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

891–900 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#891

Post by stolsvik »

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…

As far as I know, the device I’m writing this on is also made in China. And I don’t even have to specify the brand.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#892

Post by desert_rue »

highwaylights wrote: post #511
BizarroLand wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is basically allowing sellers to carry all the risk while product testing and marketing a product. If it does well enough, Amazon can use the same manufacturer and release a branded "Amazon Basics" version that pops up in the same search for the same product but cheaper as Amazon doesn't have to pay someone else $112 for the listing and warehousing, and the original seller that did all of the actual "work" (as…

Yes, but the argument is that drop-shippers aren’t really producing any value. It’s not like they’re putting banners over their product pics saying “hey, you know you can buy this exact same product for like half the price on alibaba if you’re willing to wait a couple more weeks for it right?”. I don’t like Amazon consolidating this much power either but if they can push you out of your business that easily you weren…

These aren’t drop shippers. They are importing the product and paying to store that product before a sale is made. The shop is taking on a risk that the inventory won’t sell, and the customer gets the product far faster.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#893

Post by desert_rue »

hellojesus wrote: post #873
BizarroLand wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are business owners not people?

Clearly I included one too many words: How does it victimize?

The business takes a risk in developing and acquiring a product and Amazon uses the sales data and its platform to pick out winning products and undercut the price. The business is the victim.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#894

Post by ameister14 »

hellojesus wrote: post #857
ameister14 wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware. They are really saying, though, that without barriers to entry and in a competitive market, players that don't innovate don't survive. >First movers should not get a license to continue to reap a profit in a competitive market absent real innovation, which would come in the form of reputation (trademark) or technology (patent). The problem with that is that this is not a competitive market, so the player t…

But that is definitionly winning the competitive market. Amazon has a competitive advantage because they have the largest inventory and almost always the cheapest prices, or at least speedy delivery for a marginally increased cost. That is the definition of winning a competitive market. The consumers win.

The FTC is arguing that Amazon is actually raising prices, so no, consumers don't win.

You don't need to have lower prices long term if you control the market.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#895

Post by lightbendover »

dehrmann wrote: post #745
pmarreck wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, Apple's focus on user privacy had the knock-on effect of ruining Amazon's potential competition? That's astoundingly rich

It's really just a non-obvious consequence.

Not really, all the walled gardens were internally celebrating the decision.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#896

Post by s3p »

duped wrote: post #446
Justsignedup wrote: post #19

remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling diapers at a loss, which was numbers that diapers.com couldn't compete with given that they didn't have another business to rely on, then forced diapers.com to sell to amazon because they had no other option? And this came out last time they were doing monopolistic inquiries against amazon. Yet.…

The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much about it that the only reason we'd see the government take their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim that her previous advocacy biases the case against them. (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

There are 17 state AGs joining the FTC in the suit so I doubt Amazon will have any headway even if they got the Chair to be removed. Hoping the best for the lawsuit, though.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#897

Post by [deleted] »

taeric wrote: post #867
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#898

Post by BizarroLand »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #881
BizarroLand wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet it is obvious in retrospect that I didn't mean entirely independent multi-billion dollar empires, but that is the response everyone went with.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#899

Post by BizarroLand »

jupp0r wrote: post #721
BizarroLand wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't open their capabilities to competitors. That is completely false. No one who sells on Amazon is a competitor. If you are selling on Amazon you are a customer, and every once in a while, Amazon comes in and starts selling your goods for less than you can because they decided they would make more money without you in the picture. For a little proof, try to find Ammoon products on Amazon. They used to be eve…

Where's the harm for consumers here? All I see is that I can now buy guitar pedals for a fraction of the price. Isn't consumer harm the point of anti trust?

Shortsightedness is the harm.

How many companies will not enter the market because of Amazon's monopoly? How many products will never get invented because of the awareness of the system?

And even with this, with a monopoly it is not a race to the bottom. Once the monopoly is in place, you can raise the costs to whatever you want and the market has no choice but to grin and bear it or go without.

Monopolies are never good for the consumer.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#900

Post by jupp0r »

BizarroLand wrote: post #899
jupp0r wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the harm for consumers here? All I see is that I can now buy guitar pedals for a fraction of the price. Isn't consumer harm the point of anti trust?

Shortsightedness is the harm. How many companies will not enter the market because of Amazon's monopoly? How many products will never get invented because of the awareness of the system? And even with this, with a monopoly it is not a race to the bottom. Once the monopoly is in place, you can raise the costs to whatever you want and the market has no choice but to grin and bear it or go without. Monopolies are never…

To me this sounds like competition driving down prices, which is great for consumers.
Post reply on HN