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

601–610 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#601

Post by pcchristie »

emodendroket wrote: post #493
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.

Is this new? I specifically went for Kobo years ago because my research told me that Kindle didn't have that capability, and Kobo did. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#602

Post by ToucanLoucan »

22289d wrote: post #594
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can do the hard part, then do all the easy parts and leave amazon out of the equation.

It's always a signal that you're on to something when you get a bunch of pedantic rebuttals like this. Attacking the central argument isn't possible, so they nitpick.

You literally just said that they did the hard part, which is apparently identifying a product that consumers want and cannot buy. The commenter then says: why don't they just do all the apparently easy shit, which is making it, holding the inventory, shipping it, and handling returns/customer service.

Maybe your point just sucks because finding some cheap garbage on AliExpress that you can sell with instagram ads isn't actually all that hard, or that much work, which is probably why this exact business model was sold to people who, as stated by people selling it, had low skills and no interest in acquiring them, so they can generate passive income by operating an automated storefront on Amazon.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#603

Post by nerdponx »

duped wrote: post #446
Justsignedup wrote: post #19

remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling diapers at a loss, which was numbers that diapers.com couldn't compete with given that they didn't have another business to rely on, then forced diapers.com to sell to amazon because they had no other option? And this came out last time they were doing monopolistic inquiries against amazon. Yet.…

The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much about it that the only reason we'd see the government take their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim that her previous advocacy biases the case against them. (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

Apparently there are calls for her recusal on the grounds that she held a critical stance before her current appointment. Which is an odd thing to ask for in my opinion, but I guess it's worth trying if you're on the losing end of this.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#604

Post by influxmoment »

afavour wrote: post #499
elzbardico wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you say career ending moment? I think I misread that. Who wants a former employee and their lawyers targeting your reputation. Do you know anything about what whistleblowers have to go through?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#605

Post by sokoloff »

BeetleB wrote: post #600
sokoloff wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seller Fulfilled Prime is also a thing: https://sell.amazon.com/programs/seller-fulfilled-prime

Did not know about it - is it new? Wonder what additional fees are associated with it.

Launched 2015 (but I think launched with literally 3 fulfillers, then expanded).

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#606

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #598
taeric wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You feel in bad faith here. But sure, lets start looking at the points: Paragraph 1, almost literally: "the early days of the internet were great for competition..." I, uh, don't know what to tell you here. Isn't even really a point. Paragraph 2: Amazon is big. Paragraph 3: Amazon is a monopolist. 4: Amazon's fees can be upwards of half the costs of sellers. This point, finally, could be something. The examples that…

for someone who accused me of bad faith in their first breath, you sure don't seem to be trying hard to accurately represent the specific practices Amazon engaged in as described in the complaint, and lazily misrepresenting them isn't the same as proving that they foster competition rather than stifle it.

Then give me the points you feel are strong! :D Seriously, what are the strong points? I don't expect a full paragraph breakdown, as it is an expectedly boring document. Apologies if my misguided attempt is turning you off. I was honestly amused at how much of the document is naked assertions with no real evidence. (Edit: Specifically, I was amused with how much of the document is essentially "Amazon has gotten worse.")

I would have just gone on the allegations, but they are only done as assertions by design, and you would have to reference back to the paragraphs heavily. (I suppose the 17 allegations from the states could stand on the basis of the other allegations, but that is somewhat circular.)

The points regarding the search getting worse could be promising, maybe. However, I remember all the way back in 2014 that search at Amazon was already laughably bad. And search has been getting worse for everyone, not just Amazon.

The points regarding the buy box show a lack of any consideration to how retail generally works. There is a reason "top shelf" is a thing, and why the top shelf items are both more expensive, and likely sell more.

Preferred seller agreements and best pricing clauses are the norm in retail. By all means, lets get rid of them.

Claims that Amazon has declined in service while raising prices are interesting, but also kind of against the points in question. The services do seem to be declining. And competition outside of Amazon's own site have gotten better. The evidence that they are preventing newcomers feels weak when I consider that I do buy more from non-Amazon today than I bought at all online back in the early days of the internet.

Ironically, there would be a strong case here if only talking about books. But this seems to be specifically excluding books and digital.

So, again, what are the strong points?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#607

Post by patrick451 »

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'm missing some context to understand all of this.

What was the "post-iOS change" and why did this make it difficult to go elsewhere?

Why is Facebook/Instagram/TikTok alternative dead in the water?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#608

Post by CPLX »

duped wrote: post #446
Justsignedup wrote: post #19

remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling diapers at a loss, which was numbers that diapers.com couldn't compete with given that they didn't have another business to rely on, then forced diapers.com to sell to amazon because they had no other option? And this came out last time they were doing monopolistic inquiries against amazon. Yet.…

The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much about it that the only reason we'd see the government take their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim that her previous advocacy biases the case against them. (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

Advocating for a position and then using the strength of your arguments to be placed in a position of public authority through a democratic process is anything but fundamentally legitimate in a way no business will ever be.

Amusing trying to see people claiming the opposite.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#609

Post by ipaddr »

abduhl wrote: post #559
letsdothisagain wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-competitive bit is they have all the sales information that would typically be a trade secret for a company. Go ahead, call up your local 7-11 and ask them what their sales were for the quarter. They'll tell you to fuck off.

But Amazon is the 7-11 (and more)! It is the customer facing part of the business that houses and delivers the beef jerky to the ultimate customer. 7-11 sees that jerky sells, that lots of brands can sell jerky, that consumers don’t seem to care about the brand of jerky as long as it says teriyaki, and so 7-11 now sells 7-11 basics teriyaki jerky. The FBA middlemen are more like traveling salesmen - they take an orde…

But should barr them from selling a line of similar products.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#610

Post by 22289d »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #602
22289d wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always a signal that you're on to something when you get a bunch of pedantic rebuttals like this. Attacking the central argument isn't possible, so they nitpick.

You literally just said that they did the hard part, which is apparently identifying a product that consumers want and cannot buy. The commenter then says: why don't they just do all the apparently easy shit, which is making it, holding the inventory, shipping it, and handling returns/customer service. Maybe your point just sucks because finding some cheap garbage on AliExpress that you can sell with instagram ads is…

They did the unscalable part. That better? Are you happy now? Can you go find something else to nitpick?

> finding some cheap garbage on AliExpress that you can sell with instagram ads isn't actually all that hard

It's very hard. What you're missing are all of the thousands of people who try it and fail. And you see one person succeeding and say that's easy, they're just buying shit from China. No, they combined skill and a lot of luck to find a product in China people want. That's not just ordering shit from China. If it were, Amazon would do it themselves and cut out all of these middleman. Which they can't, because it's not scalable. Which was my original point.

Post reply on HN