Didn't Amazon ban products from Apple and Google, that competed with their own, from their online store? Isn't this still the case even though they said last year they would eventually allow them again?
If you tell Alexa, "buy me a chromecast", it orders you an Amazon fire stick instead.
However, it's not that big of a deal if Amazon doesn't sell something. You just buy it somewhere else. I did not have any trouble acquiring a Chromecast when I wanted one, and I doubt anyone else did either. Using some kind of antitrust break-up to fix this would be like using a nuclear bomb to hammer in a nail. For a problem like this, a more targeted approach seems better, at least as an initial cut.
source? IIRC amazon claimed it was confusing for its users if they sold the chromecast and their firestick at the same time.
https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender_integr...
>But it’s Amazon’s own fault that Prime Video doesn’t work with Chromecast. Amazon has the power to make it happen.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16738752/google-youtube-a...
* Amazon refuses to sell Chromecast devices.
There's nothing really "anti-competitive" going on here. Two consumer tech giants are refusing to support each others' stuff. That's it. Consumers are free to pick one, or both!
Would we force Ford dealerships to sell Hondas as well? For Whole Foods to carry Safeway-branded products?
Of course not.
This is more akin to a scenario if apple were to block Spotify from the App Store because apple provides a competing service to theirs, totally leveraging and abusing their power to diminish competition. It’s hard to argue that not allowing them to sell the physical product on amazon isn’t anti-competitive, regardless if amazon does or doesn’t develop chrome cast capabilities into fire sticks.
This is laughable - >> Both the Apple TV and Chromecast were pulled from Amazon in late 2015. The company’s justification for the move was that consumers would be confused and frustrated if they purchased streaming devices that didn’t offer a direct, convenient way to view Amazon Prime Video content https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/14/16777508/...
I was mainly thinking of how an unlimited number of third parties can essentially sell whatever they please on Amazon, unless of course you’re google or apple selling a competing product that doesn’t help amazon achieve their goals for an ancillary service that has nothing to do with their online marketplace. I can’t think of a good analogy to a grocery store scenario.
Any what is Amazon's share of all retail sales? My understanding it's in the single digit percentages.
Seems like it's a back and forth kind of a thing between the two companies, with users being the ones facing consequences.
I believe it's still possible to access YouTube through a browser, but can't test anymore because I flashed lineage os on my Kindle tablet.
But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?
In 2016, the government was in the process of forcing cable companies to allow third party set top boxes. The cable companies fought back, the government dropped the pursuit and guess what? Technology made the need much less relevant.
https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-to...
Now even though the cable company "won" they loss anyway. They are still losing cable subscribers and companies like DirecTV and Sling came along.
I pay $35 a month for DirecTVNow, get all of the cable channels I care about and in my local market, get all of the OTA channels (NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, and the CW). While the government was fighting the last war - cable set top boxes - the industry had moved on to creating services that let you watch live TV anywhere - on your phone, tablet, internet connected set top boxes, game consoles etc.
While the government was worried about MS unbeatable dominance on the desktop, during the next 10 years, the battle had moved to mobile.
Yes, and you can't buy Rigid or Ryobi tools at Lowes either. (even on their website). You also can't find a Pepsi machine at the Coke headquarters. (You can even be fired for being seen drinking Pepsi). There is nothing wrong with not carrying products that compete with your own. There is something wrong with blocking access to purchasing those products from other places though. Right now, people are free to go to Overstock.com (please), Walmart.com, Target.com, Apple.com... the list seems endless.
Amazon didn't just ban it from their store, they also banned any of their sellers from selling it.
If you go the World of Coke in Atlanta, you won’t see Pepsi products.
Regarding DeWalt, Bosch, etc, I'd highly expect Kobalt to have better product placement (at Lowes). Is that fair?
Amazon regularly undercuts people to drive them out of the market - this is known as predatory pricing and it isn't new. It is an abuse of dominant position.
But most Western anti-competition efforts have measured abuse of dominant position in terms of consumer facing price gouging.
Operating under those assumptions, predatory pricing looks GOOD because it lowers consumer pricing, despite the fact that it liquidates market players, removes competition, and creates the accurate perception that you will use your bankroll as a barrier to entry of other market participants.
Once that occurs and you have control of the market's pricing and a dominant position on the logistics, your market already has price discovery problems, even before any further abuse of dominant positions occur. Best of all, this creates a 'new normal' which you can then use as evidence that things are fine in discussions with the competition bureaus you're dealing with.
But let’s kick Amazon
The reality is they all need a kick in the stomach (figuratively speaking) to remind them the general public underlies their wealth
But it benefits the rich competition to use their media platforms for hang Amazon and Google.
