I run a consulting company for Amazon suppliers. We have roughly 2-dozen Amazon suppliers and our first-hand experience is that Amazon is absolutely stifling competition/business to the detriment of customer.
The biggest problem is `agreements that restrain trade` is a monopoly practice that happens across the board. They're a black box AND have tiny support systems for their marketplace.
One recent example. A client was on track to be selling $X-million this year of some appliances. Our client was forced to to stop selling because of trump tariffs. Amazon won't accept a "higher price" from our little company that only sells $Xm/year. I guarantee they're talking everyday to the teams at frigidaire/honeywell/GE/etc.
If their systems would transparent this wouldn't be a problem but their algorithms have blackbox variables for the big brands.
Solid interview. But one thing I saw that was missing was that Amazon also doesn't charge itself the 15% marketplace fee (it varies slightly depending on category but most are 15%) that it charges 3rd party sellers. Since Amazon directly sells tens of millions of items, it had at least a 15% head start on every single one of those products in terms of price competition. Since we're talking retail here, the margins on most items don't exceed 15% in many cases. The fact that they have been allowed to charge 3rd party sellers this fee while not facing it themselves or being forced to stop selling products at all if they are going to run the marketplace is mind-boggling to me.
At the previous company I worked for, they were very careful about this issue. It was a fintech company that had 20+ different lines of business/revenue. Due to the nature of the fintech space, certain business units wanted information/data/services from the other divisions. For example, the index and ETF team wanted corporate actions data from the team that monitored all corporate actions globally and delivered it via a standardized feed. The ETF and index teams were forced to take money from their budget and actually buy the service from the other team to avoid legal issues. They knew that if other ETF and index providers found out they had to pay for the product but our internal team got everything for free and could then undercut them and charge less for the ETF and index products, I guaran-fucking-tee you they would have sued us. Every division in the company was financially separated for exactly this reason. There should be some sort of class-action lawsuit on this basis from all sellers against Amazon, in my opinion. Amazon should be forced to separate that business that actually sells its own products into a new legal entity and have to pay the fees.
Your description of your company sounds like it might be more of a transfer pricing issue than an antitrust issue. If the companies all have their own tax situations, then transactions between them need to be "arm's length" so that income isn't shifted from one company to another without the proper entity paying tax on it. That's generally the reason for companies under the same umbrella charging for things.
I think you're on to something about the competitive advantage that comes from those fees though. Matt Levine (who writes for Bloomberg) often mentions how odd it is that it's illegal for, say, two plumbers with their own companies to get together and agree to set their prices higher, but it's perfectly legal for those same plumbers to form a company together and then set their prices wherever they want. What's "anticompetitive" for two individuals is ok for a firm, unless the firm gets too big... It definitely makes you wonder if the definition of too big is actually set too high.
Amazon doesn't have to pay the 15%, but they DO have to pay for the massive web infrastructure of their retail storefront and for the massive order fulfillment infrastructure.
How we actually define a company to be a monopoly seems to be somewhat arbitrary? I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? I mean every company can affect that, at what point does it become problematic?
Amazon very often competes directly with sellers on the Marketplace, and often undercuts them on price.
There are products they sell below the purchase cost, sometimes below manufacturing cost. You can't compete with that unless you have piles of money to burn.
They sell at a loss until they shake everyone loose from a product, then dominate all sales of that products on the Marketplace, raising prices to profitability when they feel like it.
Don't forget they get all product sales information and statistics from every seller on the Marketplace - basically all the market research necessary to pick only "winner" products to sell. Then, when they feel like it, they require sellers to produce original invoices proving purchase of the items. These invoices conveniently contain all necessary information for Amazon to start buying the items directly themselves so that they can sell the item at a loss until you can't compete anymore, leaving Amazon as the sole source for the product.
Wanna be part of Vendor Central - selling directly to Amazon? They dictate the pricing and strong-arm you into selling exclusively to them in many cases. There is no negotiation - there is no adjusting pricing based on quantity ordered. And as much as people might want to think Amazon just buys enough quantity to get what they want - they don't. They just tell you what it will be.
> or exclude competition to that extent?
They can ban you from their Marketplace (the largest consumer Marketplace in the world) at will, with little to zero recourse on your part, via an opaque "Seller Performance" team that only responds to email, sometimes, and provides vague responses to what policies you might have broken.
That is, if you somehow get the eye of the Seller Performance team upon you. The reasons they go after certain sellers and leave others alone are as mysterious as the team behind the decisions.
For years Amazon had banned Chromecast and AppleTV devices from it's entire marketplace when they competed with their Firestick device.
