper for both parties than court, in general.
861.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Unilaterally is not an accurate description. Your link has exactly one relevant sentence: >Roughly two-thirds of consumers contesting credit card fraud, fees or costly loans received no monetary awards in arbitration, according to The Ti
862.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Why do you think so? Not what the data shows.
863.
by ikeboy 7y ago
So it gets moved to arbitration. If anything, it will move quicker and cost him less than a court case would.
864.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I ran a business buying products wholesale and selling on Amazon. Did about 2 million in sales last year at around 20% margins. We were then attacked by competition and shut down, leading us to sue in federal court. See Thimes Solutions Inc
865.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No, anything with an expiration date is ineligible for commingling.
866.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This is incorrect. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200141480 explicitly stated that they track which seller it comes from. They don't need to label each product, they just need to know
867.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No, they are very capable of tracing it back. See https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200141480 See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21244240 , https://news.
868.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's no commingling for food or any other products with expiration dates.
869.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Products that expire are not eligible for commingling, period. See https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200141480
870.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It's not clear. The tools are kept secret to avoid patching. But presumably they reverse engineered it and have a way to capture the raw stream. I know at one point they were using Roku TVs or Fire TVs which allowed an older DRM standa

More ›