211–220 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wow... that BB article makes me sad. https://archive.ph/yw3Bv In 2016, they collected 35.2%. In 2022, they collected 51.8% in fee. That's insane.
Depending on what services they provide that might not be terrible, its basically high end art gallery margins, but for consumer products with low margins that seems unsustainable. I'm curious how much AliExpress takes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is limited shelf space. they take the original product off the shelf.
I have never once seen a store that removed the major name brands from the shelves and only offered their own generic brand. You might argue that having generics on the shelves at all means that new small brands have to pay more for placement, but that's not the same thing as stealing product ideas and leaving no other option but the generic version of that thing on the shelves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do on the issue? I don't have a POV on this particular case but it seems reasonable to assume that there are other (reasonable) people that have different values and judgements than you do. Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have
> Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have David vs. Goliath was a story about overcoming subjugation and oppression. A lot of people have been very much put-upon by the metaphorical Goliath here in a number of ways. There are piss bottles available as evidence.
I'm honestly not sure how you could make the case that they aren't maintaining and abusing monopoly power. I mean they literally blatantly copy the designs of other companies who sell on amazon, then put their own results for their own products higher in search results than what they copied off of. It's incredibly blatantly anti-competitive.
Technology, and in particular software, has greatly outpaced the definition of monopolistic power. Amazon and all the other large tech companies wield so much power it is scary. And they can literally just buy into any market they please with hardly any push back.
FBA seller here. A lot of mom and pop businesses (~$20 million) have been built on Amazon over the past 10 years. Most of us are in the $250k to $5 million dollar range. The impact of Amazon’s monopoly power is felt big time by us as we’re being squeezed with no place left to go online especially post-iOS change. Our second option used to be the Facebook/Instagram/TikTok to Shopify connection but with that being dead…
FBA is Fulfillment by Amazon, where you sell things on Amazon and they handle payments and shipping to customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same was true for music once upon a time, but that didn't stop Apple from negotiating for DRM-free with the publishers.
Leverage on music was much bigger because of the position that Apple had at the time, together with CDs not having DRM. That was a unique situation that couldn't be replicated later for video and other media sadly.
So how can you make the case that Amazon doesn't have "leverage" to negotiate DRM-free publishing?
> together with CDs not having DRM
I don't recall printed books ever having any form of "DRM".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I am saying what Amazon is doing is not anticompetitive at all. These “companies” that sell on Amazon are basically glorified trade companies that arbitrage low cost Chinese manufacturing. I don’t feel bad for them at all. If they are hurting so bad, go sell the goods on Shopify store or Walmart/Target. Oh, what’s that? They charge more than Amazon? Interesting…
You're over generalizing. There are plenty of sellers that took the time to develop their own products and sell them, only to be copied and undercut by Amazon.
Every national grocer does this. It seems to be a pretty close analog yet nobody bats an eye at the practice.
Was there a similar action taken against Walmart when they were crushing small and large suppliers alike?
Doesn't seem likely to fully turn around as the next Republican president will likely appoint another toothless chair of the FTC.
Democrat presidents for the foreseeable future will probably be going after big companies more than their predecessors in the 90s and early-2000s did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s strange to call the most prominent view (and the one applied by courts currently) a “peculiar” interpretation. Lina Khan is the one with the “peculiar” view right now. The consumer interest test is preferred because, among other reasons, it is quantitative. Quantitative tests are seen as less able to be abused because some judge has a particular view/vibe. Additionally, the consumer harm test focuses on the cons…
Isn't the issue here short term vs long term consumer interest? It's all fine and dandy for consumers to pay lower prices because company A is eating losses to drive company B out of business but what happens after that.
If dumping actually occurs then the government or competitors can sue and win under the current antitrust laws by showing that consumers are now paying more due to the dumping scheme. Lina Khan’s view militates for prospective suits - suits where no consumer harm has yet occurred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I am saying what Amazon is doing is not anticompetitive at all. These “companies” that sell on Amazon are basically glorified trade companies that arbitrage low cost Chinese manufacturing. I don’t feel bad for them at all. If they are hurting so bad, go sell the goods on Shopify store or Walmart/Target. Oh, what’s that? They charge more than Amazon? Interesting…
You're over generalizing. There are plenty of sellers that took the time to develop their own products and sell them, only to be copied and undercut by Amazon.