|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:In terms of their commodity status there is none. Is that not what we are discussing? Vast amounts of manufacturer and designs, mostly interchangeable in the end. nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:What is the anti competition of making yet another laptop stand? It sounds like it is competition to me. Who is permitted to make laptop stand? Strawman try again
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Unless your screen is 909 pixels tall you very clearly edited that screen shot to cut off the rest of the screen. I cropped the top and bottom to remove irrelevant bits, like my taskbar and some PII. I also blacked out my zip code, you got a problem with that, too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:They're not. Microsoft wasn't (and isn't) a monopoly, either. when you draw comparisons to a situation where the US charged Microsoft for acting as a monopoly and violating the Sherman antitrust act, and say "hey this is comparable to AmazonBasics", you may actually be suggesting that Amazon and/or Microsoft to be monopolies especially considering the case that the courts decided that Microsoft was qctually acting as a monopoly in the case that you brought up
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:What is the anti competition of making yet another laptop stand? It sounds like it is competition to me. Who is permitted to make laptop stand? You making and selling laptop stands? It's free market, goonluck. Company who basically owns e-commerce in US and leverages that to capture another market segment? Abuse of dominant market position. Very anti-competition. I Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:when you draw comparisons to a situation where the US charged Microsoft for acting as a monopoly and violating the Sherman antitrust act, and say "hey this is comparable to AmazonBasics", you may actually be suggesting that Amazon and/or Microsoft to be monopolies I pointed out that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in the early 2000s but was sued for violating antitrust laws anyway, because "well are they actually a monopoly?" isn't actually the sole determiner of whether something needs to be done. Microsoft wasn't the sole distributor of software or operating systems, so they weren't an actual monopoly. It helps to illustrate how silly it is to say that everything's fine so long as they're not the sole seller in a market (e.g. an actual monopoly)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Correct since neither are a commodity. They are commodity goods. So it's ok for Amazon to make laptop stand then, or no? Do you have position on it? adhuin posted:You making and selling laptop stands? You are not making any sense. How big may a store be before it becomes impermissible to you that they continue to offer store brand goods as typical stores do? Is there a point? Who decide how to dispose of brands when that point is reached? It would seem you have really a problem with the entire concept of retail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I cropped the top and bottom to remove irrelevant bits, like my taskbar and some PII. I also blacked out my zip code, you got a problem with that, too? The irrelevant bits like the entire rest of the screen? or do you use special amazon that only displays one row?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I posted a screenshot showing that my search results for a towel resulted in the entire screen showing AmazonBasics products, I don't know why that's insufficient proof for you but it happened.  did you describe the above as quote:A whole row of Amazon products, shown right at the top of the page. Seems pretty obvious you originally meant "page" in the standard sense of "a webpage", and only changed it once you were caught unable to find an example of an entire page being Amazon products. Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I pointed out that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in the early 2000s but was sued for violating antitrust laws anyway. Microsoft wasn't the sole distributor of software or operating systems, so they weren't an actual monopoly. It helps to illustrate how silly it is to say that everything's fine so long as they're not the sole seller in a market (e.g. an actual monopoly) Microsoft's operating systems were installed on 90+% of computers when the lawsuits were filed. Apple was sitting somewhere around 4% as the second place OS. They were absolutely a monopoly and were leveraging that position to push out 3rd party software by pushing their own software as built in installs to Windows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Microsoft's operating systems were installed on 90+% of computers when the lawsuits were filed. Apple was sitting somewhere around 4% as the second place OS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Even that was stupid since it turns out when people want an OS, they don't literally just want a bunch of API calls and the barest possible interface, they expect some standard applications to be present. Nobody wants Windows to come without any browser whatsoever, and a standard of "for every program they add themselves, they have to add several competitors to it" would be silly and impractical. at the time Internet Explorer was a standalone commercial product, and part of the argument against MS that you shouldn't be bundling IE and Windows was that the price of the OS was being inflated to subsidize IE, so why should someone be paying for standalone commercial software that they didnt intend to use when free alternatives exist
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Even that was stupid since it turns out when people want an OS, they don't literally just want a bunch of API calls and the barest possible interface, they expect some standard applications to be present. Nobody wants Windows to come without any browser whatsoever, and a standard of "for every program they add themselves, they have to add several competitors to it" would be silly and impractical. What is so silly about that? Back in the days of dinosaurs you could either purchase a browser you wanted or get one from your internet provider (either free or paid). Today the market for paid web-browsers is dead. (yay, free market) Currently Microsoft is squeezing the market for paid Anti-virus software. They're also leveraging their Dominant market position to capture app/game online sales with their integrated Microsoft store that is heavily promoted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Microsoft's operating systems were installed on 90+% of computers when the lawsuits were filed. Apple was sitting somewhere around 4% as the second place OS. Having their operating system on 90+% of computers means that they were not an actual monopoly
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Having their operating system on 90+% of computers means that they were not an actual monopoly the US justice system and courts disagree
