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

801–810 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#801

Post by SkyPuncher »

mrraj wrote: post #444
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…

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…

I'm not supporting Amazon here, but I'd love to know what Chuck thinks his costs would be when he brings this all in house?

It seems like he's expecting some sort of crazy margins selling a commodity.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#802

Post by __alexs »

selcuka wrote: post #661
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to. They could get their own distribution channel. Distribution is a thing, you can't just complain that you don't have it for free.

That's literally the meaning of being a monopoly: There are no other distribution channels that can compete with Amazon. They are a distribution monopoly.

The existence of Shopify seems to contradict this. There are tons of successful Shopify stores that use non-Amazon distribution services.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#803

Post by edgyquant »

kiney wrote: post #781
ihaveajob wrote: post #82

In my opinion, Amazon needs to be split into at least 4 independent entities: - Online marketplace - Consumer products - Internet infrastructure - Delivery logistics Similar to the three-tier distribution system for beer in most states (a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer). This makes it easier for smaller players can compete with the big ones on quality at least, if not price or recognition. (Edit: format)

As someone living in germany: We don't have a three tier system. But we have literally thousands of breweries selling better beer at waaay lower prices than in the US. So your three tier systems sucks...

> we have literally thousands of breweries selling better beer

This may have been true a decade ago, but today there is an entire microbrewery scene in the US where there are hundreds of them inside individual states. Better is subjective, sure, but any kind of beer you get in Germany you will find a few dozen US microbreweries making the same.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#804

Post by gmd63 »

BizarroLand wrote: post #530
highwaylights wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the argument is that drop-shippers aren’t really producing any value. It’s not like they’re putting banners over their product pics saying “hey, you know you can buy this exact same product for like half the price on alibaba if you’re willing to wait a couple more weeks for it right?”. I don’t like Amazon consolidating this much power either but if they can push you out of your business that easily you weren…

Show me a business that Amazon couldn't destroy just for kicks. Also, it's not like you have any choices. If you manufacture your products yourself, you have to fund a massive venture to handle the workload. If you outsource the products, then the companies you pay to manufacture your stuff can easily make knockoffs and then let drop shippers undercut you with inferior versions of your own products. Look at a lot of…

We're reaching the point in the economy where racing to the lowest cost, such as Temu, comes with great damage to the world. It's spyware that collects data on the american consumer across applications, and the products are made with illegal forced labor.

If people keep choosing to reward dishonest cheaters and criminals just to get something for lower cost, we are not in a good place. And either cheating or disguising the true nature of your company is becoming the easiest way to stand out in a commoditized world.

More important than how you vote is how you buy.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#805

Post by edgyquant »

kortilla wrote: post #643
ihaveajob wrote: post #82

In my opinion, Amazon needs to be split into at least 4 independent entities: - Online marketplace - Consumer products - Internet infrastructure - Delivery logistics Similar to the three-tier distribution system for beer in most states (a brewer cannot be a wholesaler or a retailer). This makes it easier for smaller players can compete with the big ones on quality at least, if not price or recognition. (Edit: format)

Vertical integration is fine as long as there are competitors at each layer.

No it isn’t. Integrations, both vertical and horizontal, should be discouraged and companies should do one thing and do it well

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#807

Post by mbreese »

callalex wrote: post #732
lostapathy wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon now has special search tools for buying fasteners that make it easier to find exactly what you need Easier but they are no McMaster, by a long shot.

I have a lot of friends in the manufacturing business that range from self-employed to military-backed conglomerates. None of them use this tool. Are they all Luddite idiots, or is this Amazon search tool, backed by their swiss-cheese supply chain, just not that useful?

I used the Amazon tool recently to get a very particular type of screw. It was really easy to find exactly what I wanted.

Then I still got the wrong part delivered. It doesn’t matter how great the selection tool is, the rule is always: garbage in, garbage out.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#808

Post by gmd63 »

anjel wrote: post #673
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…

Those fullfillment fees are nothing new. I worked for a publisher thirty years ago and they had a similar network of fees. The only difference was they were predictable in that the fee schedule changed only at time of contract renewal. Whats different is that the fulfillment centers then couldn't see our books and weren't looking over our shoulder seeing our accounting figures, so as to grab the profits the moment it…

The nature of Uber being easy and profitable in the beginning was a heinous dishonest trap engineered by venture capitalist subsidizers.

It should be illegal to convince people economically that a certain lifestyle is worth switching to when you are keeping secret your plan to slowly boil the ocean tweaking it so that you can get your exit.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#809

Post by seanmcdirmid »

notatoad wrote: post #743
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They farm out manufacturing to China, but if they designed the products, this isn’t very different from having Foxconn assemble iPhones. But of course, now the Chinese manufacturer could sell their design directly and undercut them, since they aren’t Apple. If they are using a design from the manufacturer, I have no sympathy for them. They are just trying to make money by adding some marketing and connecting dots tog…

https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/DA1BA85C-60B5-4150-B030-A... a quick google search turns up this store. whether they designed these firepits themselves or it's a catalog design from a chinese seller, i don't think it's really fair to compare it to an iPhone. and given the sheer number of designs in his store, i think it's a fairly safe bet that they're reselling catalog products from chinese sellers.

Either they are selling someone else’s design, or someone else is also selling their design.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#810

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #797
taeric wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, I'd like a meaningful rebuttal of the actual behaviors and why they foster competition vs. stifling it. I've already listed one (Amazon penalizing suppliers for listing lower prices elsewhere). Again, pretty clearly anticompetitive. Your excuses of "so and so did it too" are meaningless, as are any slippery slope fallacies, as are your personal anecdotes and observations (the latter of which, no fault to yo…

My main rebuttal is largely that Amazon has been going to shit, oddly.

They claim that search is getting worse on Amazon. And that the old "organic search results" are worse now. I agree it is getting worse. I disagree that it was ever good. Largely the problem is one of volume there.

They have claims that some algorithms push sellers down. I actually am interested in seeing that explored more. My gut is that it is just poor execution from Amazon. Not from incompetence or malice, mind; but it is a stupid hard problem that nobody is executing on well.

My "excuse" of the favored vendor clauses existing is, I confess, largely sour grapes that that is allowed at all. It really screwed over a lot of small companies that tried to partner with Walmart back in the day. If that goes away, I'll be delighted.

But the entire study of the buy box is questionable. Amazon has long done everything they can to get it to "1-click" so that you buy. They famously had a patent on that nonsense. Yes, it makes a big difference on purchases and such. No, it probably is not being "weaponized" against some sellers. The entire dream of Amazon there is to get a sale from a web view. They have almost certainly tried all they can to take whatever step they can to increase that. As such, it is a very volatile place to be located and it will take effort to keep a vendor there. Pretty much period.

Can they show that losing a preferred location will lead to reduced sales for a vendor? I'd be shocked if they couldn't. The question there is why did Amazon do it? If they did it as retaliation to a vendor, that is BS and they deserve to get fined. If it was just them doing what they can to convert more sales? I'm less clear what to do there. If we want better rules around that sort of thing, I'm all for that.

I don't actually know that I can stay on this discussion much more. You haven't really offered anything other than "I disagree." And, that is perfectly fine. I am hoping to see some points that strengthen the case, though.

Post reply on HN