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

861–870 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#861

Post by hellojesus »

SenAnder wrote: post #696
newsclues wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is the result of commoditizing 'starting a business' to the point of near-worthlessness in the bottom 50%+." Is this not just a market effect of saturating the market with competition because suddenly running a business is comparatively easy (communications technology, platforms and existing logistics and production networks) to any other era. I can probably start a company drop shipping crap on Amazon in a sho…

Amazon inflating rates after capturing the market, permitting counterfeits, and penalizing sellers offering lower prices off-Amazon, has nothing to do with market efficiency or commoditization.

> and penalizing sellers offering lower prices off-Amazon

Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? If you want to sell on their market, you promise not to undercut them.

Amazon exists as a discovery tool for consumers. They don't want third party sellers to get free advertising. That isn't anticompetitive.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#862

Post by ameister14 »

stale2002 wrote: post #838
ameister14 wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You were not correct completely. I was refuting something you were saying.

1. That was not the definition of pro-competitive behavior. 2. Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#863

Post by hellojesus »

chongli wrote: post #738
missedthecue wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most things aren't bought on Amazon, but if you're a middleman droppshipping stuff from China, Amazon is an easy way to get in front of a lot of eyeballs. It's not clear to me why droppshippers deserve special care and treatment by the FTC.

The chair of the FTC is Lina Khan. As a law student, she wrote this article [1] for the Yale Law Journal. It attracted so much attention in the antitrust law community that it led to her becoming the youngest FTC chair in history. She has literally been building this case against Amazon since she was a student. It’s not just about dropshippers. It’s also about how Amazon uses automated price controls, guided by scrap…

> Since everything is automated, prices can change in a matter of seconds, so once competitors are destroyed, prices go back up automatically.

How is this different than a grim reaper strategy taught in econ 101?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#864

Post by ch4s3 »

rewmie wrote: post #757
ch4s3 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously read the press release, but haven't read the 173 page complaint yet. But the piece about pricing is DEAD wrong. The complaint says: > Amazon uses a set of anti-discounting tactics to prevent rivals from 24 growing by offering lower prices, But Amazon's contracts with big sellers specifically state that it may only discount when competitors first lower prices, making it in effect a price follower. It goes…

I don't know about that. I think the FTC has a bit more insight than a random guy online who admits didn't even read the complaint, and the FCT went through the trouble of putting together a court case to sue Amazon.

I clearly read the relevant pricing piece of the claim, and have direct related work experience. So I actually think I know a lot more about Amazon's pricing behavior than some ghouls deep in the FTC who are following Lina Kahn's marching orders to find a case against Amazon.

I think it's sufficient that I'm able to tear apart the section of the complaint that has bearing on something I have direct knowledge about.

Maybe other sections have merit, but the pricing part does not.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#865

Post by BizarroLand »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #544
BizarroLand wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Most people responded by providing a logical response to my argument while discarding the semantics.

Semantically, what company that (Relies on Amazon to operate) couldn't they destroy on a whim?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#866

Post by danielmarkbruce »

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?

Bad use of pronouns on my part. As another comment pointed out, I should have written "Amazon".

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#867

Post by taeric »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #847
taeric wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I'm specifically not claiming that Amazon is incompetent. Plenty of smart people work there. I don't believe in the hyper competence that shutting down some sellers seems to imply. Happy to be shown I'm wrong; but there are other mechanisms that would easily lead to the same outcomes that just seem more likely to me.

As for evidence that those that listed cheaper elsewhere would see lower ranking here, I only need to point at what is largely merchants arbitrage for so many items on Amazon today. By and large, if you see an ALL CAPS seller, know that you can get that exact item cheaper on another site. (Honestly, by and large, know that Amazon is never the cheapest option. Never really claimed to be.)

For maximum amusement, I've personally seen Walmart boxes from some sellers that were evidently taking advantage of a local sale to make some money online. (Not just 1-2 dollars, mind. Beginning of covid had people stocking up on trampolines and whatnot to resell online. You could easily flip some of those for 100% markup in that market.)

Hopefully this whole suit doesn't take years. Would love to see a prediction market on it. :D

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#868

Post by hellojesus »

resuresu wrote: post #783
mrraj wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Human labor has little value in the age of chatgpt and onlyfans. Did you know there are teenage girls selling bottles of their dirty bathwater for more money than the average blue collar worker makes in a month. As time goes on, its starting to look like this whole free market thing isnt such a good idea anymore.

What is not free market about teenage girls offering dirty bathwater? Are you upset that there is demand for this product?

The girls here actually have a competitive advantage! They have a time limited product (beauty, youth) that is not easily replicable.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#869

Post by stale2002 »

ameister14 wrote: post #862
stale2002 wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You were not correct completely. I was refuting something you were saying. 1. That was not the definition of pro-competitive behavior. 2. Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market.

> Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market.

You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then.

An analysis of how much consumers benefit or are harmed by certain behavior is what the courts use for most anti-trust laws.

And lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit.

So yes, the point stands.

Someone else was complaining about competitors being undercut, and I responded by saying that actually lower prices are good and this is what our anti-trust laws are trying to promote, not stop.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#870

Post by BizarroLand »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #753
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.

Your local grocery store has store brands that compete with the name brands. Your local grocery store also charges for shelf placement. Amazon is actually more open than other stores about this information, giving product rankings so that you could decide to knock off popular products too.

Except that overlooks Amazons intentionally messed up search function. Amazon, unlike grocery stores, doesn't really put all of the items into the same location.

On amazon, if you want to browse "electric bike tires with motors" you will have to browse through dozens of full electric bikes, electric scooters, hoverboards, tires without motors, tricycles, and all sorts of close but not quite what you're looking for items to find 1 that you might be interested in.

Want to price shop them? Good luck finding others to compare with.

It would be like looking for a 5 lb bag of white sugar in the grocery store so you go to the sugar isle and finding 1 half pound bag of brown sugar amongst all of the flour and seasonings and honey and agave nectar and sweet n low in the first 100 feet.

Any grocery store organized like that would fail and be replaced by a company with decent organizational flow.

But amazon makes money by charging the vendors on its market for visibility, in addition to listing fees, storage fees, and whatever else.

Amazon has a perverse incentive to not show you, the customer, what you are looking for when there is anything else close enough to what you are looking for that they will make more money for selling to you.

There isn't a better word than evil for this, even if it is the benign sort of evil that only added to the chaos and misery of the world without directly harming anyone.

Post reply on HN