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

831–840 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#831

Post by cratermoon »

abduhl wrote: post #161
cratermoon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not if you cannot prove that the price that the customer pays is now higher. That's according to a peculiar interpretation of anti-trust law. “Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer price…

It’s strange to call the most prominent view (and the one applied by courts currently) a “peculiar” interpretation. Lina Khan is the one with the “peculiar” view right now. The consumer interest test is preferred because, among other reasons, it is quantitative. Quantitative tests are seen as less able to be abused because some judge has a particular view/vibe. Additionally, the consumer harm test focuses on the cons…

Pedant alert.

I'm using peculiar in the sense of “Particular; individual; special; appropriate.” Distinctive. This may be somewhat archaic. Not in the sense of odd or curious.

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Peculiar

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#832

Post by tonyarkles »

exar0815 wrote: post #756
berniedurfee wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not McMaster Carr or even Digikey? I’m sure Amazon has put a sizable dent in their sales without even really trying. Amazon now has special search tools for buying fasteners that make it easier to find exactly what you need. Prices are cheap, risk is high, but prices are cheap.

Every cent Digikey looses they loose by being Digikey. Of all large suppliers, they are by country miles the worst and we try everything to avoid them. Farnell, Mouser, LCSC beat them handily. And their pages are already bad.

Wow! I have had nothing but amazing experiences with DK over the last 20 years, especially compared to everyone else. Maybe it has to do with being in Canada, though. The DK warehouse is just across the border and when you order DDP I think they bring your stuff over by truck and then distribute it. Have not once ever had a surprise customs charge from them, while other suppliers have all screwed me in one way or another (lol always great when one order gets split into three boxes and UPS charges brokerage fees separately on each one)

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#833

Post by tonyarkles »

j16sdiz wrote: post #766
eru wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except once the price war is over, the consolidation of market share to one or a few players means that there is a good chance of monopoly pricing. Almost never happens like that.

It always happen like that. That's why there are anti-dump rules on international trades.

Heh, a couple of years ago (maybe true still?) Canada had a 99%! tariff on aluminum extrusion from China. And it was still cheaper than domestically sourced material at twice the price.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#834

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

taeric wrote: post #824
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree [search] is getting worse. I disagree that it was ever good I disagree with this disagreement, and can see it getting worse, and given it seems the search was intentionally punishing sellers for anticompetitive reasons, I'd be interested in seeing if Amazon can present a convincing explanation otherwise. > They have claims that some algorithms push sellers down. I actually am interested in seeing that explo…

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 searchi…

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything in your post convincingly explaining how each of the behaviors I listed fostered competition, vs stifling it, or that the behaviors described in the suit were entirely fabricated by the FTC, and so I haven't seen any evidence that this is, in fact, a weak case.

I guess we will see if Amazon manages to put forth any convincing defense of their actions, like penalizing sellers for selling cheaper elsewhere. That just doesn't seem to me like it fosters competition. And the idea that this conveniently happens totally by accident to the sellers who do so, seems ridiculously unconvincing. If your "bad search" conveniently happens to have the same effects as an anticompetitive business practice, I don't see that pretext standing up in court.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#835

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #834
taeric wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 searchi…

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything in your post convincingly explaining how each of the behaviors I listed fostered competition, vs stifling it, or that the behaviors described in the suit were entirely fabricated by the FTC, and so I haven't seen any evidence that this is, in fact, a weak case. I guess we will see if Amazon manages to put forth any convincing defense of their actions, like penalizing sellers for se…

None of the things are shown to be purposely done to hurt sellers.

Specifically, most of the quotes from Amazon seemed to be analysis they were doing about the same points. X% of purchases happen in the buybox. Y% of purchasers don't make it to page 2. In both of these, it is easy to imagine that Amazon was doing what they can to increase those numbers. They would not be doing things to reduce purchases, which is largely implied by the malicious implications. (Indeed, most of that is the internet learning about "below the fold" which has been well known in retail for a long time.)

Stated differently, to counter your point, Amazon only needs to show that it is selling more from more sellers to claim that they are driving more competition and fostering competition. That is almost certainly going to be an easy thing for them to prove. They aren't punishing sellers by pushing them to page 2. They are increasing sales by getting more likely purchases onto page 1.

Do I think this is healthy? Not really. That more low quality things make page 1 is frustrating to me and feels unhealthy. Is it frustrating that Amazon can probably increase sales of a low quality thing by putting the Amazon Basics label on it? Yeah, it is. Question is if that is stealing more sales from sellers than the other low quality items are already stealing. (It also begs the question that the Basics label is low quality.)

