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

351–360 of 653 posts

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

#351

Post by dragonwriter »

endisneigh wrote: post #82
wallaBBB wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can repeat that comment here as many times as you want but it will not make it a valid one. Amazon is practically a monopoly, and they have reached that position by often selling goods below COG prices, incurring losses but outliving the competition. Now without a competitive marketplace for quite a lot of stuff they can dictate the prices at a loss for everyone except them. If somebody was to challenge them with…

Amazon isn't a monopoly by any definition. There are plenty of places to buy things. Repeating it over and over again won't change reality. Feel free to bookmark this and come back to it 10 years from now. Amazon won't be broken up, either. Customers are so lazy they want the government do everything for them. If you don't like Amazon, close the tab and go to eBay.com or Walmart.com. It's very easy, and can be done i…

> Amazon isn't a monopoly by any definition

If it has “significant and durable market power” [0], it is by the only definition that matters.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

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

#352

Post by AlanYx »

granzymes wrote: post #322
helen___keller wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone have examples of popular / name brand products that are pushed down in ranking due to this? I would love to see for myself how this looks in practice

Here's one of the examples that the FTC cites in its complaint (at page 27): https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Extra-Re... Compare it to this listing for a very similar product: https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Ultra-0-... You'll see that in the FTC's example, you need to click to see more buying details and that at the time of this comment the lowest price is $14.28 with free shi…

That first example is eye-opening for me. I always thought that when Amazon doesn't show a buy button on the product page, it's because that product is not currently available to be shipped from Amazon.

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

#353

Post by fyrn_ »

dgb23 wrote: post #327
granzymes wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the FTC's lawsuit, Amazon no longer binds its sellers with a Most Favored Nation clause. Instead, Amazon now will refuse to promote an offer in its "buy box" space if it detects a lower price for that good on another website. The FTC alleges that this simply reconstitutes the MFA since most sales on Amazon take place from the buy box. Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetit…

This argument seems sound. Amazon is not a neutral entity or a public space. It's a private platform with its own interests that are very often in conflict with sellers. There is this weird cultural expectation of platforms and platform-like applications (social media, multiplayer video games, online stores, proprietary libraries/engines, even entertainment media "universes" and franchises etc.). Participants and con…

That's nice, but the reality is that Amazon has almost 90% control of e-commerce. They have huge monopoly power, and laws exist to protect consumers from that. Is it the ideal way to build a society? No, But the government should still step in when it happens.

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

#354

Post by uoaei »

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…

So you understand your effect in participating in this system, but life's too good for you to do anything differently. Nice.

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

#355

Post by abduhl »

taeric wrote: post #330
abduhl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people who have driven on the interstate are quite aware that police arbitrarily pull people over for many things given the vast number of laws that are continuously broken by all drivers. I do not think a regime where you’re always breaking a law and can be pulled over just for driving while black is a good example when advocating for prosecutorial discretion. I’d prefer a system that doesn’t result in…

Ah, agreed. And if you take the worst possible interpretation of my post I can see how you get there. My point was that many rules get enforced on a cost benefit based system. Especially in business where enforcement is necessarily an expensive undertaking. Ideally, part of enforcement will include evolution of the rules so that people don't grow into a situation where what they are doing is suddenly illegal. That sa…

My interpretation isn’t the worst possible interpretation, it’s the realistic interpretation based on how permitting discretionary application of the law actually works in practice. Your view is fine in theory but fails (and not just fails theoretically - it has failed and continues to fail actually) in practice. Advocating for your theoretical ideal when we know it fails in practice is… well, just not useful.

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

#356

Post by granzymes »

AlanYx wrote: post #352
granzymes wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one of the examples that the FTC cites in its complaint (at page 27): https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Extra-Re... Compare it to this listing for a very similar product: https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Ultra-0-... You'll see that in the FTC's example, you need to click to see more buying details and that at the time of this comment the lowest price is $14.28 with free shi…

That first example is eye-opening for me. I always thought that when Amazon doesn't show a buy button on the product page, it's because that product is not currently available to be shipped from Amazon.

That's one possibility! But Amazon also hides the buy box when the only offers are not what Amazon considers "competitive" because it hurts their brand if consumers see shitty deals.

In this example, the pens with the buy box are 50% cheaper and have much faster shipping.

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

#357

Post by brucethemoose2 »

The FTC is going to lose this case like they have lost others.

They are suing someone with the power of a government. Whether it is "right" or not, the legal case needs to be incredibly strong and airtight to make it through court, and a loss looks really bad. It signals that other companies can be even more anticompetitive because they know the FTC will lose against the biggest fish in court.

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

#358

Post by esarbe »

nickff wrote: post #323
exabrial wrote: post #25

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, break them all up. And for the love of crap, stop approving billion dollar mergers.

Why? You seem to be expressing outrage, anger, or frustration, but you're not giving the rest of us anything to think about.

All of them enjoy market domination in their respective areas of expertise. Their size makes them effective monopolies and their behavior has many times ruled anti-competitive. Competition between them is insufficient and they have been convicted of organizing in monopolistic manners before.

For consumers and the market as a whole it is more healthy if they are broken up into smaller companies.

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

#359

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

dylan604 wrote: post #235
crazygringo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I've commonly seen is that the manufacturer offers a store-wide 20% or 30% off coupon, as a temporary promo and/or for email signup. So the item price matches Amazon's, but you pay less in the end, if you're even remotely paying attention. At least for the $200-300 items I've seen (like dehumidifiers, fancy computer accessories).

The weekly sales flyers that stores offer was/is another way around this as well. Some of them have coupons to specific items that are not allowed to have sales prices lower than the MSRP. Very few people are as draconian about their prices as Apple, but others sure wannabe.

> Some of them have coupons to specific items that are not allowed to have sales prices lower than the MSRP.

That's actually kinda disappointing. I'd always assumed those flyers were pieces of trash (at best, something I'd need to put in a recycling bin) which I don't want but now I'll be more tempted to take them when offered on the chance that I otherwise accidentally avoid the sales price.

It's still good to know that such coupons are likely just attempts by the retailer to circumvent the manufacturer's... ahem suggested price.

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

#360

Post by jhbadger »

scarface_74 wrote: post #325
mjsweet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and continuing to sell it on their platform… or their competitors filling the void.

If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?

Well, here's a real example. About a decade ago there was a simple video conferencing system called Nautilus. A simple LCD screen that let you call other people with the device and talk to them, not having to bother with computers or smartphones. The sort of thing that is good for talking with elderly relatives who may not be very computer or phone savvy. I bought one (from Amazon) for myself and my elderly parents. It worked well, but a few years later Amazon came out with their Echo Show products which are basically the same thing, which killed the Nautilus. I'm sure it was covered by patents and what not, but you can't protect the idea. Amazon obviously saw that it sold reasonably well and used its power as both a marketplace and a technology company to undercut their own seller.
Post reply on HN