Not only did Amazon not carry it, but Amazon also prevented third party sellers from listing the competing devices as well. That is textbook anti-competitive behavior, which is probably why Amazon finally started selling them again recently.
Economist Israel Kirzner insisted that monopoly analysis is only applicable when the possibility of competition is eliminated, either legally or by the producer's sole control of the total supply of a resource necessary for the production of a good or service, and that the term should therefore be defined as such. In which case Amazon is not a monopoly, and we shouldn't be surprised to see continually falling prices and increasing quality.
It's not a monopoly under the dictionary definition:
>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
It is maybe under the Sherman Act:
>“Monopoly power” is generally understood to mean “the power to control prices or exclude competition”.
I wish when people use words in a different way to the dictionary meaning they'd say so. Otherwise it leads to a whole lot of pointless "Oh yes it is" vs "oh no it isn't" in discussion.
I find that there's a huge amount of discussion that basically amounts to definitional disagreements. I'll cede definitions like "monopoly" for the sake of a discussion and continue to use them otherwise.
The trouble is those are uninteresting questions. "Is Amazon a monopoly?" immediately takes the more interesting discussion "what should we do about the size of Amazon" off the table and leaves us to bicker about what words mean. We likely won't reach an agreement about what officially constitutes a monopoly, but we can reason about what we should do in the future.
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.
"Market Power"
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
Well, years ago, when Amazon wasn't a monopoly, who had the choice to make it one?
The final user.
Personally, I've never used Amazon before seeing a friend ordering a fairly huge amount of stuff from there. Prior to that, I was a not-so-obsessed-from-ecommerce eBay user, where I placed an order maybe every 4-5 months.
I've started using Amazon because of its returning policy, which is better that eBay's, but by doing so, i've also increased the amount of stuff bought on the platform, because of time. Getting older and having more responsibilities, you've to save some time, then Amazon comes to rescue when it comes to generic stuff.
I guess now it's really late to blame Amazon for the monopoly, as well as Microsoft did in 90s with PCs and Google is doing nowadays with Android+Chrome.
Sure, there are alternatives, but the final decision on who gets the monopoly is the user
Aren't they playing really nice and even operating at loss until they become a monopoly? It's not really a choice if a company is giving you free stuff.
Probably it's the same idea with Uber: We can have really nice rides at good prices because rich people are co-paying our rides. When it's only Uber out there, they can start testing our patience while maximising the profits.
Amazon and Uber are not really selling some high margin tech products, their core innovations are not in the product but the business operations and strategies.
Amazon hooked me when they rolled out Prime and free shipping. So now any time I think of something I need, I open the app on my phone and click buy. I feel guilty but it's just so easy. It's a pain purchasing across different sites (different IDs, thinking about shipping cost, return policy/procedure). I know shipping singles items is bad for the environment and a total waste. I keep telling myself I need to get off Amazon.
She forgets that the Amazon marketplace is made up of sellers and the prices aren't controlled by Amazon for a lot of their products. These are inherited from the distributor in most cases. Sure Amazon fulfills the orders but it's not like Walmart that controls the entire process. There is more freedom in Amazon.
Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today. How about making a service better than Amazon? No that's impossible?? Well you can bet there are a million people trying right now so there are and will be plenty more alternatives.
No it's not, and you still have a burden of a proof on your shoulders. It probably is, indeed, kept up by some degree of anti-competitive practices but it's still not a monopoly but a member of what you call oligopoly, providing a lot of cheap stuff in every of its areas of competition.
I'd like to point out as well that sanctions (not necessarily well-deserved) against Amazon will just destroy some workplaces, mostly lower-qualified ones, which will cause quite a bit of a problem.
The interviewee didn't define monopoly by anti-competitive behavior.
> Is Amazon a monopoly?
> Yes, monopoly power is defined as the power to control prices or exclude competition. Amazon has the power to do both. But being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exclusionary conduct.
being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exclusionary conduct.
Exclusionary conduct includes things like predatory pricing, exclusive agreements, refusing to deal with a company, most-favored nation clauses, designing your product or service in a way that excludes competition, and more types of anticompetitive behavior.
How is the above different from "having a moat?" Isn't any company that starts and maintains a curated "ecosystem" engaging in some of these behaviors? Isn't Apple guilty of refusing to deal with certain companies and designing their product or service in a way that excludes competition? For that matter, aren't most of the tech giants?
I wish this elaborated more on how Amazon is a monopoly. The interviewee defines it as having the power to set prices and exclude competition. I don’t see either of those happening. There’s a ton of competition, more than enough to severely limit their ability to set prices.
