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

The Amazon tax

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 731 posts

Re: The Amazon tax

#511

Post by inigyou »

Retric wrote: post #487
autoexec wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't care about you. If you have to close one website that is infested with Google's ads/tracking because it doesn't actually have the product what you want and you're forced to search for another website that's also infested with Google's ads/tracking that's much better for Google's bottom line. That's what Google cares about.

Until you stop using google search, which I and many other people I know have done. Losses and gains on the order of 0.5% market share may not sound like much, but at this scale it’s a vast amount of money. So being slightly more hostile needs to be offset by meaningful increases in revenue.

I'm sure they know that. Cycling enshittification on and off seems to make more money overall than not enshittifying, even though it can make less during the downcycle.

Re: The Amazon tax

#512

Post by xyzelement »

I don't love (but use...) Amazon but I think if done properly, ads can be relevant even when searching for a specific thing.

Let's use a Google Example: I search for Toyota RAV4 and get an ad for Mazda cx-50. Obviously Toyota hates that but as a consumer it has a chance of making me aware of something I didn't know but would want to know, especially as a part of a purchase decision. That's why Mazda pays for that ad slot, and also why Toyota makes it expensive for them :)

Obviously google in this scenario comes out ahead and it is annoying for some users but can be highly valuable if done well.

It's not how I search or shop but plenty of people do.

Re: The Amazon tax

#513

Post by stack_framer »

"...the maker of the best air fryer now has to bid on ads as well, if only to protect the sales they were entitled to in the first place."

No company is "entitled" to any sales.

Re: The Amazon tax

#514

Post by inigyou »

iammattmurphy wrote: post #505
delegate wrote: post #224

This has been true for years on Amazon and is true for most big services now. Over time the concept of search has mutated from 'locate the exact item I'm looking for' to 'show me a list of semantic search results'. Somehow nobody noticed. Oh and of course those are not random results - you can literally feel how the platform is trying to nudge you into buying what IT wants, not what you wanted. The search is just pur…

One of the best Userscripts I ever made was for Amazon: It adds an explicit "results must include these search terms" input box as well as one to exclude results for particular terms. Saves me SO much time when I have to find something on Amazon.

Have you considered making that into your own shopping website?

You don't need warehouses or delivery drivers - you can make it place an Amazon order to the customer's address through the customer's Amazon account. (All you have to do is ignore the fact that Amazon doesn't want you to ask for other people's Amazon passwords.)

Re: The Amazon tax

#515

Post by Dylan16807 »

its_ethan wrote: post #456
aeturnum wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha - then I think you are misreading my 2nd post - directing consumers away from psudo-scam products is "reversing" the understanding. Not assuming everyone wants one perfect product, but realizing that almost everyone wants to avoid known bad products. A bare bones $100 air fryer is good value. > I really don't know where you think I implied that When you said "What you perceive to be "good value" might be "over…

It's possible we're not on the same page on what you meant, but after your clarifying, it still requires defining what a "bad product" is, and that's not as easy as it feels like you're suggesting. A cheap product can be both good value and a bad product, depending on the type of product/intended use/customer expectations/etc. But it's up to the customer to decide that. The main point I'm trying to make there is that…

It's not that unknowable. When a customer makes a deliberate tradeoff that's fine. But some products are strictly worse than others. You can build a pareto front out of features and price and see which products are near it and which are way behind.

Re: The Amazon tax

#516

Post by inigyou »

jrs100000 wrote: post #486
gretch wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a new problem. That's why the mantra in running restaurants has been "location, location, location". Location was a proxy for marketing and attention, based on foot traffic. So yes it does need to be updated to be the 2026 version for what gets peoples' attention on trying your new thing. I think almost all good restaurateurs know that. The rest, who hyper focus on food quality, are tragically doome…

And its still location. Marketing will get get people to come try your food, but location gets them to come back every week.

Location makes them try it once. Quality makes them come back every week. Which is useless if they never tried it once. On the other hand if you set up in a place where each person only comes by once or twice in a lifetime, like an airport, you don't have to make them come back and you just have to make sure the food is tolerable.

Re: The Amazon tax

#517

Post by autoexec »

giovannibonetti wrote: post #499
autoexec wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search is just there to show amazon what you want so that they can show you what they want you to buy instead. Companies want everything to be push instead of pull. They don't want you to be able to choose what you buy, they want to push whatever they want (or are paid to push) at you to buy, and you're just expected to take what little you're offered, thank them for it, and be grateful.

> Companies want everything to be push instead of pull. This reminds me of Instagram's search page, which is full of animated videos jumping at you to dissuade you from completing the search you wanted and just click on what they want you to see.

Social media sites are full of this. They want to decide what you see or don't see instead of just showing you what your friends post in chronological order. Streaming services are another good example. They don't want to give you an A-Z listing of what's on offer. They want to show you a small selection of titles, repeated over and over across a bunch of vague/meaningless categories.

The last big redesign netflix made was pretty much universally hated, but they were mostly upfront about the fact that it was intended to take choice away from users and highlight the shows they wanted to promote. For a company that got where they are because people wanted "on demand" over cable TV it seems strange to hear them now saying "Choosing for yourself is so hard! Just let us tell you what to watch!" but that's the attitude every company seems to be taking.

Re: The Amazon tax

#518

Post by stingraycharles »

stack_framer wrote: post #513

"...the maker of the best air fryer now has to bid on ads as well, if only to protect the sales they were entitled to in the first place." No company is "entitled" to any sales.

The point is that, because of their product’s merits, they would organically be the top ranked search result. But due to advertising, they have lost that spot and now either must give up sales or also advertise.

Re: The Amazon tax

#519

Post by inigyou »

evereverever wrote: post #289
qurren wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: I've seen several local restaurants offering extremely good food come up and die simply because they could never get attention. People only look at recommendations now, they don't look with their eyes anymore. So now restaurants have to focus on growth hacking rather than food quality.

I've seen a lot of "Thai Food Near Me" as the name of restaurants.

What do you think would happen if they were called Current Location?

Re: The Amazon tax

#520

Post by inigyou »

mitchdoogle wrote: post #343
Henchman21 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re aware IBM was not just complicit but essentially made the Holocaust possible with their counting machines? Had technicians permanently staffed in the fucking camps ? The the numbers on people’s arms corresponded to IBM punch cards? Are you aware of the world you live in?

Mass genocide happened plenty of times before the advent of computers, so I take issue with your assertion that IBM made the holocaust possible.

They were, and still are - multiple times a year. But THE german holocaust was the most effective by orders of magnitude. And they have technology to thank for that. Computing machines (primitive as they were) made it possible to track the status of each Jew. Railways made it possible to move them. Chemical plants produced the gas in the needed quantities. Industrial incinerators made it possible to dispose of the remains. They didn't just go down to Home Depot and buy a bottle of poison gas. They had a system end-to-end as efficient as any factory.
Post reply on HN