Neither are perfect monopolies, however to deny that they wield significant monopoly power is patently absurd.
Monopoly power is not simply an issue of consumer choice - there are considerations around prices, coercion, competitive barriers and other outcomes, not just for consumers, but for competitors, suppliers, workers, investors, citizens, etc.
>Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space.
I haven't read it all, but think it's the basically the same paper than I saw earlier last year, and it was very good. It's a deep discussion of why the way we think today about monopoly and antirust laws has been abused, and aren't functioning anymore in this day and age. "There's other companies" is not nearly enough.
I really recommend it, it's long but a worthwhile read.
You don't have to be a complete monopoly to fall into anti-trust abuse. Amazon has absolutely abused their market position against quite a number of mfg's.
When I worked at Amazon I was required to take legal training on the used of the words 'market', 'marketplace', 'market segment', and how to frame speech about Amazon's relationship with competitors. I was an individual contributor programmer. I always wondered how much of that training was really about CYA and how much was indoctrination.
> The Note closes by considering two potential regimes for addressing Amazon’s power: restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles or applying common carrier obligations and duties.
The common carrier approach always seemed like the most rational way to address problems like this. One of the ways companies like Amazon dominate markets is by offering the best products/services. I don’t think there’s an effective way to regulate that away. But if they’re forced to offer their services as common carriers, then the risks of them actually monopolizing their position is greatly reduced.
Really I think if anyone should be forced into common carrier behavior it should be the financial system because of their involvement in payment transfers and power of abuse in cutting off avenues of donation and payment.
While Amazon's infastructure is neat and useful curation is still a valid task which is incompatible with a common carrier status and would be appropriative as it would raise serious questions if they could remove listers for anything not illegal. Like say "autism cures" involving bleach enemas or a guide to engaging in pedophilia. Not to mention functional integral aspects like search ranking would be a matter of "fairness" instead of trying to serve the customer or the company. I can see no way that a forced common carrier on Amazon will be anything but a disaster.
Except as it stands, they're both a market and a seller directly. Similar to Facebook is both a platform and a publisher.
The problem is that a lot of the time the rules are in stark contrast depending on which you are. In the Amazon case, I think product commingling, without distinct labeling is a significant muddy water scenario.
[+] [-] throwayEngineer|6 years ago|reply
I don't have a reason to use either company outside obscure niche circumstances.
[+] [-] chumali|6 years ago|reply
Monopoly power is not simply an issue of consumer choice - there are considerations around prices, coercion, competitive barriers and other outcomes, not just for consumers, but for competitors, suppliers, workers, investors, citizens, etc.
[+] [-] hrktb|6 years ago|reply
>Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space.
I haven't read it all, but think it's the basically the same paper than I saw earlier last year, and it was very good. It's a deep discussion of why the way we think today about monopoly and antirust laws has been abused, and aren't functioning anymore in this day and age. "There's other companies" is not nearly enough.
I really recommend it, it's long but a worthwhile read.
[+] [-] tracker1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zombiemeat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] urs2102|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remarkEon|6 years ago|reply
Really curious how people feel today, especially in the light of potential anti-trust action against Google.
[+] [-] AmericanChopper|6 years ago|reply
The common carrier approach always seemed like the most rational way to address problems like this. One of the ways companies like Amazon dominate markets is by offering the best products/services. I don’t think there’s an effective way to regulate that away. But if they’re forced to offer their services as common carriers, then the risks of them actually monopolizing their position is greatly reduced.
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
While Amazon's infastructure is neat and useful curation is still a valid task which is incompatible with a common carrier status and would be appropriative as it would raise serious questions if they could remove listers for anything not illegal. Like say "autism cures" involving bleach enemas or a guide to engaging in pedophilia. Not to mention functional integral aspects like search ranking would be a matter of "fairness" instead of trying to serve the customer or the company. I can see no way that a forced common carrier on Amazon will be anything but a disaster.
[+] [-] tracker1|6 years ago|reply
The problem is that a lot of the time the rules are in stark contrast depending on which you are. In the Amazon case, I think product commingling, without distinct labeling is a significant muddy water scenario.