> Most answers are likely exploitative in some way

On what basis are you making a claim like that? Toyota sells roughly as may vehicles in the US a Ford and more than the other manufacturers. Their cars are in many ways better than their competitors qualitatively and often cheaper. Do you think they are exploiting people?

I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences, but I'm not sure that's going to convince you.

>Do you think they are exploiting people?

Yes, part of how they achieved this was by violating emissions standards for a decade, something that they've been fined for. I'd be willing to wager they engage in similar practices too.

>I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences,

Their existence alone won't convince me. You need to answer why the competition is unable to produce similar products at similar prices.

> violating emissions standards for a decade

This began well after they entered the market and upset the dominance of established players.

> You need to answer why the competition is unable to produce similar products at similar prices.

The same way some people are better at given task. Many older firms are complacent, and operating on an understanding of the market as it existed in the past. Technology, consumer preferences, commodity prices, and other market conditions are constantly changing. If you see something you competitors don't you can offer better cheaper services. The bigger your competitors are, the slower they are to change course.

At bottom, firms are made up of people who are uniquely skilled and qualified. Better people in better systems will perform better. It can be dead simple sometimes. Firms with happier employees are often more productive.

If you don't understand the basics of competitive advantage, then of course you think companies can only gain an edge by doing something immoral. But this is ultimately sophomoric economic thinking.

>This began well after they entered the market and upset the dominance of established players.

I still find it unlikely that it is an isolated incident, but that decade is also when they started to pass the mentioned 10%.

>But this is ultimately sophomoric economic thinking.

Your attempt to explain why the competition may be unable to compete is "they're just better." Beyond that, you just say smaller is better, which is the point of my argument.

I think what OP means is that amazon is using all the data they have from their storefront to beat everyone in the market, which does seem unfair to me.

I get that, but it doesn't seem any different from any national retailer that sells store brand products along side competitors. I'm not even sure how unique this data is. Every corporation in America has access to relatively detailed data about their competitors' sales. There's a time delay, but know what's selling well is really a small part of executing on go to market strategies.

What does that mean - Investigation of what? By whom? and on what basis/framework? Can you propose something workable?

In any case, there are many reasons a company can offer a better deal - they have invested money and developed a new product/service that the competition cannot simply copy or negotiated a better deal with a supplier, or they're simply a better managed company, or about a million other things businesses can do to gain leverage over competition.

Also, like a closely fought game - the advantage could just be temporary. These things are very fluid.