Every time I see these stories it smacks of a Madoff type story: they knew he was a crook, but then he swindled rich people
I witnessed something similar at a former company[0] I had worked for. We had mobile apps for a reading product that could, theoretically, compete with Amazon's book business. Sort of a Netflix for books. Successfully launched both on Apple and Google's marketplaces, the app worked, had traction, wasn't a sketchy business or anything.
We experienced what we took to calling a soft-rejection. The app itself was approved but we were not able to launch / have it available on any of Amazon's devices. Now, you might be willing to write it off as the vagaries of dealing with a billion dollar corporation, your typical "Google locked me out and I'm SOL" thing. However, the owners of this company had sold a previous business[1] to Amazon. They had contacts and relationships at Amazon, decently high-level too such that were it an "oops, edge case" it should have been easily dealt with. Silence. They were stonewalled.
[0] - Grain of Salt: I was not on the mobile team, but we were a small operation, ate lunch daily, very open culture from the CEO to the junior folks. We talked about this a lot. This was also 5+ years ago, and I know of few of my coworkers lurk so please correct me if my memory is corrupted.
[1] - Given our very good team atmosphere, we ended up hearing a bit of history from the founders about the Amazon acquisition. From what I understand, it was extremely cut-throat and underhanded on Amazon's part. A former coworker succinctly summed it up as "The only relationship you want with Amazon is to be their customer."
This is not true. I just tried it.
Apple Products: https://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPhone-GSM-Unlocked-32GB/dp/B01...
https://www.neowin.net/news/amazon-extends-olive-branch-towa...
> If you tell Alexa, "buy me a chromecast", it orders you an Amazon fire stick instead.
Need a source on that.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9439281/amazon-ban-apple-...
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/amazon-apple-tv-chromecast/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amazon-ban-apple-tv...
And their more recent reversal: https://mashable.com/2017/12/14/amazon-to-sell-google-chrome...
None of the articles you linked describe that happening. It seems pretty unlikely. Perhaps at one point it suggested a Fire Stick as an alternative, but it doesn't seem to be doing that currently.
Refusing to sell competitors’ products isn’t a very good case for antitrust when you can still buy them in hundreds of other places a click away.
They're allowed. Amazon is choosing not to support it...
Prime Video is now available on AppleTV.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16741136/download-amazon-...
And AppleTV is available for purchase on Amazon.com.
The iPhone while purchasable on Amazon, is not actually sold or shipped by Amazon.
Apple TV: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3...
Those also aren't chromecasts showing in those search results that you linked to...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/05/google-is-pulling-youtube-...
It's a rule set that everyone has to follow when using Youtube, and isn't singling out Amazon the same way that Amazon is singling out Apple and Google.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/amazon-to...
But yeah “monopoly.” There is literally no where else to buy them online or otherwise
Damn you, Amazon!!!11
Big difference which people often forget.
When organizations are able to use their network effects to decrease competition in markets (FB / Amazon / Google) does that create a negative outcome despite clearly delivering a better product for customers in the short run.
It's clear that network effects and big bank accounts decrease innovation and competition, and it's hard to think that won't have long term negative effects. Just think, is starting a social network a smart thing to do today if your only option is being bought by Facebook, or having them integrate your innovations into one of their services?
That being said, innovation thrives on constraints, and there is no indication that these companies wont fall prey to new technology and user demands. It just seems less likely given the powerful position they are all in.
Network effects almost by definition often create a better user experience. For example, Facebook has a network effect in that all your friends are there. The reason that’s so powerful is you actually want to join a network where your friends are.
It seems like it hinders competition, but it only does so because it’s a much better user experience.
Very different than, say, Standard Oil where an entire natural resource and distribution line is owned by one company to the extent that it’s literally impossible to compete, then they start screwing you because they can.
This thinking is backwards. You’re not there because you want to be there, you’re there simply because your friends are there and if you’re not, you’re left out. It’s not the platform that pulls, friends on the platform pull.
The problem is, we have no way of knowing what ISN'T being built or what benefits or new offerings consumers aren't able to access because these companies have created an environment where competition is severely limited.
There's no easy answer here. Consumers are clearly better off being served a better product. Regulating based on the idea that there could be some future benefit that consumers are missing out on because of these monopolies, is a tough argument to make.
Should Facebook be able to buy up all the social graphs? If regulations prohibited them from doing so, would it really hurt facebook? Or would it create an environment with more choice, options and competition?
Exponent.fm podcast has some interesting episodes on this topic. Worth a listen.
Regulation could enforce this, improving user experience while curtailing potential for corporate abuse.
1) Should you have the right to do what you please with the data you create on a platform? Should companies be able to deny you this right? What should their obligations be RE: data portability?
