FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

The thing is, an importer adds real value to their clients by selecting the products, taking the risk of moving the goods, etc.

You are right that the current state of dropshipping is an abomination, and there's not much left to save of that job. But the reason for that is that more and more of the job and benefits from that business are being taken by Amazon, and the sellers are left with that doesn't really justify their position.

What they're left with - being a plausible scapegoat and discovering new products - is not their choice, it's the part that is not profitable to Amazon.

We'll see. I don't know how to agree with search ever being good. I remember back in 1999 (literally) getting the wrong book on searches. And back then, it was only searching on books. Today, there is more that you are searching through, such that it is almost expected that results will be worse. And it will only get worse.

And note that I am making no real defense of Amazon here. It is frustrating to me that searching "PS5 controller" is largely results that I would not at all feel comfortable buying, at this point. What searches do you remember, "back in the early days" that were good?

And, really any search will reveal the actual "difficulty" here is that there is just too many hits. But can you really call out any of those as bad as long as you allow outside vendors? I'm not convinced. I don't want to buy from UPPERCASE vendor anymore than many folks do, but I see my purchase history has a ton of them.

So, again, this is a criticism of the case. They do pick apart many things that seem to have gotten worse. They rest a lot of their case on observations that Amazon themselves were chasing. Largely that the buybox is a huge driver of purchases. What they leave off is all of the behind the scenes that goes into that buybox. Most of it, unsurprisingly, is going to be based on costs to Amazon. This case is looking for twirling mustache villains looking to rob small vendors. But it is against a backdrop of an unusually large number of vendors that are all continuing to make money. In a field where Amazon is trying to optimize shipping and warehousing costs. Is it getting harder for people to do so there? Almost certainly. Is Amazon specifically retaliating against sellers? Maybe, but my gut is not likely.

I do appreciate the counter view that this is, in fact, a strong case. I have not seen evidence that convinces me of that. You keep saying it is "in the case," but that is our disagreement. The case is largely discussing the difficulties of being an FBA seller. One that many successful FBA sellers would be more than happy to tell you about. They have basically no evidence of Amazon intentionally mistreating any particular seller.

They have a lot of redacted comments about Amazon's analysis of their platform. But no hints that Amazon intentionally pushes sellers down. They have tons of details that having enticing offers at the top and in the buybox would be good for Amazon. Nothing hinting that they are trying to make it harder for any particular seller.

Even the anecdotes you will find online is that managing FBA is a full time job. Try managing a booth at your local farmers market. Just managing the booth is itself a job that you should probably look into getting specialized help for. This is no different.

While that was the original comment you responded to, the thread we were on was this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37668676

>> So you can have pro-competitive behavior (lower price) that balances out anti-competitive behavior

>Defeating competitors with lower prices is pro competitive, not anti competitive.

I already acknowledged that lower prices is a positive, not sure why you repeated that. If that's your only point, then yes - you are right, lower prices is a positive for consumers. It's a balance, though; lower prices don't mean there is no anti-competitive behavior happening.

Undercutting competitors and copying them is often fine, though the process by which a competitor is undercut can be anti-competitive itself and have structural consequences that are anti-competitive, and copying competitors is obviously restricted by patent and copyright. It's not a blanket 'this is the whole purpose of competition' thing.

>Notice how I made no comment on anything to do with vague "other behavior"

It's not vague - it's laid out in the indictment. I get that you don't want to respond to it and only want to prove that lower prices is good, but that conversation ended, we all agree that lower prices for consumers is good. The question is how good. Good enough to balance the bad behavior? The FTC clearly thinks otherwise.

Maybe not a "blind" slant, but there is a slant nonetheless. I frequent programming communities on twitter, reddit, etc. and HN is consistently the place with the most sympathy for corporations.

(In my experience it's also the community that has the most anti-intellectualism/distrust of science as well, but that's a discussion for another time)

Comparing to Apple, Amazon margins are thin.