|
FBA is riddled with problems, but most FBA sellers face the same dilemma as big Ebay sellers: no matter how lovely it is, it's still a model that you're wholly dependent on and the only options are to either deal with it or get out entirely. A competitor can't just sweep in and outcompete Amazon in the third party seller biz because the entire draw of FBA is that you're selling your products on Amazon and Amazon is handling the logistics side of things for you. A competitor would have to first beat Amazon at being Amazon, and that sure as hell isn't happening any time soon.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
I'm starting to wonder if the solution here is to be all "fine, you can be a monopoly if you want but you get treated like a utility now." I just don't see how you can break up a Google or an Amazon. You have to admit though a one stop website where you can buy loving anything and have it shipped to your front door is incredible. It probably just isn't possible to compete with Amazon in any meaningful way so it isn't going to go away. Unfortunately Bezos seems to be more interested in treating it like a money pinata to make his score bigger than actually doing anything in the public good with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
To just break up company is very outdated concept, even as of mid 20th century. Sure if problem you have is "company control all the oil well and plants" you can fairly simple divide up territories, move equipment for fair chance, and have 2 company control half each oil well and refinery. But how can you reasonable decide something like that for company that sells generic retail good and also sells spare server time and makes some device etc. Do you remember when court suggested dividing Microsoft in 2000? Even that not make sense. There is business unit at Microsoft like Windows and Office which you could seperate from the other and could be viable business. But those would still be huge ownerships of markets and could throw that around. And you can't say "well the people in Europe have to use Office2 and people in America use Office1". Everyone needs to share document and simplify training they would not obey. You could probably make all the tiny little softwares Microsoft makes into individual or grouped software company if you wanted but that is as taking 2 blocks out of the Great Pyramid, you could not even see the difference. In many way my belief is popular sentiment to bad behavior of "break em up" is about reaffirmation of capitalism. It is the core myth, if there are more "provider" you have more "competition" and the "competition guarentees benefit" mindset is behind it. Forget careful monitor and regulate of the business, the market solves it for you! We do not need to think the deep thought of how to make difficult decision of complex rules to serve the people as long as company doesn't go over magic size. It appears even in otherwise hardcore of leftists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
I do remember that; all that was accomplished was that Microsoft was given a list of "here are things you aren't allowed to do." Hence why I don't see any good way to break up Amazon. Like you said it makes sense for like an oil company or the phone company giants of the past but at this point with companies that exist primarily on the interblag? Good loving luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:To just break up company is very outdated concept, even as of mid 20th century. Sure if problem you have is "company control all the oil well and plants" you can fairly simple divide up territories, move equipment for fair chance, and have 2 company control half each oil well and refinery. But how can you reasonable decide something like that for company that sells generic retail good and also sells spare server time and makes some device etc. AWS is a separate business unit. you could fairly easily split it out so that it competes directly with Azure (also split out of Microsoft) across geographies. splitting by geography was how at&t was broken up due to its nature as a natural monopoly: there was no other way done at the time. Now, the equivalent is done by LLU and the like where the entity that owns the infrastructure is mandated to provide fair and non-discriminatory access to it to other companies. It works reasonably well as long as the monopolist company is essentially regulated out the wazoo like a utility. In this case there is no natural monopoly or externalities that cause market failure. Competition is needed to drive innovation and lower prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I do remember that; all that was accomplished was that Microsoft was given a list of "here are things you aren't allowed to do." Hence why I don't see any good way to break up Amazon. Like you said it makes sense for like an oil company or the phone company giants of the past but at this point with companies that exist primarily on the interblag? Good loving luck. The easiest way would be to force it to divest AWS and forbid it from competing with its own customers on the marketplace, along with slicing out various parts of the verticals its taken over, like supply chain logistics (forcing a classic theater/movie studio separation) It's not exactly straightforward because Amazon is so huge and sprawling and has fingers in so many pots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Breaking up Amazon is a hard sell because there's not much apparent consumer harm, and they're not actually a monopoly in...basically anything significant I can think of.ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm starting to wonder if the solution here is to be all "fine, you can be a monopoly if you want but you get treated like a utility now." I just don't see how you can break up a Google or an Amazon. You have to admit though a one stop website where you can buy loving anything and have it shipped to your front door is incredible. It probably just isn't possible to compete with Amazon in any meaningful way so it isn't going to go away. Unfortunately Bezos seems to be more interested in treating it like a money pinata to make his score bigger than actually doing anything in the public good with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
