https://twentytwowords.com/all-of-these-stores-are-closing/

ll hail Amazon. All hail Amazon. The overlord that are online retailers are taking over, and that spells trouble to big box stores trying to thrive in 2019. Dozens of public brands have already filed for bankruptcy (and not in the Michael Scott way), and there are likely more on the way. Just this past week GAP announced that they were spinning off Old Navy into its own company so that Gap and Banana Republic can die in peace.

But they're not the only ones facing a tough time. According to Business Insider, hundreds of retailers across the country have announced store closures for 2019 and beyond, and in an effort to keep you ahead of your favorite stores closing their doors, we're going to break those closures down from most stores closing, to fewest – at least of those that have been announced so far...

So prepare for one a barrage of going out of business sales as we dive into this new year.

https://moneywise.com/a/retailers-closing-stores-in-2019

https://www.businessinsider.com/stores-closing-this-year-2019-2

The staggering rate of store closures that has rocked the retail industry over the last couple years is expected to continue in 2019, with roughly the same level of closures expected this year.

Retailers closed a record-breaking 102 million square feet of store space in 2017, then smashed that record in 2018 by closing another 155 million square feet of space, according to estimates by the commercial real estate firm CoStar Group.

I thought this was going to be about the jungle. I am dissapoint.

After the wealth going there way got obscene, I have been avoiding Amazon.
It is nearly as easy to find Amazon stuff on fairly-local sources, even if a lot of them are web-based.
Either that, or I go directly to the source. If an Amazon product is also sold by the manufacturer, I buy from them.
Shops are a pain to get to, but If I'm passing, I'll at least try to buy off the shelf. Stores don't hold any stock any more though, so the end for them is nigh.

The same with Steam for games. I usually end up with a Steam key anyway, but that's their choice.

It isn't just for niche products, as the articles state. Stuff you thought would be standard stock can be hard to get on the high-street.
I tried to get a PC monitor a while ago. The big stores had 2 models at most, and the little ones had to order it in. It wasn't even that special.

It doesn't help traditional retail that the USS Amazon is owned and captained by people dedicated to building what is effectively a new economic paradigm at almost any cost, while old school retail appears increasingly to be owned and operated by people more interested in breaking their own ships for scrap so they can sell the berthing spot before the crew can mutiny (e.g. sears, toysrus, etc).

The fact that gargantuan shopping malls are no longer the massive auto-profiting tax shelters they used to be doesn't help either.

On a personal note, if Amazon will guarantee me delivery in two days of anything I want that I dont need right this minute, without me having to deal with pants, shopping center parking lots, checkout lines, stockouts, other people, etc, at a similar or lower price, well, it's hard to say no.

If I go to two malls, and four other stores to find a simple thing like a whetstone (knife sharpener) over three days, and still can't find what I'm looking for that isn't 10x what it should be priced at, then it's no wonder Amazon is destroying retail.

I always try and buy local. But when I spend 3 days of my time, and half a tank of gas to find something that any place that carries kitchen utensils should have (Williams-Sonoma was the only place that had one in stock.....for $300....) it's far less trouble to stay home and have the thing the following day.

Technology is rapidly changing the retail landscape, and retailers are stuck in 1986. The times and technology have changed but retailers seem to think that the same methods for driving sales still apply when the don't. Not at all.

It's when an industry can't adapt that it fails or collapses.

The only brick and mortar retail I frequent puts its stock online and always answers the phone. The majority of retail is pretty terrible service and non-existent stock and worse yet have the balls to try and sell you something else you didn't want because they lack stock of what you do want . Amazon has come through with every order and got it to me within 48 hours with one exception and that was when amazon was forced to interact with canada post instead of their couriers. I don't like bezos, but amazon has been incredibly reliable so far. If I need a mission critical piece of equipment they can get it to me often in 24 hours reliably and that's why they're eating everyone's lunch. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought this was going to be about the jungle. I am dissapoint.

I thought it was gonna be about some amazing woman who came, saw, and dominated and that I'll never be interesting enough for.

