91–100 of 116 posts
If there isn't a law that bans marketplaces from competing against the vendors that operate on that marketplace, then there should be one.
Why should that be banned when it benefits consumers?
How would one prove that the consumer benefits? The in-house brand will immediately be featured more on search results than the vendor brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon has a near-monopoly at this point on online retail in the USA, mostly owing to their logistics network and ability to deliver so easily combined with the one stop shop advantage.
Being good at something does not make you a monopoly. They are not actively blocking other online retail platforms. This is not a statement to defend Amazon but the fact that I prefer Amazon for its features (like same day delivery) is just plain capitalism. The customers have a choice to buy from a retailer they prefer and the important thing is that I still have an option to choose where I make my purchases.
At least with Amazon I know I'm actually getting it in 2 days or they'll give me a refund (and often times still give me the product too).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monopoly power does not require a literal monopoly. Straight from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power I'd say Amazon has "significant and durable market power"
What does that mean? Does Microsoft have that with Windows? Intel with x86? Apple with phones? What is the scale of those words?
A lot of the beef with Amazon seems to be "welcome to retail". I don't think Walmart even has third-party logistics for its stores -- or if it does it's of the "hire contractors and squeeze them hard" variety. Personally I've found the customer experience of non-FBA merchants on amazon is often pretty bad: long shipping times and weird return policies. This gets at a sort of core problem with this: where is the line…
Amazon's retail arm isn't the grounds of anti-trust action. Their ownership of AWS, Twitch, MGM, Gaming studios, windfarms, lenders are problems. If they want to be an retail giant, that's fine, but they shouldn't be producing and selling games & movies as well. They need to pick a lane and spin off unrelated entities that only exist because of Amazon's dominance in retail. Their expansion into all of these market se…
Similarly, I have seen a lot of complaints that amazon charges for ad space in the search, and you therefore need to pay to get out of page two. This, again, is widely practiced in retail. The cereal aisle doesn't look like it does because the store manager is making it up, general mills and post rent the space and decide how to arrange their sections. New retail products need to explicitly or implicitly pay for placement: either with cash or with free / discounted product.
How about fake reviews? That's a whole industry deceiving people with Amazon's blessing. I can't even fathom the economic impact of the practice over the years. And another one: Amazon Basics. Free market research with the data from your paying sellers, to then enter a market with a product you know will sell, in a position of dominance. Much like they do with open source in AWS. They should get hit with billions, bu…
> Free market research with the data from your paying sellers, to then enter a market with a product you know will sell, in a position of dominance. But these are the things that are pro-competitive. So now they make batteries. They're not putting Energizer out of business, they can still sell through Walmart or local convenience stores etc., and some customers still buy Energizer batteries on Amazon, but now custome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unreasonably exert power to lessen competition. The unreasonable part is where the monopoly power comes in. Companies lessening competition happens all the time, it’s the monopoly aspect that triggers antitrust.
Monopoly power does not require a literal monopoly. Straight from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power I'd say Amazon has "significant and durable market power"
article - https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/11/...
They are more rigorously enforcing laws against unfair practices, monopoly or not.
"Unfair methods of competition, the policy statement explains, are tactics that seek to gain an advantage while avoiding competing on the merits, and that tend to reduce competition in the market."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon has a near-monopoly at this point on online retail in the USA, mostly owing to their logistics network and ability to deliver so easily combined with the one stop shop advantage.
“Amazon had 38% of online retail market share”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon has a near-monopoly at this point on online retail in the USA, mostly owing to their logistics network and ability to deliver so easily combined with the one stop shop advantage.
Being good at something does not make you a monopoly. They are not actively blocking other online retail platforms. This is not a statement to defend Amazon but the fact that I prefer Amazon for its features (like same day delivery) is just plain capitalism. The customers have a choice to buy from a retailer they prefer and the important thing is that I still have an option to choose where I make my purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should regulate Amazon, and we cannot regulate Temu, we ban it. Then we're back to the trade war. The tit-for-tat from that became ridiculous.
We are not back in the trade war. We always IN the trade war. Look up how many things are banned in China while their companies like Tencent/Tiktok/ Aliexpress/Temu just do whatever they want here. The question has and will always been, so what are you gonna do about it?