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

881–890 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#881

Post by danielmarkbruce »

BizarroLand wrote: post #865
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.

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?

That's pretty circular. To the extent any company, A, relies on company B to operate, A can be destroyed by B, according the definition of "rely".

So the logical response wasn't to assume you were being circular. The logical response was to assume you were inferring Amazon is big enough and capable enough to squash any business.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#882

Post by lots2learn »

I used to be an FBA seller and made an exit via sale to private equity (i.e. an aggregator). The FTC will likely fail on all or most fronts imo. Amazon's price fixing helps consumers because they simply don't show you the product if it's not the best price on the web. FBA fees are not "profits" taken by Amazon because logistics is not a profit-center for their business. Copying successful third party sellers' products, as annoying as it is (it happened to me more than once), doesn't appear to break any laws. Advertising costs keep rising yes, but again, how is that illegal? At some point, there may be an opportunity for some young entrepreneurial minded person to create their own marketplace open to third party sellers and undercut Amazon's commission (currently 15pct in most categories) and have cheaper advertising costs due to lower competition. The reason why currently this is likely not viable is that FBA is still faster and cheaper than any other existing fulfillment service last I checked. The margin difference between lower commission+cheaper advertising vs more expensive (and slower) fulfillment is still - I believe - in Amazon's favor. FBA, by the way, is open to use even if you sell on your own website. The service is called Amazon MCF (multi channel fulfillment), but the cost and speed is not as good as real FBA. I often wondered what Amazon gains by offering MCF and can't help but think it has something to do with making the appearance of not being anti-competitive.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#883

Post by ameister14 »

stale2002 wrote: post #869
ameister14 wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 els…

>You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then . . . lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit.

That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust.

Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts, but that's changing. So no, I'm not behind - this is why the FTC is bringing this case in the first place.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#889

Post by eru »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #866
eru wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#890

Post by eru »

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.

Alas, no. Just because there are certain rules, and just because people say that those rules are for a specific reason, doesn't imply any actual causality between the reasons given and the rule existing.

Especially anti-dumping rules are most often just exploited as a tool to get a competitor in trouble.

Post reply on HN