I enjoy them so much I decide to order 3 packages for the future. They come in the mail - all of them are the smaller size (but have the markings of the larger size). The colors weren't the same - it was clearly from another manufacturer. I go okay, that sucks, I guess I should just return them - Amazon decided that now was the time to make me ship them back rather than taking my word for it. The $20 wasn't really worth the time for me to do so - but that $20 is going to end up being a pretty important one for Amazon as I don't have any trust that what they're selling is what will arrive anymore. They could at least be internally consistent.

I pulled my amazon spending report and I used to average a little over $11k/year spent there, this year I've spent less than $1000. No matter what amazon changes, I can't trust them anymore. Walmart doesn't mess around, they just aim for the lowest price all the time, and they have cheap (usually free) shipping with no need to pay for a prime membership.

As soon as amazon has saturated the market with prime subscribers, their growth in shopping will start to slow and eventually stop as everyone sees the light.

This is something Amazon is going to have to learn if it's serious about brick-and-mortar.

Selling garbage fakes online is one thing. Selling them in a store is another. There are dozens of regulatory agencies from federal down to the city level just for that sort of thing.

It was supposed to be a “Prime” order but it was a terrible experience. What is my Prime membership paying for?

a higher price

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/lawsuit-alleges-amazon-...

I would suggest Amazon can't ever be the cheapest, when I factor in the risk factor that I may or may not get what I paid for. The convenience factor goes out the window if I have to return my package.

Just today I received an opened package. I am curious what surprises await me.

That's probably true, but the truth is that situation was an unstable equilibrium in the first place. There's absolutely no reason in a functioning market to expect (or want!) one provider to be the uniform best option at all things. Eventually everyone else starts competing.

To wit: the situation over the past decade wasn't so much defined by Amazon being better (or "not evil", given the framing I'm saying here), it was that everyone else sucked. Now they don't suck so much, and Amazon is having to compete in ways (like profit!) they used to be able to ignore.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I'd say it's somewhat the reverse: Amazon was vastly better for things they sourced and sold themselves. I couldn't get everything there, but things they did have, I could trust.

They tried to expand into absolutely everything, and that's what feels like broke even my trust in the stuff they sell directly (since they also have comingling of third party inventory on that stuff, now).

I'm saying that no, that's silly. They're less dominant because they're seeing significant competition, and the stuff you perceive as "worse" is the inevitable result of them having to squeeze on margins or expand into higher-hanging-fruit regions of the market.

And we're all richer for it. Don't buy from Amazon, that's fine. But don't expect to live in a world where you get someone else who can dominate a market like they did, either.

That's literally the definition of a lack of competition. Everyone loved Amazon because they were cheaper and faster and better. Even inside the tech microcosm, no one makes a purchasing decision based on "love".

> Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair

It takes a lot longer for a company to build up a good reputation than to lose it. But if a company evaluates its managers on metrics and if good reputation can't easily be measured, it's very easy for them to lose it.