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#836

Post by philipov »

jkestner wrote: post #789
meetingthrower wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah all for < $200 shipped!

Dude needs to educate an audience on why they should buy a domestically built $400 fire pit.

Dude needs to raise the wages of people who can't even afford a $200 fire pit.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#837

Post by spookthesunset »

conorgdaly wrote: post #764
notatoad wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

alibaba link for exact product(same images/title/description etc.) https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Black-Crossweave-Larg... alibaba unit price(list): $40.00 amazon seller price: $199

Not really a straight comparison. That one on alibaba has a 100 unit minimum. But yeah, for some extra money, the dudes on alibaba will slap your logo and print your packaging.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#838

Post by stale2002 »

ameister14 wrote: post #826
stale2002 wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It is exactly what competition is supposed to do. > why do the other anti-competitive behaviors? Notice how I made no comment on anything to do with vague "other behavior". Instead I was only directly responding to the idea of "undercutt…

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 y…

> and only want to prove that lower prices is good, but that conversation ended

When you respond to me and bring something up, it comes off as if you are trying to refute something that I am saying.

If you are now that that I was correct completely, and that you were just bringing up a separate point that is irrelevant and does not refute anything that I said, well then OK?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#839

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

taeric wrote: post #835
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything in your post convincingly explaining how each of the behaviors I listed fostered competition, vs stifling it, or that the behaviors described in the suit were entirely fabricated by the FTC, and so I haven't seen any evidence that this is, in fact, a weak case. I guess we will see if Amazon manages to put forth any convincing defense of their actions, like penalizing sellers for se…

None of the things are shown to be purposely done to hurt sellers. Specifically, most of the quotes from Amazon seemed to be analysis they were doing about the same points. X% of purchases happen in the buybox. Y% of purchasers don't make it to page 2. In both of these, it is easy to imagine that Amazon was doing what they can to increase those numbers. They would not be doing things to reduce purchases, which is lar…

> They aren't punishing sellers by pushing them to page 2. They are increasing sales by getting more likely purchases onto page 1.

are they, though?

I'm not convinced that it's a total coincidence that sellers who sell for cheaper elsewhere are being penalized in search results, especially if the excuse is that a multi billion dollar company which relies upon search can't do search.

And honestly, that seems anticompetitive to me, thus wrong and illegal, thus the suit.

> They would not be doing things to reduce purchases

I haven't seen any evidence the anticompetitive behavior in question would reduce total income in the long term. They would be doing things to punish sellers for selling cheaper elsewhere though, and seems like they are. That doesn't necessarily mean reducing purchases though, especially if Amazon has already copied the product and started selling their copy themselves. And whether it reduced some purchases (but not others) for Amazon is irrelevant, as they could easily be willing to threaten taking a tiny hit to punish competitors.

You keep coming up with pretexts for the anticompetitive behavior, but they simply aren't a more convincing explanation than anticompetitive behavior. It's like saying you didn't stab a guy, he just ran into your knife 100 times. Maybe technically possible, but not convincing, and definitely not more likely than maliciousness. If it walks like a duck, etc.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#840

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #839
taeric wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the things are shown to be purposely done to hurt sellers. Specifically, most of the quotes from Amazon seemed to be analysis they were doing about the same points. X% of purchases happen in the buybox. Y% of purchasers don't make it to page 2. In both of these, it is easy to imagine that Amazon was doing what they can to increase those numbers. They would not be doing things to reduce purchases, which is lar…

> They aren't punishing sellers by pushing them to page 2. They are increasing sales by getting more likely purchases onto page 1. are they, though? I'm not convinced that it's a total coincidence that sellers who sell for cheaper elsewhere are being penalized in search results, especially if the excuse is that a multi billion dollar company which relies upon search can't do search. And honestly, that seems anticompe…

That "they aren't punishing" is what they would have to show. And, I don't know it, obviously, but that doesn't seem to unlikely to me. For this case, they have to have a command of "we want you to push these sellers to page 2." For defense, they only need to show that "we were instead pulling to page 1." That is why this feels weak to me. The defense feels too easily likely.

If they aren't reducing sales/income in the long term, then that is also a defense to "not fostering competition." If they are literally selling more, this is easy to frame in a way that shows more competition. And again makes the case a bit weaker to prove that they were hurting what has been growing on their platform.

If you think they will be able to prove this, great. The plausible defenses here are just overwhelmingly against it. The criticism of Amazon going to crap is that Amazon is turning into a Dollar store, as far as quality goes. And, yeah, it is. Is why you don't have people making a killing as suppliers to Dollar stores...

Post reply on HN