You're looking at it as the customer being the people buying things off of amazon. They are in a sense, but not the sense that is important here.
The the sellers on amazon are customers of their marketplace. Much like Colgate and Crest might fight over ideal shelf space in a supermarket (and be changed accordingly by the market), the sellers on amazon must pay the price to be on amazon. Amazon has the power to set prices of appearing in their marketplace, where, and for what keywords. Amazon is also now selling their own merchandise on those same (digital) shelves. There are few alternatives to amazon for online retailers. So, to reach customers, many retailers must use amazon, despite the rent-collection they do. The next marketplace for online retail is walmart.com, which, and lets be honest, when was the last time any of us went to walmart.com...
No it is not. Unless you can't buy basically the same stuff from lots of other places this is simple the usual whining about 'big cooperations'.
The reality is that amazon overs good prices and people like to shop there.
And yes, suppliers are gone complain, that amazon is evil, just like suppliers complain that walmarket is evil, just as suppliers always claim whatever larger reseller they sell to is a evil monopoly.
The definition of a monopoly in economics is if that seller can essentially employ monopoly pricing, but amazon prices are not incredible higher compared to the competition.
What you're referring to is a 'pure' monopoly, which are relatively rare (but still common enough).
The wider use of definition in economics is a company that dominates a market to the extent that is has control over the market. For example, when suppliers have little actual choice in dealing with the company.
Higher prices are not necessarily a product of a monopoly and are not needed to define one.
As governments seem slow to action, would coordinating consumers shopping help combat the monopoly power of some industry? For example, having an app that notifies you to try and buy from a competitor like walmart for a few days to pressure amazon into bargaining?
And why would consumers coordinate against a company that is benefiting them with lower prices, great customer service, and insanely fast shipping now (I live in a small town of 40,000 - 3 hours from any major metropolis and get 1 day shipping)? Honestly I'm pretty impressed how such a massive company still seems to do a majority of their customers good, without even making them pay more. I'd say most of the people I know who use amazon are pretty happy with the service they are getting. To the average consumer whose looking out for their own personal bottom line, whats the benefit of coordinating against them?
I have actually started adopting other online vendors because Amazon's quality control and customer support is so atrocious. I think Amazon will end up digging its own grave by building this huge adoption for online buyong, training competition how to do online retail right, and then die from a million cuts as thousands of specialty vendors step in. Their search sucks too...you just get fed paid advertisements for crap. AWS is amazing but I no longer trust Amazon as a place to buy physical items.
Hey, would you mind explaining how customer service has been atrocious for you? We place a lot of importance on the customer experience, and feedback will help us improve our services.
Stallman's biggest problem, in my opinion, is that all his proposed solutions are individual consumption choices. A beast like Amazon can only be tamed by collective action and regulation.
This is an attempt to divert attention from real monopolies like Comcast and healthcare monsters. What we really need in the tech space is UK-style laws to enforce competition between ISPs, GDPR-style laws to protect personal data and CA-style prohibition on NDAs. But politicans won't get paid for any of this. Instead they go for easy and profitable targets, such as pretending to care that Amazon is a monopoly.
Unless Walmart Canada,No Frills,Sobeys or any other retailer compete with Amazon,we will still read these news.Amazon prime is great if you don't find enough time to go shopping for minor things.Amazon is great for non-perishable item shopping if you compare its prices with other retailers.
Why would I pay $4.99,at Sobeys, for a jar of nescafe if I can get it from Amazon for $3.97?
I think I can generalize that the problem with Amazon is similar to many of the modern tech companies in that they're super well funded and aren't expected to make a profit which allows them to undercut incumbents.
Amazon can price lower than Target/Wallmart/B&N/Local Stores, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
Uber can price lower than local taxis, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
Tesla can price lower than Ford/Toyota/Merc, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
AirBnB can price lower than Hilton/Marriot/Locals, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
WeWork can price lower than office buildings, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
The problem is low interest rates and another tech bubble.
[+] [-] blairanderson|6 years ago|reply
The biggest problem is `agreements that restrain trade` is a monopoly practice that happens across the board. They're a black box AND have tiny support systems for their marketplace.
One recent example. A client was on track to be selling $X-million this year of some appliances. Our client was forced to to stop selling because of trump tariffs. Amazon won't accept a "higher price" from our little company that only sells $Xm/year. I guarantee they're talking everyday to the teams at frigidaire/honeywell/GE/etc.
If their systems would transparent this wouldn't be a problem but their algorithms have blackbox variables for the big brands.
