111–120 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: once the taxi industry has died what makes you believe that Uber won't implement similar policies?
I can ask a similar question: What makes you think that Uber can destroy/prevent the system/model that disrupts another (future) unfair market that it benefitted from? I don't think that Uber is a good example in the original context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is more freedom in Amazon. I have a friend who has been an online merchant for many years selling through their own website, Ebay, and Amazon. I suspect they would burst out laughing, fall down, and start rolling around on the ground in hysterics if I repeated that to him.
Did you even read what I wrote before that? It was comparing it to Walmart
I think I can generalize that the problem with Amazon is similar to many of the modern tech companies in that they're super well funded and aren't expected to make a profit which allows them to undercut incumbents. Amazon can price lower than Target/Wallmart/B&N/Local Stores, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies. Uber can price lower than local taxis, lose money every year while the competition slo…
How we actually define a company to be a monopoly seems to be somewhat arbitrary? I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? I mean every company can affect that, at what point does it become problematic?
> I'm not sure that it can control prices Amazon very often competes directly with sellers on the Marketplace, and often undercuts them on price. There are products they sell below the purchase cost, sometimes below manufacturing cost. You can't compete with that unless you have piles of money to burn. They sell at a loss until they shake everyone loose from a product, then dominate all sales of that products on the…
being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exclusionary conduct. Exclusionary conduct includes things like predatory pricing, exclusive agreements, refusing to deal with a company, most-favored nation clauses, designing your product or service in a way that exclud…
And what about Alphabet?
All of these companies (Amazon, Alphabet/Google, Facebook, etc) are very fortunate that the others exist because every single goddamn time anybody criticizes one, somebody will try to derail the discussion with "well what about [one of the others]?" They all suck. Stop trying to use one to justify another.
I wish this elaborated more on how Amazon is a monopoly. The interviewee defines it as having the power to set prices and exclude competition. I don’t see either of those happening. There’s a ton of competition, more than enough to severely limit their ability to set prices.
The the sellers on amazon are customers of their marketplace. Much like Colgate and Crest might fight over ideal shelf space in a supermarket (and be changed accordingly by the market), the sellers on amazon must pay the price to be on amazon. Amazon has the power to set prices of appearing in their marketplace, where, and for what keywords. Amazon is also now selling their own merchandise on those same (digital) shelves. There are few alternatives to amazon for online retailers. So, to reach customers, many retailers must use amazon, despite the rent-collection they do. The next marketplace for online retail is walmart.com, which, and lets be honest, when was the last time any of us went to walmart.com...
being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exclusionary conduct. Exclusionary conduct includes things like predatory pricing, exclusive agreements, refusing to deal with a company, most-favored nation clauses, designing your product or service in a way that exclud…
>Apple guilty of refusing to deal with certain companies
Apple does not have anywhere near a monopoly in any of the markets they are in [+], hence the anti-trust rules do not apply to them. By contrast these rules do apply to Microsoft and Google, for example.
[+] in the eyes of the law monopoly means control of a market, and market is comprised of interchangeable goods. In this case iPhones and Androids are interchangeable - a consumer is free to buy a Samsung or an Apple phone and neither company is running the risk of excluding the other. Hence the consumer is in no danger of being deprived of choice, and there is no monopoly.
The biggest problem is `agreements that restrain trade` is a monopoly practice that happens across the board. They're a black box AND have tiny support systems for their marketplace.
One recent example. A client was on track to be selling $X-million this year of some appliances. Our client was forced to to stop selling because of trump tariffs. Amazon won't accept a "higher price" from our little company that only sells $Xm/year. I guarantee they're talking everyday to the teams at frigidaire/honeywell/GE/etc.
If their systems would transparent this wouldn't be a problem but their algorithms have blackbox variables for the big brands.