Now I don't even get to dream

I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

Pretty much this. I feel the same way when massive international publishing houses whinge about Amazon "killing the book industry" by...err...offering books at reasonable prices, allowing new authors a route to publish that doesn't rely on a bunch of pretentious gits or money-grubbers to give them the OK first(in exchange for 70%+ of the revenue), and ignoring or sidestepping all the bullgak "region locking" practices of trad publishing.

Amazon are scary as hell, as are all the big tech transnats, but the reason they've become one of those big tech transnats is the experience they offer is absolutely superior for most people and rather than address that, their traditional competitors just whinge and moan about how unfair it is. Same thing when cinema chains try to justify their timed exclusivity by saying they need it to remain competitive against streaming - yeah, so? How's that our problem?

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

I agree. Amazon have most hurt the big boys. If anything they have helped the small retailers by offering a route to market. People complain about the destruction of the high street, but I see a return to town and city centres being places where people live, with pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, barbers, hairdressers and specialty and impulse shops like sweet shops, butchers, and so on, and he high street will be much better than when it was filled with supermarkets, phone shops and the other dutritus of life. It may be hard on some retailers, and some old people will need to learn how to use the internet, but we can’t stop progress for a small few.

Amazon have also helped build trust in online retailers. Without them we would not have many of the other online shops we use every day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

Pretty much this. I feel the same way when massive international publishing houses whinge about Amazon "killing the book industry" by...err...offering books at reasonable prices, allowing new authors a route to publish that doesn't rely on a bunch of pretentious gits or money-grubbers to give them the OK first(in exchange for 70%+ of the revenue), and ignoring or sidestepping all the bullgak "region locking" practices of trad publishing.

Amazon are scary as hell, as are all the big tech transnats, but the reason they've become one of those big tech transnats is the experience they offer is absolutely superior for most people and rather than address that, their traditional competitors just whinge and moan about how unfair it is. Same thing when cinema chains try to justify their timed exclusivity by saying they need it to remain competitive against streaming - yeah, so? How's that our problem?

In my experience the big publishers actually quite like Amazon. People are buying more books than ever and without bookshops holding huge stock that then gets returned and pulped. Yes, amazon can be demanding, but nothing like the supermarkets. Most of the moaning is just a show to keep the small bookshops happy. Amazon don’t give a gak what a publisher says about them, but Mr Smiths Book Emporium likes to see a publisher saying in the news how they support B&M shops and that Amazon are evil, yet they keep on selling to them. The publishers could stop selling to amazon if it was that much of a problem and set up their own online store now, yet how many publishing houses let you buy direct?

Steve steveson wrote:In my experience the big publishers actually quite like Amazon. People are buying more books than ever and without bookshops holding huge stock that then gets returned and pulped.

I've read the opposite, Amazon would stock even more and return/pulp huge numbers of books if they didn't sell and really "abuse" the system. And do it systematically to squeeze out the last tiny bit of profit, costing publishers a lot of money and making predicting demand unreliable because they just ordered big and returned big. They don't have to care about shelf space unlike any other bookshop. Their warehouses were kinda like pulping mills: Get books, what doesn't sell gets pulped, use the credit for the next ridiculous huge order, repeat. I don't know if they still do that, I read about it more than a decade ago.

The only real victims of Amazon are the wage-slaves in their warehouses. If those got paid better, I'd have no problem with Amazon and its ilk at all.

Bran Dawri wrote:
The only real victims of Amazon are the wage-slaves in their warehouses. If those got paid better, I'd have no problem with Amazon and its ilk at all.

I guess I can't speak for Europe, but around here... I suppose I don't know all the details cause I haven't really looked super hard into it, but they claimed they'd raise wages across the board late last year.

Honestly Amazon and Ebay and online trading is only one half of the story. The other aspect is the dramatic rise in operating costs in terms of wages, rents and tax for highstreet stores. Basically whilst amazon can compete with just price, the whole other side of paying to run a store has gone insane to the point where many really feel the pinch. Heck even GW (and there is hardly any Warhammer sold on Amazon at all - and what there is is high price at least in the UK) had to slash stores from 3 or 4 staffers 20 years go (or so) to 1 today and also shifted many of their stores from prime locations to slightly outside of the prime retail zone.

