Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 653 posts

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#171

Post by pahkah »

hnuser847 wrote: post #129
zb3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pay these fees so the products aren't cheap. And Amazon (using its size) made it impossible for sellers to sell their products cheaper elsewhere. This is anticompetitive.

> You pay these fees so the products aren't cheap. Except they are, otherwise consumers wouldn't use Amazon. Whenever I want to buy anything, I check Amazon first. 9 times out of 10 it's the same price as every other retailer with the added benefit of free shipping and free returns. If that wasn't the case, I would have no reason to use Amazon.

> Whenever I want to buy anything, I check Amazon first. 9 times out of 10 it's the same price as every other retailer with the added benefit of free shipping and free returns.

That's the problem! The issue is that Amazon forces sellers to raise their prices elsewhere, so that Amazon is the best deal for a shopper. But if Amazon didn't have the power to do that (if it didn't have a monopoly as the gateway to online shopping) then other retailers would be able to lower their prices.

That's the "tax" referred to in the article. By inflating prices across the board, but still ensuring that they're the least expensive option, Amazon retains customers and increases profits. Individual consumers choose it because it's the best deal, but the system as a whole loses out because prices are higher than they "should" be.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#172

Post by sib »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #159
endisneigh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Let's use your example. The sellers should stop selling that item on Amazon, and sell their light bulb on Walmart, or where-ever. Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. This strengthens the competitors to Amazon, which is bad for Amazon and good for the consumer. The consumer also find the lower price that they wanted. Alternatively, they buy the alternate product on Ama…

You’re just wrong, Amazon controls around 35% of all US e-commerce. Not being able to sell on Amazon instantly removes most of your available customers. The second largest is Walmart and it’s closer to 7%. Walmart, target, whatever, don’t add up to Amazons market.

And if lots of items became available on other sites, but not Amazon (as per the theory being propounded), then Amazon would no longer control 35% of all US e-commerce.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#173

Post by iudqnolq »

EGreg wrote: post #154
lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t just “spring” up to owning a nationwide network of distribution centers and 1M+ employees. It takes decades of work.

That's the thing people don't get about making competitors to Facebook, Twitter, and other centralized platforms as well. You don't need to boil the ocean in order to serve a single community. For example, Facebook started in Harvard and its value to everyone in Harvard was based on how many people in Harvard used it, not how many people in the world used it. Similarly, if a single product vendor and their customers…

When Facebook was founded there was no Facebook. Now there is a Facebook.

When there's a better alternative customers are less likely to try out your new, less good idea.

Can you give an example of someone serious using IPFS instead of S3? I don't really get what "all storage worldwide" means.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#174

Post by throwaway14356 »

endisneigh wrote: post #95
ARussell wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not GP. I didn't make that argument. I agree that Amazon is not obliged to allow just anyone on their platform. Sellers must abide by the rules that Amazon sets in place. At the same time, Amazon must abide by the laws of the locations at which it wants to sell. So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is.

> So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced…

it would be sensible to require a reason for refusing to do business with someone. Normally it wouldn't be but if you are a repeat offender it seems a sensible requirement

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#175

Post by sib »

Jensson wrote: post #31
endisneigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem with this. They don't have to sell on Amazon to begin with. Amazon obviously wants their customers to have the best price available. Sellers can just go off Amazon if they don't like it. If sellers end up raising the price on other platforms as a result of this rule, then that says more about them than Amazon. Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Overstock, Wayfair, Walmart and…

It is none of Amazons business what prices they put when they list their wares on other services, the only reason they care is that they want to crush the competition. Dictating how retailers can interact with your competitors is anti-competitive. Dictating what prices they can offer when they put up listings is a part of that, it is anti-competitive.

It's exactly their business. Amazon is going to use the limited "shelf space" to promote and highlight those products which are most likely to sell (and to generate best margins). If a product is for sale for less elsewhere, it's less likely to do so, so why should Amazon waste the "shelf space"?

This is no different than what non-e-commerce stores (such as Walmart) have been doing for years.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#176

Post by Ylpertnodi »

distances wrote: post #137
endisneigh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter because Amazon isn't going to be broken up to begin with.

I think you made your position clear enough already in the other threads.

Oooh, what did they say?

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#177

Post by endisneigh »

kaibee wrote: post #170
endisneigh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Let's use your example. The sellers should stop selling that item on Amazon, and sell their light bulb on Walmart, or where-ever. Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. This strengthens the competitors to Amazon, which is bad for Amazon and good for the consumer. The consumer also find the lower price that they wanted. Alternatively, they buy the alternate product on Ama…

> Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. So here's a weird externality. As a decently well off tech-worker, I don't care if I'm paying 5$ or 2$ for lightbulbs, even if I'm re-lighting my whole house. The seller will sell on Amazon, because it is the largest market and will set their prices on other markets to match Amazon. I'll buy on Amazon, because it isn't worth my time to check…

> And now people who do need to save money, can't also find this lightbulb at a cheaper price on competing marketplaces, even if this lightbulb is actually the best quality

It's the opposite of what you're saying. Sellers not selling particular items on Amazon is good for consumers who are price conscious, because if they need that particular item they will search for it and find it cheaper on another store, strengthening that one and hurting Amazon.

And if they don't care they will find cheaper items on Amazon. Everyone wins except for the seller, which is Amazon's MO.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#178

Post by throwaway14356 »

ARussell wrote: post #108
endisneigh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced…

Perhaps you are right, and also then again perhaps those companies find that they have cause to file a lawsuit.

with astronomic fines (for the customers to pay)

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#179

Post by taeric »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #134
thelastgallon wrote: post #17

An excerpt from: https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/ Amazon binds its sellers over to something called Most Favored Nation status. That means that sellers can't offer their goods more cheaply than they do on Amazon – even if it costs them (lots) less to sell in Target or direct from their websites. This means that every time a seller adds a dollar to their Amazon sale price, they have to add a dollar to…

Hasn't WalMart been doing the same thing for decades, but in bricks & mortar retailing?

Yes, which is why searching "most favored nation clause" turns up legal advice on how to set that up in a good way.

Note, there is still a valid question on whether or not companies with enough exposure should be held to higher standards. Consider, we hold pro players to tighter requirements than we do local leagues. They both have basically the same rules, of course, but not fully identical. And enforcement is, of course, largely at the discretion of the agencies enforcing them.

The last is obnoxious, if you view the entire field as a homogeneous thing. And I do get the impression that there is something more going on in this case. That said, it is not abnormal to rank ROI on what gets enforced. I wish it was framed directly in those terms, though.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#180

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

What magic does apple work behind the scenes to avoid scrutiny? If we're talking about hidden taxes, surely the only app store allowed on 50% of smart phones taking 30% is a hidden tax?

And if not that, surely visa/mastercard's fee is it's own hidden tax?

Post reply on HN