US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward • Hacker News Board

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#101

Post by jjtheblunt » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:27 PM UTC

hughesjj wrote: post #62

jjtheblunt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has she done that didn't fail or get shot down as political overreach? (not being sarcastic...i mean that i may have missed something inadvertently)

> didn't fail or get shot down as political overreach? Progress requires testing the system and seeing where the failure points are . It's significantly better than the relative nothing we've gotten from past admins. Also with the current judicial and congressional makeup it's a wonder anything gets done.

but things that do get done were definitely critically reviewed, so that's something.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#102

Post by dymk » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #99

ceejayoz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t they drop the two-day shipping promise a while back?

It's only two day in America? It's next day in Australia. And we haven't even had Amazon for long...

It depends where you live and what’s in the closest warehouse. Many things are overnight delivered in the morning for me now, as I have a fulfillment center close by.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#103

Post by packetlost » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:40 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #99

ceejayoz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t they drop the two-day shipping promise a while back?

It's only two day in America? It's next day in Australia. And we haven't even had Amazon for long...

> we haven't even had Amazon for long

Yeah, that's probably why. They get people hooked with actually good service and then drop quality to save money once they've captured the market.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#104

Post by NavinF » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #99

ceejayoz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t they drop the two-day shipping promise a while back?

It's only two day in America? It's next day in Australia. And we haven't even had Amazon for long...

It's usually same-day where I live in the bay area. Same for Walmart, Costco, etc

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#105

Post by throwaway48476 » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #23

Workaccount2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.

For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.

As a culture we don't value primary sources.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#106

Post by adventured » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:52 PM UTC

richwater wrote: post #81

scohesc wrote: post #4

I hope they include Amazon's practice of taking popular products on their storefront, making generic "Amazon Basics" versions, and selling them to undercut the popular options. Simultaneously owning a marketplace, approving who can and can't sell products on it, and then putting your own products on it to undercut other sellers is so scummy and muck rake-y. I hope they also include Amazon allowing thousands of Chines…

> I hope they include Amazon's practice of taking popular products on their storefront, making generic "Amazon Basics" versions, and selling them to undercut the popular options. I guess you hate every grocery store ever then

And competition. One of the ways companies like Walmart hold their popular brand name companies in check on pricing power is through their store brands.

Why should I feel bad about Kraft being under permanent pressure by Walmart's Great Value brand?

More competition is needed, not less. Along with more transparency. Banning Amazon from competing would be a mistake. They need a more level playing field, not fewer players.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#107

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:53 PM UTC

nnf wrote: post #93

tmtvl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: are paywalled news articles better at outlinking and do they have no ads?

The Atlantic seems to have no problem linking to multiple outside sources in seemingly every article I read.

The Financial Times is also good about this.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#108

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:55 PM UTC

LorenDB wrote: post #6

I don't care who wins the election next month, Lina Khan needs to be kept as FTC chair. The FTC has been on a roll the past while.

Too early to call. At least initially, her FTC was incompetent to the point that M&A lawyers were urging companies to attempt mergers because shit that wouldn’t usually get through would get bungled in court. She was aggressive but incompetent.

She appears to be improving. But the FTC chair isn’t an internship.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#109

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:57 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #15

LorenDB wrote: post #6

I don't care who wins the election next month, Lina Khan needs to be kept as FTC chair. The FTC has been on a roll the past while.

I don't know if I accept Khan's framing of, even though I haven't won any cases I have scared off potential mergers and that is a win. I think the US already leans too heavily on tying everything up in courts forever.

>I think the US already leans too heavily on tying everything up in courts forever.

yes, because companies have decided to consider courts as a cost to do business instead of a regulator they must not piss off at any cost. the courts in that capacity will simply be abused, especially as these fast moving tech companies can make billions beofore a case shuts it all down.

Definitely needs to be some reform to how punishment works, especially retroactive costs.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#110

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 9:59 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #82

BadHumans wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't fall for the Silicon Valley propaganda that things are on the downswing because the FTC is not allowing mergers or acquisitions. Plenty of both of those have happened this year. DirectTV is in the process of acquiring Dish Network and SlingTV which is one of the largest acquisitions of the year and should alone perish the thought that mergers aren't happening.

The claim that there are less mergers happening is from Khan not Silcon Valley. “Sometimes, you know, the companies decide that they’re going to abandon the merger,” Khan said. Stahl asked if abandoning a merger amid the FTC’s scrutiny was a win, to which Khan said, “That’s right.” https://legal-mag.com/ftcs-lina-khan-defends-merger-and-acqu...

It's a mix of both. Some mergers fall through under regulation fear. Others fall through because aquisitions are expensive and it'd take years to make up for the cost (like the activision/blizzard one that was announced when money was cheap and went through when money became expensive).