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:the US justice system and courts disagree Yeah. Problem is that US uses absolutists terminology non-literally, which confuses the laymen. That's why I prefers EU:s use of terminology like Dominant market position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Even that was stupid since it turns out when people want an OS, they don't literally just want a bunch of API calls and the barest possible interface, they expect some standard applications to be present. Nobody wants Windows to come without any browser whatsoever, and a standard of "for every program they add themselves, they have to add several competitors to it" would be silly and impractical. That was the easy sound byte that CNN could play for people to understand, but a huge part of the case was actually whether Microsoft was making their API deliberately obtuse to make it harder on 3rd party developers. Eventually Microsoft basically admitted that this was accurate and settled, agreeing to make things easier for 3rd party developers
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:the US justice system and courts disagree Well you have a lot of non-legal people in this thread who are arguing that unless Amazon (or Microsoft) has total control of a market then they're not a monopoly. I'm going with their definition to keep things simple and because I don't see any benefit in a semantics fight (do you?) If Microsoft was a monopoly, then so is Amazon. If they weren't, then Amazon isn't. It doesn't really matter, what matters is the comparison
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If you meant "page" as the viewable window pre-scrolling, then why I used inconsistently terminology over the course of several days? Oh no, what a terrible mistake. I am beside myself with sorrow, here look:  While you're trying to internet detective your way through a pointless accusation you're ignoring the larger, more important argument
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Well you have a lot of non-legal people in this thread who are arguing that unless Amazon (or Microsoft) has total control of a market then they're not a monopoly So are you back to claiming amazon is a monopoly or not? Amazon controls 4% of the retail market right now. This isn't quibbling if 97% or 99% or if it must be 100% to be a monopoly, they are just literally not a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
If I go down to Target or whatever then most of their bedsheets, towels, furnishings, show curtains/poles, etc. are private-label already. The companies that make this stuff are perfectly content to make it and stamp whatever brand they're contracted to on it, which also means that the competitive advantage that Amazon gets out of it is kind of minimal. QuarkJets posted:That was the easy sound byte that CNN could play for people to understand, but a huge part of the case was actually whether Microsoft was making their API deliberately obtuse to make it harder on 3rd party developers. Eventually Microsoft basically admitted that this was accurate and settled, agreeing to make things easier for 3rd party developers
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Someone please start a separate thread to debate and discuss the precise definition of monopoly and its application to Internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So are you back to claiming amazon is a monopoly or not? Monopoly is not a literal term in US legal. AND We were talking about E-retail, which they have about 50% market share in the US. That's very dominant market position*. *AKA monopoly** in US legalese. ** not the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So are you back to claiming amazon is a monopoly or not? ??? How are you so bad at reading? The answer is in the post that you quoted, but you edited it out! e: I never once said that amazon is a monopoly, clean the poo poo out of your ears
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I used inconsistently terminology over the course of several days? Oh no, what a terrible mistake. I am beside myself with sorrow, here look:
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Oh no someone pointed out that my hysterical claim was a blatant lie and my retcon didn't work, better blame them for noticing in the first place! It wasn't though, the screenshot that I posted shows what I claimed. You even quoted the post stating that those results are at the top of the page. I later hosed up and wrote "page" instead of "screen", a largely irrelevant detail to the discussion. I don't know why this has you so worked up. Do you even understand what the topic is? The issue isn't whether Amazon solely shows AmazonBasics products.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:11
|
|
QuarkJets posted:??? How are you so bad at reading? The answer is in the post that you quoted, but you edited it out! Even if you're claiming it's not a monopoly you're criticizing Amazon for engaging in standard vertical integration practices which are of heightened importance because of their size/market share. Is it a problem that needs to be addressed? If so, how and what are the conditions such that it will apply to both Amazon and every other retail outlet, be it e-commerce or brick and mortar?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:
You literally just said "Well you have a lot of non-legal people in this thread who are arguing that unless Amazon (or Microsoft) has total control of a market then they're not a monopoly " which sure does imply you do think they are a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Even if you're claiming it's not a monopoly you're criticizing Amazon for engaging in standard vertical integration practices which are of heightened importance because of their size/market share. That's basically correct, yes. But we're not even to the point of identifying whether that's a problem, the thread is still stuck on whether Amazon is large enough for this to have heightened importance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You literally just said "Well you have a lot of non-legal people in this thread who are arguing that unless Amazon (or Microsoft) has total control of a market then they're not a monopoly " No, it doesn't. It identifies that the thread is using a layman (rather than legal) definition of a monopoly, which Amazon does not satisfy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Even if you're claiming it's not a monopoly you're criticizing Amazon for engaging in standard vertical integration practices which are of heightened importance because of their size/market share. Perhaps it would be applied selectively, say, to only a company that has reached a dominant market position. Nah, let's just cry about how its standard practice and weep about why no one is thinking about the billionaires