Something like 50% of online commerce in the US goes through Amazon. That’s a lot but not really a monopoly at all. In any case, it’s AWS that’s really driving growth for Amazon these days. After a certain point I suspect there are shareholders who wouldn’t mind a spinoff of the cloud services.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 12:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm starting to wonder if the solution here is to be all "fine, you can be a monopoly if you want but you get treated like a utility now." I just don't see how you can break up a Google or an Amazon. You have to admit though a one stop website where you can buy loving anything and have it shipped to your front door is incredible. It probably just isn't possible to compete with Amazon in any meaningful way so it isn't going to go away. Unfortunately Bezos seems to be more interested in treating it like a money pinata to make his score bigger than actually doing anything in the public good with it. Not that Bezos is treating Amazon as a philanthropic organization, but shareholders have been mad at Bezos for over a decade because he refused to raise prices, kept expanding into different niche areas (drones, web hosting, e-book readers, package facilitation, original TV shows, tablets, grocery stores, physical "smart" retail stores, cell phones, etc) by pouring all of the company's profits back into the company. He could easily be a whole lot richer in the short-term if he just never did the the drones, grocery stores, TV producing, buying movie and music rights, raised prices on all of their goods that have captive audiences, and sent the money to himself and shareholders. He's not pursuing the path of maximum profit for himself and shareholders, he's just ploughing all the money into subsidizing prices for customers, expanding the business, and his pet projects. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Sep 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
But they always have to do their own hosting or pay insane amounts. They just do it one better by doing it themselves AND getting others to pay those costs. Also I have had no issues with FBA but I work at a well known company. Amazon used to mess with us because they wanted to become a wholesale partner and control price and all that, but I think someone over there realized it is just as profitable if not more by just letting us handle a lot of the expenses you do with FBA. We aren't big enough to be on their executive radar either so we are left alone now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Breaking up Amazon is a hard sell because there's not much apparent consumer harm, and they're not actually a monopoly in...basically anything significant I can think of. The consumer harm doctrine is not the only anti-monopoly doctrine, despite what the last 30 years of American business will tell you. Stifling competition in and of itself is a consumer harm. I don't want Amazon to be the only store on the web. And amazon can and will raise prices when competition ceases: cf prime, their game thing, and their anticompetitive abuse of sellers on the marketplace. Vegetable posted:Something like 50% of online commerce in the US goes through Amazon. That’s a lot but not really a monopoly at all. 50% is huge! Literally 1 out of every 2 dollars spent online is through amazon. That's dominant market position. It's ripe for abuse. You can't be a seller and ignore Amazon's pricing power. They can and will abuse it, as they do with marketplace sellers competing with Amazon's own brands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:AWS is a separate business unit. you could fairly easily split it out so that it competes directly with Azure (also split out of Microsoft) across geographies. splitting by geography was how at&t was broken up due to its nature as a natural monopoly: there was no other way done at the time. Now, the equivalent is done by LLU and the like where the entity that owns the infrastructure is mandated to provide fair and non-discriminatory access to it to other companies. It works reasonably well as long as the monopolist company is essentially regulated out the wazoo like a utility. That is of my points. You split dominant store from dominant cloud host - they are still continue of dominant in their field each. And neither no longer need other to be itself, even though original development is needing that. This fails to achieve lessening of the market control. As far as splitting of the phone company. Usual that was just excuse to give big private profit from long time public utility. And the America version just made smaller monopoly for many year and I'm sure generate similar kickback for connected persons before competition available to normal Joe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
In the case of phone companies part of the reason they were allowed to stay huge was because the government said "ok but you'll be a utility and you will connect literally everybody." Of course part of that was practical. Phone companies were refusing to connect places that weren't profitable enough so a lot of rural folks couldn't get phones even if they wanted one. They could still be huge but within boundaries. One of which was that phone everywhere made communication better. A common problem was some kind of disaster would hit but nobody would have any idea for weeks. If there's at least one working phone in town word gets out a lot faster. They were still huge and profitable but were kept on a leash. Tech companies know that happened and don't want it to again but really I don't see much of a choice if you want a functional economy. Bezos is obscenely rich and Amazon has an absurd amount of economic influence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
