Isn't this functionally saying that Amazon is outbidding other products for ads on its own platform?
Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
181–190 of 232 posts
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Add to this the fact that a lot of these brands don’t even manufacture their items in the first place: they source manufacturers and slap their logo and marketing on, then markup the item price. Does that really add value? In some cases the private label even uses the same manufacturers, the people producing the product still get paid in the end.
The value in those private label items is sometimes the aesthetic is more appealing. One example: the pattern on a textile such as a curtain or blanket, or the colors/patterns on casing for an electronics item. There are considerations people have that are above and beyond the purely utilitarian.
Yea in those cases I agree that they do have more involvement than slapping a logo on. That's the case of sunglasses and luxottica: companies are selling a design/logo which is the distinguishing factor, and the manufacturer is simply building it. On the opposite end is where a manufacturer of pasta/salt/milk puts the exact same product in boxes with different labels.
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why I said they "are not arranging those products in relation to a particular request." But they are, which is what you're missing. Again, these stores spend millions and millions of dollars collecting these requests and arranging their store in response. They collect feedback and rearrange the shelves nearly every day based on requests (which can be actual verbal/written requests on their website or to stor…
I'm with you as far as generic categories go. Going to the cheese and dairy section in a supermarket is very similar to going to the Amazon cheese and dairy (and eggs) section[1]. Stores maximizing the revenue they receive from their average customer, which they do quite aggressively as you note, feels very different from what Amazon is doing. >the store has arranged their aisle in such a way that influences which ch…
How often have you been in a pharmacy and seen the generic CVS brand on both ends of the aisle before seeing the pharma brand? There's a lot of people working on making that 100% without violating their contracts with their suppliers
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#184I don’t see what’s wrong with this. Many retailers reserve some of their best shelves paces for their private label products, both as a form of differentiation and to extract higher margins. You could argue that Amazon is unique in that it is large and potentially has a monopoly over eCommerce, but it is hard to say that in the end, consumers are on the loosing end. Most amazon basic products are commodities, and pri…
How predictable: someone on HN thinks that if something makes money, it must be okay!
Why bring a product to market at all if Amazon will just position their own version of your product in front of yours as soon as you have any success? This stifles innovation.
How could you possibly think that it doesn't harm consumers when products are sorted by "Whether or not Amazon makes it" rather than something users care about, like quality or price?
> Should amazon jack up the price, consumers will just switch to another whitelabel/run of the mill variant from another seller.
Sure, but now you're putting the burden of finding those other variants onto the user--this is a problem which marketplaces like Amazon are supposed to solve, not complicate.
> It will be problematic if amazon dumps on the market and drives theirs party sellers out of existence, but I don’t think that is the case here.
Oh, well as long as you don't think it, it must not be true!
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The antitrust case was about Microsoft using their control of the OS to push users to use Microsoft's browser. The issue wasn't that Microsoft gave away IE for free. Netscape gave away Navigator for free, too. The issue was that Microsoft tried to "leverage" Windows to increase IE's market share.
Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well. Microsoft tried to use their monopoly as the supplier of one piece of software (the OS) to distort the market for another piece of software (the browser). Netscape did not give Navigator away to PC builders for free originally; selling volume licenses was the…
I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it.
Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced.
Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle?
Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the distribution, not about barriers to the installation of Netscape.
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well. Microsoft tried to use their monopoly as the supplier of one piece of software (the OS) to distort the market for another piece of software (the browser). Netscape did not give Navigator away to PC builders for free originally; selling volume licenses was the…
I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the di…
Sure, that may be true. And Microsoft also engaged in anticompetitive behavior. The behavior is still illegal, whether or not Netscape crashed.
If Microsoft had competed and won on technical merit and/or marketing, that would have been fine. But they didn't.
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the di…
Sure, that may be true. And Microsoft also engaged in anticompetitive behavior. The behavior is still illegal, whether or not Netscape crashed. If Microsoft had competed and won on technical merit and/or marketing, that would have been fine. But they didn't.
My point is that Netscape was uncompetitive due to it being nearly useless from constantly crashing. Blaming Microsoft is misplaced.
Today I still have IE on my machine, but I never use it, because Chrome causes fewer problems. Having it sit on the machine does no harm, and doesn't bother me.
That anti-trust battle was the first in history where it was a dispute between one free product and another free product. Nobody ever demonstrated any harm to consumers at all. That was never even an issue at trial. Nobody ever demonstrated that Netscape couldn't be installed.
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why I said they "are not arranging those products in relation to a particular request." But they are, which is what you're missing. Again, these stores spend millions and millions of dollars collecting these requests and arranging their store in response. They collect feedback and rearrange the shelves nearly every day based on requests (which can be actual verbal/written requests on their website or to stor…
I'm with you as far as generic categories go. Going to the cheese and dairy section in a supermarket is very similar to going to the Amazon cheese and dairy (and eggs) section[1]. Stores maximizing the revenue they receive from their average customer, which they do quite aggressively as you note, feels very different from what Amazon is doing. >the store has arranged their aisle in such a way that influences which ch…
You're basically saying that because Amazon has better agility, and can effectively rearrange their "shelves" faster than Target can (Amazon can rearrange them between every customer, whereas Target can only do it maybe once a day), Amazon should be punished for that? I just don't really see why or how that makes a difference.
To extend it again to the grocery store example, if I walk into a Target and ask the customer service person for their recommendation for some crackers, and they walk over to the Cracker aisle and point directly at the Target brand crackers instead of the Nabisco ones, are you saying that's problematic?
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#189Since Amazon.com is a free product, they need to make money in other ways such as inserting ads or adding their own brands to the top of product searches.
Now if only they were able to charge money for their services then maybe they would need to do this, or maybe they could even come up with a monthly subscription program for anybody visiting their website...
Re: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, that may be true. And Microsoft also engaged in anticompetitive behavior. The behavior is still illegal, whether or not Netscape crashed. If Microsoft had competed and won on technical merit and/or marketing, that would have been fine. But they didn't.
My point is that Netscape was uncompetitive due to it being nearly useless from constantly crashing. Blaming Microsoft is misplaced. Today I still have IE on my machine, but I never use it, because Chrome causes fewer problems. Having it sit on the machine does no harm, and doesn't bother me. That anti-trust battle was the first in history where it was a dispute between one free product and another free product. Nobo…
None of that makes Microsoft's behavior more legal. So what are you arguing endlessly about?