Ergo even without ANY competition from Amazon at all they still seriously feel the pinch on operating costs for a highstreet store. Online selling and Amazon is just speeding up a process that has been happening without online retail - it started with big out of down shipping centres and Tescos all-in-one supermarkets.

I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.

 LordofHats wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
The only real victims of Amazon are the wage-slaves in their warehouses. If those got paid better, I'd have no problem with Amazon and its ilk at all.

I guess I can't speak for Europe, but around here... I suppose I don't know all the details cause I haven't really looked super hard into it, but they claimed they'd raise wages across the board late last year.

They cut benefits to pay for it. While on average employees are better off, some are actually going home with less money at the end of the day because the amount gained in wages is less than the amount lost in benefits.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.

 LordofHats wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
The only real victims of Amazon are the wage-slaves in their warehouses. If those got paid better, I'd have no problem with Amazon and its ilk at all.

I guess I can't speak for Europe, but around here... I suppose I don't know all the details cause I haven't really looked super hard into it, but they claimed they'd raise wages across the board late last year.

They cut benefits to pay for it. While on average employees are better off, some are actually going home with less money at the end of the day because the amount gained in wages is less than the amount lost in benefits.

Haha! Good to know.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries at a farmer's market.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries direct from the farms.

If that were the case, that would be correct. Since one company doesn't own all the grocery stores, in reality, it is not even vaguely correct.

But weird and incorrect metaphors aside...
Does Amazon own b&n? No. So books and music can be had elsewhere (along with various other avenues for books)
Does amazon own iTunes? No, so no monopoly on music and movies. Plus, again, other chains and stores, even still
Clothes, no, there are still a lot of those around.
Various other things, some of which overlap with the above categories: Walmart, kohls, target, etc.


So... What actual monopoly are you referring to?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries at a farmer's market.

Err, no, if you can buy the same product from alternative sources that's the textbook definition of it not being a monopoly. And even if you can distort the definition enough to insist that it applies the grocery "monopoly" wouldn't have the same anti-competitive advantages of a true monopoly. They can't arbitrarily raise prices without losing customers to the competition, they can't hold down wages for specialized labor, etc.

As for your original complaint, how do you stop Amazon from being a "monopoly"? They aren't dominating the market because of anti-competitive abuses, they're providing a superior product and the competition isn't. What would you do, make a law that Amazon has to raise their prices so other stores can compete? Insist that a minimum of 10% of packages get random week-long shipping delays?

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries direct from the farms.

If that were the case, that would be correct. Since one company doesn't own all the grocery stores, in reality, it is not even vaguely correct.

But weird and incorrect metaphors aside...
Does Amazon own b&n? No. So books and music can be had elsewhere (along with various other avenues for books)
Does amazon own iTunes? No, so no monopoly on music and movies. Plus, again, other chains and stores, even still
Clothes, no, there are still a lot of those around.
Various other things, some of which overlap with the above categories: Walmart, kohls, target, etc.


So... What actual monopoly are you referring to?

I should have been more clear; I meant it is heading in that direction, not that it is even close to already there. My bad.

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought this was going to be about the jungle. I am dissapoint.

I am more dissapoint. I thought it was going to be about fierce female warriors.

Another point to consider is that Amazon itself doesn't actually sell as much as they make out; many of the products on their store are sold by 3rd parties. Some of which use their own distribution network others use Amazons. At this stage Amazon is closer to being a mall rather than a single store - they provide the grounds for smaller businesses to trade through them and a large amount of the products they sell are not Amazon direct sales from themselves.

It's a little like Ebay only without the bidding on prices element.



And lets face it Amazon has utterly shattered the old mail order speeds of "please wait at least 14 days/2weeks" into "Well you can have it tomorrow or in two days". Which is honestly faster than many highstreet stores can order an item in if they don't have it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries direct from the farms.

If that were the case, that would be correct. Since one company doesn't own all the grocery stores, in reality, it is not even vaguely correct.