If it’s any consolation Amazon UK’s non-media side is slowly being murdered to death by customers getting pissed off with Chinese fakes, and the concerted effort to rejuvenate the cities high streets into multi purpose areas that have housing, hotels, offices, food, and retail - often in the same shiney new tall glass building. Looks like Nike, Reebok and Adidas clothing have already told them to gently caress off, Reebok especially hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The consumer harm doctrine is not the only anti-monopoly doctrine, despite what the last 30 years of American business will tell you. Stifling competition in and of itself is a consumer harm. I don't want Amazon to be the only store on the web. Walmart is also buying up all the niche online sites and will be #2 pretty soon. Right now they own Walmart.com, Jet.com, Hayneedle, Shoes.com, Modcloth.com, Bonobos and Moosejaw. If you count all retail sales including B&M Amazon isn't even 5% yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Walmart is also buying up all the niche online sites and will be #2 pretty soon. Right now they own Walmart.com, Jet.com, Hayneedle, Shoes.com, Modcloth.com, Bonobos and Moosejaw. It's even less if you count all sales everywhere and of anything in the whole world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Looks like Nike, Reebok and Adidas clothing have already told them to gently caress off, Reebok especially hard. ? https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/business/nike-amazon-shoes/index.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Lambert posted:It's even less if you count all sales everywhere and of anything in the whole world. I mean I still don't buy household staples like toilet paper on Amazon because I can go to Target or Costco and get the same thing at the same price today. Amazon is huge but they're still tiny as far as retail in general goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:That is of my points. You split dominant store from dominant cloud host - they are still continue of dominant in their field each. And neither no longer need other to be itself, even though original development is needing that. This fails to achieve lessening of the market control. Amazon specifically uses its cloud hosting profits (its not as dominant there due to, get this, competition) to allow it to take losses on store stuff. And you don’t just let them lie without splitting up more of the store functions and also limiting its abusive power as well like preventing it from competing with its own sellers alongside other options to be determined in such a way as to reduce its dominance Anti trust remedies are broad
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:
5% of all retail sales is nuts dude. A single company controlling that much pricing power of literally everything sold to consumers. It’s potential to be the new standard oil in terms of ratio of GDP. FCKGW posted:Walmart is also buying up all the niche online sites and will be #2 pretty soon. Right now they own Walmart.com, Jet.com, Hayneedle, Shoes.com, Modcloth.com, Bonobos and Moosejaw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Amazon specifically uses its cloud hosting profits (its not as dominant there due to, get this, competition) to allow it to take losses on store stuff. And you don’t just let them lie without splitting up more of the store functions and also limiting its abusive power as well like preventing it from competing with its own sellers alongside other options to be determined in such a way as to reduce its dominance So your proposal is Amazon is not allowed to sell item on Amazon anymore, great just what everyone want, the bullshit of dealing with third party seller. Amazon has not had real loss on store for many many year, just they dump the profit on array of other random bet, they certainly do not need AWS to run it as they do. They need AWS for gimmick project like failed Fire Phone at this time point. And there is the competition worship again, yet immediately conjoined to assumption it bad for Amazon to compete. Very sad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm starting to wonder if the solution here is to be all "fine, you can be a monopoly if you want but you get treated like a utility now." I just don't see how you can break up a Google or an Amazon. You have to admit though a one stop website where you can buy loving anything and have it shipped to your front door is incredible. It probably just isn't possible to compete with Amazon in any meaningful way so it isn't going to go away. Unfortunately Bezos seems to be more interested in treating it like a money pinata to make his score bigger than actually doing anything in the public good with it. Note how well that's worked in the communications industry. We have utterly forgotten why Ma Bell was broken and let her successors lobby that they should be allowed to reform her. nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So your proposal is Amazon is not allowed to sell item on Amazon anymore, great just what everyone want, the bullshit of dealing with third party seller. Amazon has not had real loss on store for many many year, just they dump the profit on array of other random bet, they certainly do not need AWS to run it as they do. They need AWS for gimmick project like failed Fire Phone at this time point. You are consistently bad at nuance in this thread. AWS is profitable on its own, but it also defrays Amazon's own insane hosting costs, which was the whole point in the first place. AWS developed out of the need for Amazon to reduce their own hosting and implementation costs in the first place, and wasn't turned into the current infrastructure as a service monster until 2005 or later. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Sep 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
That’s .com not .co.uk  Lot of exclusive deals going on over here with the clothes (not the shoes) and high street stores. Reebok now pretty much only sells via its own website and puts all its sales on there an all. There is this tax loophole with the former Asian colonies, if you import to the U.K. via Hong Kong you don’t have to pay any of those pesky taxes or import duties, which makes buying real branded and high end stuff a bit of a nightmare and always has done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Amazon is apparently strong arming PC component manufacturers (graphics cards, power supplies, ...) into not increasing their prices due to the Trump tariffs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xO3NmReW8&t=222s