2) Is it good for competition and customer choice for interoperability to exist? Conversely, is it bad if it doesn't? Are there any downsides to interoperability as a user?
Starting off with something as limited as an open standard for describing your node of a social graph would already be a huge improvement from where things are today. The question is whether users have the power to demand this, or if they even understand its benefits. At a certain point the incumbents become so rich and powerful that they just acquire or pound into dust any threat from new entrants.
I can’t think of any software or platform where you don’t have an alternative of choosing something that is interoperable and how is the government going to enforce it? Are they going to define the standard? Are they going to enforce that for all developers? Does that mean I have to follow some government standard every time I write software?
If they enforce an open social graph, does that mean the people I am connected to can export my information and import it into another service that I am not already on?
> Why do you need “the government” to dictate that you should be allowed to do what you want with your data? I can export both my RSS subscriptions from my RSS aggregator and my podcast subscriptions from my podcast player to OPML. I chose software that lets me do that. I can export my email and calendar data using open formats.
Right, and I cannot do that with my social network connections. And there is a HUGE financial incentive to disallow users from ever doing this.
> I can’t think of any software or platform where you don’t have an alternative of choosing something that is interoperable and how is the government going to enforce it? Are they going to define the standard? Are they going to enforce that for all developers? Does that mean I have to follow some government standard every time I write software?
Look to the real world for examples here. Social networks work a lot like telecommunication networks and the internet itself. Can you imagine if you needed an account on AT&T, Spring, T-Mobile, etc etc and know each persons per-network-unique number to call or text them? How about if you had to have an account with each individual network provider that served websites, and they had no universal way to address them?
> If they enforce an open social graph, does that mean the people I am connected to can export my information and import it into another service that I am not already on?
Theoretically it doesn't require anything more than an signature/public key that it uses to match you and your connections when you have both joined some other new network. It could be designed in such a way that the new network cannot build a "shadow profile" of you because the "relationship keys" are unique per connection, eg. three friends that are all connected to each other would have unique keys representing their relationships.
Actually though, that goes to my point. The government mandated micro-usb, and now there is a better connector USB-C. How long will it take the government to update the law to catch up with technology?
Yes. Nearly by definition the consumer generally benefits in the short run, which frequently contributes to the establishment of the monopoly in the first place.
The crux of antitrust law is concerned with the negative long-term effects, which frequently do lead to customer harm: lack of choice, price gouging, stifled innovation, etc.
"Regulate away" is a nice expression. It implies that "regulate" is the same as "take away", which I believe is a false assumption.
No one wants to take away their success - however, if you already have powers approaching monopoly, society should absolutely remind you of the responsibilities that come with those powers - and if necessary force you to obey those responsibilities. Nothing else is what regulation is doing.
> Surely we should wait until they’re actually abusing it?
You don't wait with the fireproofing until the house is already burning either.
> As an aside, I can’t think of any advantage Amazon has that wouldn’t open up opportunities for a competitor should they start to abuse them.
It would take a long time until a competitor is actually there that could practically provide the same services. During that time, the damage is done.
Are they a natural monopoly? If so they should be regulated as a monopoly. If they aren't a natural monopoly, then why is the market not more competitive; and why is it wrong for policy to create a competitive environment? And isn't there an opportunity cost in every case, even if you don't know what it is? What businesses aren't being created because of Amazon's sheer weight?
Many of these questions are asked and answered (not entirely satisfactorily in some cases) in the case of Standard Oil.
If no mono-/oligopolies existed that were abusing their power, then maybe our government could talk regulation Amazon, but still you'd have to make a strong case.
I think it's a tough sell to have an inefficient entity that does not have to compete in a corporate survival sense (the government) tell a very efficient entity that has seen many similar "monopolies" fall (e.g. microsoft) to act differently.
I think destroying competition is something wrong. "Trust us completely forever while we ruin your ability to function without us" isn't something anyone should everyone should have to do. The tax breaks offered to them for their new headquarters (that could "pay for themselves" in 10-20 years and will bring "lots of jobs") are insane, and they don't come close to completely controlling all the markets they operate in. I shudder to imagine what they'll look like when they do. But are they abusing anything now? Lets look into their lobbying, their warehouse temporary workers, their deals with the USPS, and what it's like to be one of their delivery drivers. It sucks to work for Amazon.
I know when trying to bring "Amazon Fresh" to NYC, they failed because the only terms they'd offer truck drivers were crazy high risk and low pay and NYC is a big enough market they could collectively resist. That's not going to last forever.
I'm not against innovation, I'm not against your margin being my opportunity, I'm against living in an Amazon controlled world.
