I remember hearing stories of customers flicking through physical books in bookstores and then buying them off Amazon. Can't do anti-steering in that direction.

> They rejected our PDF spec sheets for having links to our website.

I miss the world wide web where you could link to sites.

> They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site.

This is straight up cartelization and can no longer be called a "market".

It's important to get the analogies close.

The bookstore isn't the same. It would be if the book had a QR code on the back labeled "guaranteed cheaper here" - not just the UPC/ISBN.

The customer is choosing to price compare somewhere else, that's not steering, that's brand loyalty.

Wasn't this literally a feature of the Amazon app? You could scan a book's UPC and have it pull up the Amazon listing.

Sure, but that's _still_ customer brand loyalty. The _book_ isn't advertising "Go to Amazon for the cheapest prices" on the cover.

> They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase.

But Apple aren't doing that, really. If I find a link to an App Store app on a website and install it via App Store (as that's the only option), Apple have put no effort into finding a customer. In fact, they've injected themselves into the process by requiring apps come via the App Store.

The developer could probably sell them same app service directly through a webpage and use that in the advertisement link instead of the App Store link.

No they haven't? An app can sell a customer access to their app outside the App Store, give them an account that they can use to access full functionality, direct them to the App Store to download the app, and Apple doesn't take anything. Apple gets a cut when they facilitate the sale, which they absolutely do when a customer is directed to the app in the App Store and then can buy the app with a single tap (knowing it has undergone some degree of vetting and that they can get a refund if they're not happy). If you don't think that is providing immense value, then just consider the difficulty of selling software outside of the App Store. To an approximation, it basically doesn't happen except with B2B SaaS (which notoriously requires a very expensive sales and marketing function).

I understand why Amazon won't allow you to link to your store directly but

>They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site.

This sounds pretty shady

Not only are they shady, but these most favoured nation deals are incredibly anti competitive. Amazon is using its market position to dictate what price other stores are allowed to sell at.

Not only they do that but they also give out deals and rebates without asking the merchant.

I would automatically give the clients a rebate equal to the Amazon fees if they purchased through my site.

They're just not. The thing they're trying to avoid is a customer discovering a product on Amazon, then immediately finding it for less on the manufacturer's website. And this happens. We do it! So do plenty of other sellers we're aware of. Of course, we have to hide it behind a login or offer a 10% discount on first order or whatever.

Amazon is giving sellers something of immense value (the opportunity to sell physical goods to a huge pool of customers who are ready to buy). Why should Amazon give that access to sellers who are trying to divert customers off of Amazon? They're not running a charity. It's their business, which they've built over decades of immense investment and effort. And the immense value of what they've built is evident in the difficulty other massive retailers like Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc. are having building similar online retail businesses.

> They're just not. The thing they're trying to avoid is a customer discovering a product on Amazon, then immediately finding it for less on the manufacturer's website.

So they are using most favoured nation deals? Whether you believe they have a good reason for it or not (I don't think they do) doesn't make it any less anti-competitive

> It's their business, which they've built over decades of immense investment and effort.

I don't care how much money and effort it takes. That's their problem, not the customers'.

They have also built it up by exploiting their workers, creating inferior knockoffs and then kicking the original off the platform, taking as much money from suppliers as possible, and introducing paid placements so that vendors need to advertise to show up even when searched for by name.

> And the immense value of what they've built is evident in the difficulty other massive retailers like Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc. are having building similar online retail businesses.

Perhaps that might have something to do with all of Amazon's best efforts to exert ever more control over suppliers. Or leveraging their success in other areas (looking at you AWS) to do things that would not be profitable otherwise in order to eliminate competition (Diapers.com anyone?).

We don’t have a right to sell on their site. If we want access to their customers and exposure for our products, they want to make sure they’re not being undercut on pricing (since they know customers will price shop).

If even after stopping you from linking to your own site Amazon still fears their customers will price shop by their own accord then:

a) Amazon is implicitly admitting that their shopping platform is not so special: if customers could find cheaper suppliers of your product that would be enough for Amazon to be outcompeted.

b) Amazon is indisputably engaging in anticompetitive practices by forbidding you from even selling at a cheaper price with the only justification of "we do not want price competition to even exist"

Sorry, but you just have no idea how valuable Amazon is at enabling customers to discover that your product even exists. 100% of the customers who have ever bought from our website have discovered us on Amazon. We know this because we don't do any advertising outside of Amazon.

I don't know what your product is, but this feels like it tremendously undervalues the hard work you've done to create a good product:

> And, honestly, they’re completely justified, IMO. They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase.

Amazon is just a dumb pipe for your product and for payments. Sure, they have world-class infrastructure, but it's still a replaceable service, other companies do it successfully. Some % of those customers would find you without Amazon, especially if you advertised or put your product on other marketplaces.

This mindset also allows Amazon to exploit you, because you've already decided you'll accept anything they decide to do.

"We can't link to our website" is INSANE. It means any other company can undercut you or impersonate you on Amazon because your customers have no relationship with you as a company! That's terrifying!

> "We can't link to our website" is INSANE. It means any other company can undercut you or impersonate you on Amazon because your customers have no relationship with you as a company!

It's even better when Amazon undercuts you with an Amazon Basics product. As a bonus they'll give the Amazon Basics product a preferential position in search too.

So what? All large retailers do this. They're called house brands. And they're actually beneficial to customers, since there's a well understood quality floor. If your product can't compete with a house brand, then your product isn't bringing any value to the customer or the marketplace.

I say this as an Amazon seller that competes with Amazon Basics.

> Why should they then have to allow us to steer that customer off of their site to complete the sale?

Because we live in a democratic society with laws that are voted on, and voters are perfectly able to decide what rules they want to live by.

If Apple doesn't like it, then they can shut down their entire company or move out of those countries that have the full democratic authority to decide how businesses run in their country.