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So your proposal is Amazon is not allowed to sell item on Amazon anymore, great just what everyone want, the bullshit of dealing with third party seller. Amazon has not had real loss on store for many many year, just they dump the profit on array of other random bet, they certainly do not need AWS to run it as they do. They need AWS for gimmick project like failed Fire Phone at this time point. Amazon should not be allowed to compete with its own marketplace sellers on unfair terms. They use their dominance in online retail to force sellers to use marketplace or be shut out, then pick and choose items to sell themselves (via amazonbasics or w/e). It's classic abusive tactics. The store doesn't have anywhere near the margins as AWS does and for certain things like Prime they may take losses upfront (loss leading is ok but it can quickly turn into market abuse). Lambert posted:Amazon is apparently strong arming PC component manufacturers (graphics cards, power supplies, ...) into not increasing their prices due to the Trump tariffs: There you go. Dominant market abuse without prices going up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:yeah the cost of living in the uk is really low compared to the us so long as your willing to live in an industrial graveyard. I actually like it a lot. Avatar post combo
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Anyone that's brought anything from Amazon's one day ship program has to know they don't have the will to build a shipping company from the ground up. The plan of basically hiring Uber drivers to do delivery is nuts. You need to know areas why to well to do deliveries. Which is why you get things like people thinking my office is my house despite the massive signs
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
3PLs don't nessisarily have to be a shipping company, even the ones that are shipping companies. When they do logistics for big OOG ( out of grade) pieces, none of that is with thier own equipment. Most international shipments aren't either. It's a different thing than being a shipping line. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Sep 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Anyone that's brought anything from Amazon's one day ship program has to know they don't have the will to build a shipping company from the ground up. They also deliver after my works warehouse closes. Luckily an amazon locker also opened nearby and larger stuff isn’t delivered by AMZL, so I have options
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Amazon prime has stopped delivering anything on sundays and to my house on Saturdays  Well, that’s literally the only reason to use them over Argos and the high street killed stone dead then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
I was super weirded out the first time a dude pulled into my driveway in his own personal vehicle and handed me an amazon package. I'd seen the rental vans before...but they literally have taken the Uber model now
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Walmart is also buying up all the niche online sites and will be #2 pretty soon. Right now they own Walmart.com, Jet.com, Hayneedle, Shoes.com, Modcloth.com, Bonobos and Moosejaw. I (unfortunately) did some work with walmart's shopping apis a few years ago and I can 100% guarantee that all these sites are eventually going to be strapped together with duct tape and pubes
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:I (unfortunately) did some work with walmart's shopping apis a few years ago and I can 100% guarantee that all these sites are eventually going to be strapped together with duct tape and pubes Walmart recently tried to put some of Moosejaw’s products on Walmart.com and it backfired horribly as a bunch of high end outdoor companies pulled their products from Moosejaw in response.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Amazon should not be allowed to compete with its own marketplace sellers on unfair terms. They use their dominance in online retail to force sellers to use marketplace or be shut out, then pick and choose items to sell themselves (via amazonbasics or w/e). It's classic abusive tactics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:I don't understand this part, can you explain it more? Can't all sellers pick and choose what to sell? Yes they can. But Amazon has access to all the sales data so they can see that Mom & Pop's Hardware store are selling a metric poo poo ton of one specific hammer for $19.99. So Amazon go off, use their bulk buying power to get a much better deal from the manufacturer of that hammer and sell it for $15.99 under the amazon basics label.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Yes they can. But Amazon has access to all the sales data so they can see that Mom & Pop's Hardware store are selling a metric poo poo ton of one specific hammer for $19.99. So Amazon go off, use their bulk buying power to get a much better deal from the manufacturer of that hammer and sell it for $15.99 under the amazon basics label. that owns. all we have to do next is nationalize amazon and do this for everything
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:that owns. all we have to do next is nationalize amazon and do this for everything 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 09:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Turns out what we needed was more capitalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Turns out what we needed was more capitalism Capitalism under one really big corporation and Communism under one really authoritarian lovely government are hardly distinguishable 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
shamazon
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 10:21
|
|