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

841–850 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#841

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

taeric wrote: post #840
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

That the prima facie anticompetitive business practices (like punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere) actually foster competition, rather than stifling it, is what Amazon will have to show.

It seems unlikely to me that they will be able to do so, especially with weak pretexts like "we aren't effectively punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere, we're just rewarding those who don't", given how damning the anticompetitive behaviors in question are.

If you think they will be able to, great. The plausible interpretations of what we see are just going overwhelmingly against it.

> if they aren't reducing sales/income in the long term, then that is also a defense to "not fostering competition."

Definitely not. I don't see at all how that fosters competition to Amazon's marketplace. Especially since it seems Amazon is punishing sellers for selling cheaper in Amazon's competitors' marketplaces, which is, again, an anticompetitive business practice. Indeed, Amazon's sales here are irrelevant, because both a successful and a failing company can engage in anticompetitive business practices.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#842

Post by whoknew1122 »

eru wrote: post #761
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Iphone, airpods, ipad, macbook. Google search. Coke. Boeing. Caterpillar. Goldman Sachs. AirBnB. Exxon. AutoDesk. BlackRock. CME. Costco. JP Morgan Chase. Mastercard, Visa, Nike, TSMC and a thousand others. They started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.

How did Goldman Sachs '[start] out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors'? Or am I misunderstanding you?

The 'they' here is Amazon. This is how it should be read: "Amazon started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#843

Post by nwiswell »

jdietrich wrote: post #711
wustangdan wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think if we turned USPS into this it would be a another billions of dollars a year waste for taxpayers? Do we really need to be subsidizing drop shippers? > Amazon is not marshalling new capital to innovate or improve its digital marketplace. Rather, Amazon simply owns digital real estate and extracts rent, like some kind of futuristic dystopian corpo-baron. What on earth are you on about? They own a url.

Amazon owns one of the most sophisticated logistics networks in the world. They own warehouses and robots and trucks and planes. All of that adds up to a meaningful, valuable contribution to the world. I buy tons of stuff on Amazon. I buy from them rather than from eBay or an independent online retailer because I know it'll actually get delivered to my house on time . For me, the marketplace is basically irrelevant -…

All of what you're saying has to do with Amazon fulfillment (FBA), not Amazon.com the Internet marketplace.

They're two entirely different things (you can actually use Amazon fulfillment for items sold on other websites, although it's typically too expensive). If Amazon fulfillment continues to dominate on an independent platform, that's great, they earned it, but at least they won't have absolute pricing power because sellers will have alternatives, and at least other companies will have a chance to impress you, too.

I'd figure that the marketplace would show the fulfillment company in addition to the way that the courier is typically indicated, so that customers could express their preferences. If the item does a lot of volume, perhaps a seller would even have inventory with multiple fulfillment companies, and buyers could pay a surcharge to get their preferred fulfillment, same as shipping.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#844

Post by hnlmorg »

deepsun wrote: post #830
hnlmorg wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Amazon making good fat margins on every small business that sells on Amazon is demonstration of an ineffective market. And hence why the FTC are stepping in.

Comparing to Apple, Amazon margins are thin.

You’re basically comparing despots though.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#845

Post by TMWNN »

civilitty wrote: post #467
musicale wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would believe those are actual brand names. Has anyone created software or a web site to generate hilarious Amazon brand names automatically? Edit: Looks like there are lots of AI-fueled Amazon/business name generators. Most of the names weren't as funny as your examples, though I got some good ones (electrofakes.com, etc.) from prompts like "low quality tech products" and "cheap knockoff technology products." Anot…

My favorites are HILETGO, KeeYees, AITRIP, "Oi ya gai", Treedix, and Gikfun. I bought products from all these Amazon vendors last year, hilariously they're still around.

Nothing can beat ASHAMED. (Yes, really.)

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#846

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #841
taeric wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

That the prima facie anticompetitive business practices (like punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere) actually foster competition, rather than stifling it, is what Amazon will have to show. It seems unlikely to me that they will be able to do so, especially with weak pretexts like "we aren't effectively punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere, we're just rewarding those who don't" , given how damning the a…

You are assuming they were punished by Amazon, and not just unable to compete in a busier environment. My gut will be that it is that it is harder to compete in the busier marketplace. As evidence, I gave "PS5 controller," a search that literally doesn't have what looks like a "from Sony" result on page 1. Heck, the number one sponsored result isn't even a controller!

What evidence have we been given that they punished folks? There is evidence that it is punishing to be lower in the search results. But this is the same for any leaderboard mentality. Am I punished by having more people ahead of me when I join a peloton race that is live with 2k+ people? Or am I just more likely to be on a class with competitive people when I join it live?

So, reframe your complaint. They don't have to show it isn't punishing to be lower in the ranks. They have to show that they didn't purposely drop someone in the ranks for punishment. Competition is, by definition, fierce. You expect most competitors to lose when the contest is "be top 5 of N", the more so as N increases.

