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

501–510 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#501

Post by svpk »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #474
steveBK123 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. My point is that people only casually familiar don't realize how vertically integrated the FBA model is. FBA is like eBay, PayPal, FedEx, Google Ads and a warehouse all wrapped into one. But they charge you varying types of fees based on different measures, at different times, for each of those parts of the stack. And you cannot cross shop, mixing and matching other vendors in to keep them honest on pricing.…

Why shouldn't they? You've arranged to have product you didn't create shipped to a warehouse you don't operate to be stored by a system you don't maintain to be sold on a storefront under a brand you made up and that you didn't create to be fulfilled by a shipping apparatus instead of you going to the UPS Store. What exactly are YOU doing here that merits a payday? Mediating a relationship between Amazon and a Chines…

If it's legal they should do it because it's evidently profitable. If it's not legal then they shouldn't do it because it's illegal. Which is really the question at hand.

You're criticism seems to be grounded in a distaste for the kind of business being done (and I think it's quite fair to be critical of the business model based on cheap Chinese labor). But that's not really relevant to the question of did Amazon utilize anti-competitive behavior that violates the laws that govern how businesses are allowed to behave.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#502

Post by joe_the_user »

runako wrote: post #188

Without engaging the merits of this particular case, I do think there is an interesting takeaway about which companies wield even more power than Amazon (and Big Tech more generally, since Google and Meta are also discussed as likely targets of similar suits). Notably: health insurers. They're an oligopoly whose revenues total something like 4% of US GDP. They engage in anticompetitive practices, and the end result i…

Much as I might see health insurers and private medical companies in general as often bad actors, I don't think "more competition" is at all a reasonable suggestion for any part of the health sector. Health insurance companies naturally need to be regulated - just one reason among many is that anyone could take people's money, pay claims for a bit and then vanish with money paid to shareholders who aren't liable for the scam. And once you have an industry, health care, that must have detailed state regulation, the only solution is nationalizing the industry, as medicine is nationalized in most civilized industrial nations.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#503

Post by reilly3000 »

vagabund wrote: post #301
reilly3000 wrote: post #119

Even if this action turns out to be toothless, it should still go a long way to shape public perception. I cancelled Prime 3 years ago and really haven’t looked back. I simply shop elsewhere, and between Target and eBay I don’t miss a thing. The Echos got unplugged, the AWS certs didn’t get renewed, their music service got canceled. I am all out and I hope others will do the same. For me this was driven by their anti…

I don't know, your easy access to alternatives that've let you not "look back" kind of undermines the argument that they wield monopolist power, doesn't it? And should FTC suits really be vehicles for shaping public perception, even if, as you suggest, the claims are either not defensible or don't constitute violations?

The fact that competition exists does not mean that AMZN isn’t engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. FTC should be consistently enforcing law in their domain i.e. The Sherman act of 1890 and others.

“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

Public perception isn’t their motive, I’m just cheering for it. Moreover I’m glad that antitrust enforcement has ramped up of late. I wish it had started sooner, I believe we would have a healthier internet ecosystem if that was the case.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#504

Post by omnimus »

notyourwork wrote: post #472
mrraj wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Bloomberg article : "Chuck Gregorich, who sells fire pits and outdoor furniture, says turning a profit on Amazon is getting harder. One of his popular fire pits costs $200, of which Amazon takes $112 for its commission, warehouse storage, delivery and advertising. That leaves him with $88 to pay the manufacturer, ship the product in from China and cover his overhead." I have a hard time sympathizing here. Th…

Ding ding ding. Middlemen get squeezed and are mad about it would be equally fair headline here.

Amazon is also the middlemen.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#505

Post by agentgumshoe »

BeetleB wrote: post #491
steveBK123 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

I think a more obvious question is how are Amazon making this possible if it's not profitable otherwise?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#506

Post by shopifyeocks »

adamsb6 wrote: post #350
shopifyeocks wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s do you mean exactly about the Shopify tiktok Facebook connection being dead?

Probably that Apple's privacy changes made those advertising channels far less effective.

Thanks yes I reread the comment and that sounds most likely

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#507

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #496
taeric wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dis…

I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you think these claims are strong. Especially with the backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, these feel weak. It sucks that the only real commentary out right now is the expected appeals online.

So, we'll see. Hopefully quickly.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#508

Post by whiddershins »

I don’t understand this point:

>>> For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible. >>>

This means if Amazon sees a lower price elsewhere they effectively make the product unavailable on their site? Or is it more complicated than that.

On the face of it, while I am open to the stance this is monopolistic, I can naively understand why Amazon wouldn’t want to offer a product at a price that isn’t competitive.

I’m sure there’s more to it, can someone explain?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#509

Post by BeetleB »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #505
BeetleB wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

I think a more obvious question is how are Amazon making this possible if it's not profitable otherwise?

Amazon gets to negotiate good shipping rates, and has larger economies of scale than a regular business can achieve.

In general, cost per unit is cheaper if you have more volume.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#510

Post by babypuncher »

beckingz wrote: post #498
babypuncher wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sounds like a good thing to me
Post reply on HN