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

Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#121

Post by heisenbit »

ribosometronome wrote: post #33
karaterobot wrote: post #23

If it's true they colluded to remove ads from Apple pages on Amazon, both companies deserve what they get. Why do it sneakily? Why not have a page somewhere on Amazon that says "hey, if you want us to remove ads from your product listings, pay us [10x the total lifetime amount we expect to get in ad revenue from running ads on the page] per product page". Most companies wouldn't do it, so it wouldn't change Amazon's…

It sounds like you are saying that businesses should only be able to sell services that they publicly advertise with prices. For example, if Coca Cola wanted to have a product placement idk the eventual Jok3r movie, would Warner Brothers would need to advertise that service somewhere on the website? Would you see Coca Cola's advertising department calling WB and being "yo, what do we have to do to get poison ivy to h…

There are businesses and them there are businesses which have a market dominating position. The latter have to be careful to avoid striking preferential deals only available to them furthering their dominant positin.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#122

Post by zmgsabst »

heisenbit wrote: post #121
ribosometronome wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you are saying that businesses should only be able to sell services that they publicly advertise with prices. For example, if Coca Cola wanted to have a product placement idk the eventual Jok3r movie, would Warner Brothers would need to advertise that service somewhere on the website? Would you see Coca Cola's advertising department calling WB and being "yo, what do we have to do to get poison ivy to h…

There are businesses and them there are businesses which have a market dominating position. The latter have to be careful to avoid striking preferential deals only available to them furthering their dominant positin.

Coca-Cola and large movie studios sound more like the latter than the former, though.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#123

Post by SllX »

jhp123 wrote: post #101

you have to wonder what sort of collusion isn't being uncovered. After all, when you catch someone doing something unethical, it is often the tip of the iceberg. It would be very easy for two tech execs to communicate privately and come to an agreement like "Stop investing in Bing and we'll stop investing in GSuite." We've been through a long period of stagnation from big tech companies, often blamed on cultural prob…

Not saying there isn't collusion in the Valley but a negotiated deal with a signed contract complete with paper trail and with both companies, employees and former employees admitting that such a deal exists even if they can't discuss the details when asked about it isn't exactly the definition of collusion. It's an agreement. In fact, if the alternative was that Apple goes to war with Amazon in court over the number of counterfeit Apple products Amazon was selling (or allowing third parties to sell through Amazon) and Apple can build a strong enough case for a court to take it, then a signed agreement before litigation can even begin is a positive outcome from a court's perspective because even if litigation did begin, the court would be spending some time encouraging the parties to negotiate a settlement rather than dragging this out when the court could be hearing other cases.

Collusion is illegal and typically done in secret because its illegal, like when Apple, Google, Pixar and some others (I forgot who else, Google it) were suppressing wages–that was collusion. Signing contracts and making deals with other Fortune 500 companies operating in the same sector, even for things that neither company would typically offer to anyone else, is not.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#124

Post by vkou »

addicted wrote: post #75

I returned my unopened Apple Watch to Amazon. Getting my money back has been a massive pain. Usually Amazon literally returns the money when the delivery person picks up the item from my doorstep. But with this Amazon required a scheduled pickup with UPS, did not acknowledge receiving the item even though UPS showed it as received and a few weeks later they are still asking me to wait for 1 month before contacting th…

It's surprising that your account wasn't banned for initiating a chargeback.

A chargeback is a nuclear solution, where you make it clear that you're going to have a third party dictate terms to the merchant. Most merchants respond to that sort of behaviour by dictating to you that they will no longer do business with you.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#125

Post by vkou »

scarface_74 wrote: post #46
kube-system wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a company controls a large part of a market, regulators give extra scrutiny to any efforts that company may make that harms competition.

You mean 36% of e-commerce and an even smaller portion of all retail?

Someone who owned 36% of all the land in the United States would certainly be considered to 'controlling a large share of real estate'.

In the case of Amazon, it's even worse, because despite a 'mere' 36% market share, there is a lot of evidence that they have market-moving pricing power.

They generally exercise it by restricting the prices sellers can charge in other stores. This happens to almost all sellers on Amazon.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#126

Post by wpietri »

forty wrote: post #120
Alupis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally Amazon bans your account (and that means you, personally, since it's difficult to open a second account) from ever using amazon.com ever again if you successfully charge back something. The only recourse is to pay them the charged back amount... Experienced this first hand with actual fraud that was reported to Amazon moments after it occurred, yet still received a lifetime ban until my fraud dispute was set…

I banned myself from using Amazon several years ago. I feel that if everyone did the same, the world would be a better place.

I now have a policy of using Amazon third. If I can get the thing I want directly from the manufacturer, that's best. If I can get it from some some less dominant vendor at a reasonable price and schedule, that's fine. Otherwise, Amazon.

Doing this for a while has increased my concern about Amazon, as a surprising number of things are only available from them.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#127

Post by stouset »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #112
rtpg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don’t want to give you money for a counterfeit, then have you disappear?

Ah so scammers are ordering real products, paying full price, and returning counterfeit products that cost them less than the real product, getting a refund on the full real product price then selling or keeping the real product - got it! If the scammers keep the real item, they effectively get a real product at counterfeit prices. If they sell it, they make the difference between real and counterfeit in profit less…

Yep. And counterfeits are good enough that you need dedicated personnel to be able to confirm high-value returns are legitimate and not knock-offs.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#128

Post by stouset »

addicted wrote: post #75

I returned my unopened Apple Watch to Amazon. Getting my money back has been a massive pain. Usually Amazon literally returns the money when the delivery person picks up the item from my doorstep. But with this Amazon required a scheduled pickup with UPS, did not acknowledge receiving the item even though UPS showed it as received and a few weeks later they are still asking me to wait for 1 month before contacting th…

No, they’re protecting themselves against a significant volume of fraudsters who order genuine high-value goods and return counterfeits. These people are more than capable of re-shrinkwrapping boxes after opening them.

It’s likely there’s a significant queue of potential counterfeits that Amazon needs to go through. If you bought/returned this during a period of otherwise-high volume (e.g., right after a release), there’s a particularly high chance that the volume of “real” returns temporarily swamped their normal capacity. Or maybe their capacity just lags behind what it ought to be.

Either way, they’re protecting themselves and this almost certainly has nothing to do with Apple specifically.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#129

Post by DougBTX »

jeromegv wrote: post #116
addicted wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t explain their systems showing them not even having received the product for about 10 days until literally the day we filed the chargeback.

May be their system is configured to auto refund when it’s received. So they “hacked” the process so that it doesn’t show received up until they complete inspection.

Maybe a case of semantic drift, the difference between “received package” and “received product”. If the customers are honest those are the same thing, if not there may be a step in between.

Re: Apple asked Amazon to block rival ads

#130

Post by hollerith »

stouset wrote: post #127
ryanjshaw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah so scammers are ordering real products, paying full price, and returning counterfeit products that cost them less than the real product, getting a refund on the full real product price then selling or keeping the real product - got it! If the scammers keep the real item, they effectively get a real product at counterfeit prices. If they sell it, they make the difference between real and counterfeit in profit less…

Yep. And counterfeits are good enough that you need dedicated personnel to be able to confirm high-value returns are legitimate and not knock-offs.

Does a good counterfeit Apple Watch actually do everything a real watch does, e.g., respond like a genuine watch after you install an arbitrary app on it and start using the app?

(If so, I'm guessing they made the cheapest genuine Apple Watch look on the outside like a more expensive one.)

Post reply on HN