Oddly, bike racing is a good one here. I bet early adopters of Peloton and the like found earlier races much easier than they do later ones. They can blame cheating, of course. And we should do what we can to eliminate cheating. But, at large, more competitors leads to fiercer contests and more losses. Pretty much period.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#847

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

taeric wrote: post #846
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the prima facie anticompetitive business practices (like punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere) actually foster competition, rather than stifling it, is what Amazon will have to show. It seems unlikely to me that they will be able to do so, especially with weak pretexts like "we aren't effectively punishing sellers who sell cheaper elsewhere, we're just rewarding those who don't" , given how damning the a…

You are assuming they were punished by Amazon, and not just unable to compete in a busier environment. My gut will be that it is that it is harder to compete in the busier marketplace. As evidence, I gave "PS5 controller," a search that literally doesn't have what looks like a "from Sony" result on page 1. Heck, the number one sponsored result isn't even a controller! What evidence have we been given that they punish…

You are assuming they were unable to compete in a busier environment, and not punished by Amazon, as the complaint alleges. It sure would be a convenient-for-amazon coincidence if the ones "unable to compete" experienced any differences in their "ability to compete" as a result of Amazon's actions, after they sold cheaper on a competing marketplace. I doubt Amazon will be able to convince many people that it was a coincidence, versus what obviously appears to be anticompetitive business practices.

> What evidence have we been given that they punished folks?

What evidence do we have that the ones who listed cheaper elsewhere happened to suddenly be "unable to compete" in the same environment without any action by Amazon? Seems like a convenient coincidence. An unconvincingly convenient one.

We'll see what more comes out as far as communication goes, but more importantly, as far as disparate impact goes: given the data we'll receive as a result of this suit, we'll be able to tell statistically if there was any difference in treatment for sellers who sold cheaper elsewhere vs. not, regardless of pretext (suddenly becoming "unable to compete")

>at large, more competitors leads to fiercer contests and more losses. Pretty much period.

Perhaps. Amazon is fighting competition by engaging in anticompetitive business practices, and they're still around. Maybe there's something to that. If we want more competition to Amazon, then, that means we need Amazon to stop engaging in anticompetitive business practices.

Competition is fierce, worse when your marketplace is engaging in anticompetitive business practices.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#848

Post by yosho »

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 a $5m+ Amazon seller here, so many wrong assumptions in the comments, hard to know where to begin...

- Firstly, not every Amazon seller is a drop shipper, or private label products. In fact most of the successful ones I know all design and brand their own unique products. We ourselves design everything in-house and own multiple design and utility patents on ALL of our products, you won't find these products on Alibaba. Yes, we manufacture in China, but it is really cost prohibitive and uncompetitive to do so almost anywhere else.

- Yes, Amazon's policies hurt us and is completely unethical. The biggest one being losing the "buy box" (ability for customer to buy from your brand) when a lower priced product from your brand is found on a competing website such as Target, Walmart, Shopify, etc. They essentially force you to have the best price possible on Amazon at all times or get severely punished. Why this is terrible... let me explain, let's say Walmart stores offer your product as a holiday sale item in their stores, or let's say a particular color variation of your product isn't doing well so they offer it as a clearance item. Now someone can buy that product at a discount, sell it back on a Target or Walmart online marketplace at a slightly lower price and guess what, your Amazon listing is now practically worthless. You lose the "buy box" and all your sales because another site has it listed for cheaper. This happens ALL THE TIME. And sometimes, there's almost nothing you can do about it.

- They practically force you to use Prime fulfillment. Technically you don't HAVE to use it, all you have to do is again, be uncompetitive with products that do offer Prime and lose half your sales. Same with Marketing, PPC, adwords, etc. They've created an ecosystem where all of these options aren't really options because there's no way to compete otherwise.

- Amazon basics and Amazon using private sales data to find out which products sell the best and compete with those brands directly. It's just really evil. They have all the info, all the data, and they know exactly which products to target to offer a cheaper version at a discounted price and steal all the sales...

I'll be the first to say that I owe Amazon a lot for allowing small businesses the opportunity to be making millions. But at the same time, some of the criticisms are valid, and with a few changes, the platform could be truly great for small business owners.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#849

Post by mywittyname »

InSteady wrote: post #829
edgyquant wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you like expensive, over-hopped IPA made with mediocre ingredients and specially bred hops that are so potent they (kinda) overpower the taste of beet sugar and inferior malts, then America is a great place to pay more money for beer. There some genuinely good beers around, but they are few and far between and WAAY more expensive than great beer in Germany. And from elsewhere in the thread, it sounds like our 3-te…

Europe has plenty of mediocre "craft" beer. I've had tons of beer in Europe that tasted like homebrew - one dimensional.

American craft brewers lean heavily into hoppy IPAs because that's what craft beer buyers like. IPAs are almost always the best selling beer that a craft brand makes. If you talk to them, they will say they'd love to make more varieties of other styles of beers, but IPAs keep the lights on, thus 40% of their product portfolio ends up being IPAs.

I hate IPAs and the style of hops American brewers use, so I tend to drink imported German/Czech lagers and pils a lot.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#850

Post by edgyquant »

InSteady wrote: post #829
edgyquant wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you like expensive, over-hopped IPA made with mediocre ingredients and specially bred hops that are so potent they (kinda) overpower the taste of beet sugar and inferior malts, then America is a great place to pay more money for beer. There some genuinely good beers around, but they are few and far between and WAAY more expensive than great beer in Germany. And from elsewhere in the thread, it sounds like our 3-te…

This is a meme. Most breweries make other types of beer, I go for Pilsner or Kolschs myself, and the beer is not more expensive than larger breweries. You’re regurgitating a stereotype about American millennials.
Post reply on HN