On top of that, I can’t see any power Amazon has that doesn’t evaporate as soon as it’s abused. They have competition from every angle. The only reason they win is because they’re better.
A way to play with that balance in a still-market-based, evenly-applied way sounds very attractive.
Doing it preemptively, based on potential, has strong precedent in the US when applied to trying to restrict government power. Corporations today are large enough that we should start trying to restrict that sort of power in the same way.
There is no market measure for treating employees fairly; only social safety nets.
With enough participants in the market, you might have enough potential defectors to keep oligopolistic collusion down. Employees get better treatment because they have options. BATNA.
Inspired by stuff like https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-amer... - the recipe to extracting maximum profit is to pay as little as you can get away with while demanding as much as you can get away with and charge as much as you can get away with. Our current tooling is fairly bad at limiting that "what you can get away with" for corporations. So what pressures would change it?
Currently we tilt the playing field in favor of larger corporations, in addition to the natural inclination in many areas of economies of scale, with stuff like forced arbitration being allowed. "Should Amazon be broken up?" is just a small part of the "how do we make sure economic power is well-distributed instead of concentrated?"
Or do we think systems with too-big-to-fail players are a good thing?
Sure Amazons power will evaporate as soon as it's abused just like Intels, Microsofts and Dow Chemicals. History tells us this isn't the case.
That's not even to mention how much regulatory power unelected officials in the beuracry has.
Nope, you haven't. You have the potential to attack someone and hope they can't get away in time or protect themselves.
If you really wanted to get the ability to murder someone at your sole descision, you'd have to take someone hostage, plot a terrorist attack or build a nuke. All of which will instantly land you in jail.
In the same way, I think a monopolist should be regulated because basically the only thing stopping them tovdo harmful things is their own descision not to do so. A descision that could change for whatever reasons.
Both are relentless in their customer focus, they drive prices down, they both continue to add more and more services and offerings that seem to be what consumers want and might even be good. There isn't any particular thing I can point to and say with any definitive backing that they are doing and it's bad. I like small indie stores, but Walmart and Amazon beat them on prices and win the market; that's capitalism. Truthfully, I don't see either of them really doing stuff that is bad for the market, they're just better than the competition. Worse, if you go to a small town after a Walmart is built (are there many of these left?) it seems like the locals are almost in a hurry to put the local businesses out of their misery, the Walmart parking lot will be full.
It's more of just a concern about the immense power these businesses have and an innate distrust I have of giving that much power to a business. There will be an Amazon backlash, there are already lot's of people that at least claim to not shop at Walmart for various reason, I expect the same will come true with Amazon. Not sure it will amount to much but it's coming. Nobody has made a move to break up Walmart, it's hard to say that anyone will for Amazon.
How about selling shitty eclipse glasses that hurt peoples eyes and making it impossible to order the real ones?
How about combining counterfeit and genuine products in the same SKU to make it impossible to order the real ones?
How about the fact that Amazon are not held liable for selling counterfeit products period? If WalMart attempted to sell a counterfeit product on their website they'd have a class action against them yesterday.
Are those not "worse experience" for consumers?
Could somebody list those advantages (excluding AWS)? And how much better are those advantages than the existing alternatives?
While AWS makes it easy to store and process data, it is essentially distributing open-source software. You could argue that AWS is a more successful open-source company than Red Hat, or at least, it is poised to become so. And AWS mostly distributes OSS while others bear the cost of developing it.
I've spoken with executives at both Red Hat and Cloudera who say that, while they are experiencing growth on the public cloud, AWS gives very little energy back to open-source. In fact, they say AWS is killing infrastructure software, and it's doing whatever it can to move into apps.
That's a much more serious charge than complaining about the societal effects of mom-and-pop shops dying, because in this case, AWS is using a platform they dominate to extend their power into new products and lines of business. Much as Microsoft used Windows to dominate word-processing and other apps, and as Google used search to dominate things like product search.
Given that the repercussions of AWS killing innovation in infrastructure software could have a huge effect on the evolution of tech and business in the U.S., I think this is an issue to be taken seriously.
The article argues the case that yes, we should.
But what about selling books at a loss to make it up on higher-margin items, which contributed to putting bookstores of all sizes (mom and pop up to B&N) on the road to bankruptcy?
That example is sufficient for me.
Should we really seek to regulate away hard-earned (and valuable!) advantages because they make it possible to abuse the position? Surely we should wait until they’re actually abusing it?
As an aside, I can’t think of any advantage Amazon has that wouldn’t open up opportunities for a competitor should they start to abuse them. That’s the goal of capitalism, in a sense; you have to be great or people just go elsewhere. Seems odd to fight against that.