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, it doesn't. It identifies that the thread is using a layman (rather than legal) definition of a monopoly, which Amazon does not satisfy. So as both a non monopoly and not even functionally a monopoly why should any of us care about literally any of the things you are worried about them doing? Like filling an entire row with their own products?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Amazon is cool and good, it should offer basics versions of every product and always return them as the top search result. This will make it easier for customers to get a low cost product from a company they trust rather than trying to sort through 7k Chinese knockoffs filled with fake reviews. Amazon Basics are always my first choice for commodity home goods and they have always served me well and been very affordable. Amazon controlling more of retail/ecommece is an unalloyed good for the average consumer. If you are afraid of some future where Amazon bans the sale of all non-amazon towels (which I own) from Amazon.com and then raises prices, well I guess I'll just have to buy from the Target down the road or from thirsty website or from Walmart's. But we all know just like your glorious socialist revolution that will never happen, Amazon will keep prices low and quality high as part of their key long strategy of earning and keeping customer's trust. This is why people like me choose Amazon and trust it's recommendations, Amazon takes care of me and I am a loyal customer. Like what do you think the Amazon Monopoly endgame is? BTW the Amazon Basics laptop stand is the most generic thing ever and only has a passing resemblance to the design mentioned. AmazonBasics Laptop Stand - Silver https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WRDS0AU I'd imagine that firm is losing sales because Amazon is the #1 most trusted consumer brand and they are offering a commodity good for half the price of the "Rain Design" product. Ain't nobody gonna pay x2 for a price of metal to out your laptop on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Again the trend is the shortening of product life cycles. This is thing happening independent of amazon. Businesses are making less money from products and for a shorter amount of time. That products we used to not think of as being able to be commodified are is part of this. exploded mummy posted:they had a design patent and didnt get a utility patent Raldikuk posted:Great so in your mind there is also no difference between paper towels and automobiles. Geeeee I wonder why I didn't take the time to respond in depth about the differences Cicero posted:If you meant "page" as the viewable window pre-scrolling, then why QuarkJets posted:That's basically correct, yes. But we're not even to the point of identifying whether that's a problem, the thread is still stuck on whether Amazon is large enough for this to have heightened importance. I see all these things, and my thoughts are "this is extremely cool and good, I hope amazon (or $OtherVendorOfConsumerTrash) undercuts competitors even further". If you make a new product containing actual technical innovation, go get a patent (if you don't in TYOOL 2019 outside of some exceptional circumstances, you are an idiot). If you think your aesthetically pleasing design will boost sales of a technically unimpressive product, go get a design patent (again, same). If cheapo amazon basics knockoffs manage to completely trash your sales without violating your patents, then clearly the technical capabilities and/or design of your product have little to no value to customers and it's extremely cool and good that you're getting outcompeted. Even if amazon cheats and shoves disproportionate amounts of amazon basics offerings into the first page of search results, I fail to see any problem here that doesn't boil down to "b-b-but muh free market " (unless this is done to the point where it's impractical to find alternative products if the customer so desires). I don't give a poo poo which internet retailer is acting as the middleman for purchases of consumer products.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Yeah, when has a race to the bottom for cheap knockoffs ever been bad? Now if only I could find what I want in this pile of cheap Chinese crap...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:41
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Perhaps it would be applied selectively, say, to only a company that has reached a dominant market position. An intentionally stupid misdirection. Amazon could hypothetically have 100% equal pay and be run as a privately held, non-corporate entity and the questions about their vertical integration practices, white label offerings, advertising/marketing strategy, and scope of their power given market share would still exist. If the question is how dominant is too dominant then lay out some equally applicable guidelines for Amazon and all other companies that could have [perceived] monopolistic influence over certain areas of the economy. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:
This is the real question. Like if my local super market starts price gouging I got literally one other supermarket I can go to then it's like, 45 minutes to the next one of a different brand. I understand worrying intensely about every single detail of the things they do. For amazon I just really don't, they don't have my physically locked in like shaws could. If amazon doubles their price I guess I can imagine a few weeks of inertia where I am too lazy to switch or don't notice but the friction is near zero, I can shop literally anywhere else. Unless there is some actual real worry amazon could become literally the only business on earth there is just no way they can hold me as a customer except making me want to shop there, if they stop selling towels except theirs and theirs smell like fish and cost 500 dollars each I just won't shop there, it's infinitely trivially easy to just go to a different website.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
double post
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Yeah, when has a race to the bottom for cheap knockoffs ever been bad? Enforce environmental and labour regulations for all products, may the cheapest vendor of widgets win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:An intentionally stupid misdirection. Amazon could hypothetically have 100% equal pay and be run as a privately held, non-corporate entity and the questions about their vertical integration practices, white label offerings, advertising/marketing strategy, and scope of their power given market share would still exist. but if amazon operates as a socialist co-op with highly efficient vertical integration practices, mass-produced white label offerings targeted at consumer demand in real time, with advertising/marketing whatever the gently caress it feels like, and 95%-100% market share, then we've solved capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:52 |
|
suck my woke dick posted:but if amazon operates as a socialist co-op with highly efficient vertical integration practices, mass-produced white label offerings, advertising/marketing limited to itself, and 95%-100% market share, then we've solved capitalism Right, but operating at a loss or razor thin margins for a decade until the company realizes economies of scale isn't as easy without capitalism. Should there be a mechanism to nationalize such industries once the tech and supply chain innovatiom becomes uniquely valuable and beneficial to society? Maybe -- sounds dope! But that's pretty drat fringy for the US and not something we are likely to see anytime soon.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:52
|
|