Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#491

Post by BeetleB »

steveBK123 wrote: post #177
jollofricepeas wrote: post #52

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…

I ran a small FBA business for a year nowhere near any scale and it was an interesting lesson. People who weigh in on these tech topics should actually try these things out to understand them better. It's nothing like listing on eBay where there's some haircut off the top and that's that. There are fees for - accepting inventory, holding inventory, returning unsold inventory, shipping sales, processing returns, destr…

Disclaimer: Former FBA seller here.

> So every time you think you've got just the right size/weight/price balance you get screwed. And where else are you going to go?

You've skirted around the obvious question: Why did you pick FBA to begin with? Amazon sellers existed long before FBA. They did their own shipping, so almost none of those fees apply. Many sellers continue to do well on the Amazon platform while not being part of FBA.

If you can't succeed without participating in FBA, then all that's happened is Amazon created an environment for previously unviable businesses to succeed, and has merely tightened it.

Edit: Amusing that this comment is being downvoted, whereas my other comment saying pretty much the same thing is being upvoted.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#492

Post by thomastjeffery »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #40
AlbertCory wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My prediction (you can check my results): AMZN price will be largely unchanged. There does seem to be some antitrust exposure there: ========= Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bu…

Conditioning sellers’ ability to obtain “Prime” eligibility for their products—a virtual necessity for doing business on Amazon—on sellers using Amazon’s costly fulfillment service Isn't Prime a fulfillment service in this context? How would a seller be Prime eligible without using Amazon fulfillment?

Prime is both a fulfillment service and an exclusive marketplace category.

I do think the FTC should be more direct about prosecuting the vertical integration of Amazon's marketplace, fulfillment, and delivery services.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#493

Post by emodendroket »

criddell wrote: post #5

I wish they would add ebook DRM to the list. Amazon has essentially locked the Kindle so that it can only purchase from Amazon and Amazon ebooks can only be used on the Kindle. On top of that, they offer no way of transferring ebooks and, AFAIK, offer no way to remove DRM after a work enters the public domain.

The Kindle has support for side loading books so I’m not sure how it’s locked to only reading Amazon purchases.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#494

Post by emodendroket »

criddell wrote: post #93
my123 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(disclaimer: Amazon employee) For that one, it's mandated by publishers. There's nothing that can be done for e-readers from vendors that don't support third-party applications. Amazon e-books are accessible on Android and other platforms in addition to Kindle devices. Kindle is also not locked to only ebooks from Amazon, but third-party DRM schemes are not supported. Calibre for example comes with good tooling for t…

> For that one, it's mandated by publishers. I believe the publishers want DRM. I'm not sure they want DRM that effectively locks in their readers to the Amazon ecosystem. I don't believe publishers would be upset if I could directly purchase books from Apple, Google, Kobo, or any other similar vendor directly on the Kindle. Is the audiobook market different? I know Cory Doctorow for one would like to sell his audio…

Nothing prevents you from buying from a different seller and reading the materials on your Kindle, other than the fact those other sellers have their own DRM locking you into their ecosystem instead.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#495

Post by thomastjeffery »

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #191

"anti-discounting tactics" > One set of tactics stifles the ability of rivals to attract shoppers by offering lower prices. Amazon deploys a sophisticated surveillance network of web crawlers that constantly monitor the internet, searching for discounts that might threaten Amazon’s empire. When Amazon detects elsewhere online a product that is cheaper than a seller’s offer for the same product on Amazon, Amazon punis…

Buying your competition is competitive? Bullshit

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#496

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

taeric wrote: post #466
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no need, as the practices are already illegal, and the rules are already built, and the FTC is already filing strong cases like this one the criticism of this latest case, however, reeks of corporate worship from folks that know that Amazon is in the wrong (as the complaint documents)

This is not a strong case, is what a lot of us are asserting. You can disagree there, but realize our disagreement here isn't that Amazon is a good company. It is on the strength of this case. It really feels like one that is being brought more for optics than otherwise. I say this as someone that thought they should have had a strong case against Microsoft buying Activision. And yet, just look how that went. Maybe I…

I understand you are asserting that, and what a lot of us are asserting after reading all the allegations is that it is a strong case

You can disagree, and that's fine, I'm not saying your personal disagreement specifically is support for Amazon, it's just that's the optics of the individuals disagreeing with the case the FTC presented here, for a lot of us, seem to be corporate/capitalism worship and/or personal disagreement with the existing rules and laws against anticompetitive behavior that Amazon clearly violated here (as detailed in the complaint)

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#497

Post by abduhl »

BizarroLand wrote: post #488
BowBun wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a good point, but I think the parent point is true as well. You still have people actually producing work, unable to compete on these platforms where Amazon will literally make a copy of their product at a lower price. This is the result of commoditizing 'starting a business' to the point of near-worthlessness in the bottom 50%+. Like you say, I don't value the businesses that simply re-sell re-labeled produ…

Amazon is basically allowing sellers to carry all the risk while product testing and marketing a product. If it does well enough, Amazon can use the same manufacturer and release a branded "Amazon Basics" version that pops up in the same search for the same product but cheaper as Amazon doesn't have to pay someone else $112 for the listing and warehousing, and the original seller that did all of the actual "work" (as…

What’s the problem here? If you don’t have a durable competitive advantage then you’re going to get eaten up. First movers should not get a license to continue to reap a profit in a competitive market absent real innovation, which would come in the form of reputation (trademark) or technology (patent). Drop shippers who can be displaced by Amazon in the way you discuss have neither. They already made a profit on the front end, so don’t feel bad for them just because they can’t continue to rent-seek.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#498

Post by beckingz »

babypuncher wrote: post #91
jollofricepeas wrote: post #52

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…

what on earth did iOS change that impacts your amazon business?

Privacy. The iOS improvements to privacy with advertiser ID becoming opt-in instead of opt-out has been brutal on targeted advertising.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#499

Post by afavour »

elzbardico wrote: post #201
yomlica8 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently product dumping isn't illegal if you do it on the internet. This wasn't even a fuzzy digital goods or services example either.

Product dumping is not illegal if you have a national newspaper that can be used to target any politician and if you make sure to contribute millions and make sure your employees do the same for the political party in power.

If Bezos were using this Washington Post for this purpose a member of the newsroom would immediately leak it. It would be a career defining story for that journalist.

The fact that we’ve heard nothing strongly suggests it isn’t happening.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#500

Post by lp0_on_fire »

stale2002 wrote: post #322
pixl97 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality is far more complex then the simple take you have here. >by offer better quality stuff, Amazon, for example, offering counterfeits of your product as your product is not under the definition of "better quality stuff" >for a lower price Again, offering a lower price consistently is one thing. Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not.

> Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not. If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing. If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition. Which is the situation we are seeing with amazon.

Selling things at a loss doesn’t mean things are cheap it just means the real costs are being subsidized elsewhere.
Post reply on HN