[+] [-] scarface74|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turc1656|6 years ago|reply
At the previous company I worked for, they were very careful about this issue. It was a fintech company that had 20+ different lines of business/revenue. Due to the nature of the fintech space, certain business units wanted information/data/services from the other divisions. For example, the index and ETF team wanted corporate actions data from the team that monitored all corporate actions globally and delivered it via a standardized feed. The ETF and index teams were forced to take money from their budget and actually buy the service from the other team to avoid legal issues. They knew that if other ETF and index providers found out they had to pay for the product but our internal team got everything for free and could then undercut them and charge less for the ETF and index products, I guaran-fucking-tee you they would have sued us. Every division in the company was financially separated for exactly this reason. There should be some sort of class-action lawsuit on this basis from all sellers against Amazon, in my opinion. Amazon should be forced to separate that business that actually sells its own products into a new legal entity and have to pay the fees.
[+] [-] ksdale|6 years ago|reply
I think you're on to something about the competitive advantage that comes from those fees though. Matt Levine (who writes for Bloomberg) often mentions how odd it is that it's illegal for, say, two plumbers with their own companies to get together and agree to set their prices higher, but it's perfectly legal for those same plumbers to form a company together and then set their prices wherever they want. What's "anticompetitive" for two individuals is ok for a firm, unless the firm gets too big... It definitely makes you wonder if the definition of too big is actually set too high.
[+] [-] metalliqaz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arrezz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alupis|6 years ago|reply
Amazon very often competes directly with sellers on the Marketplace, and often undercuts them on price.
There are products they sell below the purchase cost, sometimes below manufacturing cost. You can't compete with that unless you have piles of money to burn.
They sell at a loss until they shake everyone loose from a product, then dominate all sales of that products on the Marketplace, raising prices to profitability when they feel like it.
Don't forget they get all product sales information and statistics from every seller on the Marketplace - basically all the market research necessary to pick only "winner" products to sell. Then, when they feel like it, they require sellers to produce original invoices proving purchase of the items. These invoices conveniently contain all necessary information for Amazon to start buying the items directly themselves so that they can sell the item at a loss until you can't compete anymore, leaving Amazon as the sole source for the product.
Wanna be part of Vendor Central - selling directly to Amazon? They dictate the pricing and strong-arm you into selling exclusively to them in many cases. There is no negotiation - there is no adjusting pricing based on quantity ordered. And as much as people might want to think Amazon just buys enough quantity to get what they want - they don't. They just tell you what it will be.
> or exclude competition to that extent?
They can ban you from their Marketplace (the largest consumer Marketplace in the world) at will, with little to zero recourse on your part, via an opaque "Seller Performance" team that only responds to email, sometimes, and provides vague responses to what policies you might have broken.
That is, if you somehow get the eye of the Seller Performance team upon you. The reasons they go after certain sellers and leave others alone are as mysterious as the team behind the decisions.
[+] [-] bduerst|6 years ago|reply
Not only did Amazon not carry it, but Amazon also prevented third party sellers from listing the competing devices as well. That is textbook anti-competitive behavior, which is probably why Amazon finally started selling them again recently.
[+] [-] trappist|6 years ago|reply
http://rationalargumentator.com/issue118/Kirzner3.html
[+] [-] losteric|6 years ago|reply
Wikipedia has a long but layman-accessible section on Europe's competition laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law
[+] [-] stcredzero|6 years ago|reply
Has Amazon come up with a way to dominate markets without controlling prices or excluding competition? Right at this moment, my answer is, "maybe?"
[+] [-] changoplatanero|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OrgNet|6 years ago|reply
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/08/05/2129248/amazon-sque...
[+] [-] dredmorbius|6 years ago|reply
"Monopolization Defined"
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
> at what point does it become problematic?
I don't know , probably at the point where that company becomes a net negative to the economy.
[+] [-] Circuits|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thatisnotallow|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
It is maybe under the Sherman Act:
>“Monopoly power” is generally understood to mean “the power to control prices or exclude competition”.
I wish when people use words in a different way to the dictionary meaning they'd say so. Otherwise it leads to a whole lot of pointless "Oh yes it is" vs "oh no it isn't" in discussion.
[+] [-] wry_discontent|6 years ago|reply
The trouble is those are uninteresting questions. "Is Amazon a monopoly?" immediately takes the more interesting discussion "what should we do about the size of Amazon" off the table and leaves us to bicker about what words mean. We likely won't reach an agreement about what officially constitutes a monopoly, but we can reason about what we should do in the future.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|6 years ago|reply
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.
"Market Power"
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IloveHN84|6 years ago|reply
The final user.
Personally, I've never used Amazon before seeing a friend ordering a fairly huge amount of stuff from there. Prior to that, I was a not-so-obsessed-from-ecommerce eBay user, where I placed an order maybe every 4-5 months. I've started using Amazon because of its returning policy, which is better that eBay's, but by doing so, i've also increased the amount of stuff bought on the platform, because of time. Getting older and having more responsibilities, you've to save some time, then Amazon comes to rescue when it comes to generic stuff.
I guess now it's really late to blame Amazon for the monopoly, as well as Microsoft did in 90s with PCs and Google is doing nowadays with Android+Chrome.
Sure, there are alternatives, but the final decision on who gets the monopoly is the user
[+] [-] mrtksn|6 years ago|reply
Probably it's the same idea with Uber: We can have really nice rides at good prices because rich people are co-paying our rides. When it's only Uber out there, they can start testing our patience while maximising the profits.
Amazon and Uber are not really selling some high margin tech products, their core innovations are not in the product but the business operations and strategies.
[+] [-] efa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indopedia|6 years ago|reply
Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today. How about making a service better than Amazon? No that's impossible?? Well you can bet there are a million people trying right now so there are and will be plenty more alternatives.
[+] [-] higherkinded|6 years ago|reply
I'd like to point out as well that sanctions (not necessarily well-deserved) against Amazon will just destroy some workplaces, mostly lower-qualified ones, which will cause quite a bit of a problem.
[+] [-] daveFNbuck|6 years ago|reply
> Is Amazon a monopoly?
> Yes, monopoly power is defined as the power to control prices or exclude competition. Amazon has the power to do both. But being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exclusionary conduct.
[+] [-] stcredzero|6 years ago|reply
Exclusionary conduct includes things like predatory pricing, exclusive agreements, refusing to deal with a company, most-favored nation clauses, designing your product or service in a way that excludes competition, and more types of anticompetitive behavior.
How is the above different from "having a moat?" Isn't any company that starts and maintains a curated "ecosystem" engaging in some of these behaviors? Isn't Apple guilty of refusing to deal with certain companies and designing their product or service in a way that excludes competition? For that matter, aren't most of the tech giants?
[+] [-] mikeash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scoofy|6 years ago|reply
The the sellers on amazon are customers of their marketplace. Much like Colgate and Crest might fight over ideal shelf space in a supermarket (and be changed accordingly by the market), the sellers on amazon must pay the price to be on amazon. Amazon has the power to set prices of appearing in their marketplace, where, and for what keywords. Amazon is also now selling their own merchandise on those same (digital) shelves. There are few alternatives to amazon for online retailers. So, to reach customers, many retailers must use amazon, despite the rent-collection they do. The next marketplace for online retail is walmart.com, which, and lets be honest, when was the last time any of us went to walmart.com...
[+] [-] nickik|6 years ago|reply
The reality is that amazon overs good prices and people like to shop there.
And yes, suppliers are gone complain, that amazon is evil, just like suppliers complain that walmarket is evil, just as suppliers always claim whatever larger reseller they sell to is a evil monopoly.
The definition of a monopoly in economics is if that seller can essentially employ monopoly pricing, but amazon prices are not incredible higher compared to the competition.
[+] [-] dominicr|6 years ago|reply
The wider use of definition in economics is a company that dominates a market to the extent that is has control over the market. For example, when suppliers have little actual choice in dealing with the company.
Higher prices are not necessarily a product of a monopoly and are not needed to define one.
[+] [-] acover|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinsundar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OnlineCourage|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickfatrick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerE|6 years ago|reply
Isn't AWS way more profitable than everything else they do combined?
[+] [-] amznnnnn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjg007|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|6 years ago|reply
https://stallman.org/amazon.html
[+] [-] cyborgx7|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlchemistCamp|6 years ago|reply
https://stratechery.com/2019/tech-and-antitrust/
[+] [-] mlguy456|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breadandcrumbel|6 years ago|reply
But they became one only because they are great at doing business
They built an empire from an online book store....
[+] [-] EngineerWannabe|6 years ago|reply
Why would I pay $4.99,at Sobeys, for a jar of nescafe if I can get it from Amazon for $3.97?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rb808|6 years ago|reply
Amazon can price lower than Target/Wallmart/B&N/Local Stores, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
Uber can price lower than local taxis, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
Tesla can price lower than Ford/Toyota/Merc, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
AirBnB can price lower than Hilton/Marriot/Locals, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
WeWork can price lower than office buildings, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.
The problem is low interest rates and another tech bubble.
[+] [-] mikojan|6 years ago|reply