But weird and incorrect metaphors aside...
Does Amazon own b&n? No. So books and music can be had elsewhere (along with various other avenues for books)
Does amazon own iTunes? No, so no monopoly on music and movies. Plus, again, other chains and stores, even still
Clothes, no, there are still a lot of those around.
Various other things, some of which overlap with the above categories: Walmart, kohls, target, etc.


So... What actual monopoly are you referring to?

I should have been more clear; I meant it is heading in that direction, not that it is even close to already there. My bad.

That still doesn't fly. Nothing indicates Amazon can or is even interested in acquiring any of the competitors I mentioned (let alone the small fry) and I've seen some reports that some of them are gaining ground in their speciality areas (or in the case of Walmart/target, in general areas).

The fall of some old style brick and mortar outfits isn't a sign of a coming monopoly. In some cases (like toysRus) it isn't even related (that was bookkeeping nonsense by their owner, not sales related, they were purchased and the owning company's debts were pushed on the toysRus unit)

Amazon does a lot of questionable crap, I'm sure, but the monopoly accusation is a big deal to throw around, it isn't a substitute for 'I don't like them'. Which is a problem with the paranoia of the thread title and the OP's source article.

The biggest problem with amazon in my opinion is its creeping invasion into consumers privacy under the guise of 'convenience'

Alexas, amazon smart doorbells and the like. no thanks.

How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

 Skinnereal wrote:
How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

As of late 2017: 67% Amazon retail; 17% income from 3rd party sellers; 9% web services; 5% Prime and other subscriptions; 2% 'other'.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-amazon-makes-money-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

I agree. Amazon have most hurt the big boys. If anything they have helped the small retailers by offering a route to market. People complain about the destruction of the high street, but I see a return to town and city centres being places where people live, with pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, barbers, hairdressers and specialty and impulse shops like sweet shops, butchers, and so on, and he high street will be much better than when it was filled with supermarkets, phone shops and the other dutritus of life. It may be hard on some retailers, and some old people will need to learn how to use the internet, but we can’t stop progress for a small few.

Amazon have also helped build trust in online retailers. Without them we would not have many of the other online shops we use every day.

Have you been to a downtown in the US lately, it is all paper-pushers (Accountants, insurance, real estate agents, etc) and food businesses. There is no small retail anymore. As a entrepreneur myself who has looked at the numbers, there is NO WAY I would ever open a brick and Mortar retail store in this environment. The only thing that can make a small margin is restaurant/food service jobs and the afore mentioned paper pushers who have almost no overhead and live on trailers. Small retail like toy stores, clothing, shoe stores, etc just does not exist after being hammered by Wal-mart/chain retail and now Amazon. This is a huge challenge for small to mid-sized towns as these types of businesses use to be a big driver of employment and tax revenue. Without it, the towns have to turn to other revenue drivers such as fines/fees and property tax increases. You can see how this becomes a vicious circle really fast.

As for book publishing, most authors I know (which is not that many, maybe a half to a dozen) tell me how much Amazon sucks. Sure you get more exposure, but you have to sell 3 to 4 times more books to make it break even with other venues. It is a bit of a catch-22. The most profitable way is to direct sell off your site or book signings/readings.

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries direct from the farms.

If that were the case, that would be correct. Since one company doesn't own all the grocery stores, in reality, it is not even vaguely correct.

But weird and incorrect metaphors aside...
Does Amazon own b&n? No. So books and music can be had elsewhere (along with various other avenues for books)
Does amazon own iTunes? No, so no monopoly on music and movies. Plus, again, other chains and stores, even still
Clothes, no, there are still a lot of those around.
Various other things, some of which overlap with the above categories: Walmart, kohls, target, etc.


So... What actual monopoly are you referring to?

I should have been more clear; I meant it is heading in that direction, not that it is even close to already there. My bad.

That still doesn't fly. Nothing indicates Amazon can or is even interested in acquiring any of the competitors I mentioned (let alone the small fry) and I've seen some reports that some of them are gaining ground in their speciality areas (or in the case of Walmart/target, in general areas).

The fall of some old style brick and mortar outfits isn't a sign of a coming monopoly. In some cases (like toysRus) it isn't even related (that was bookkeeping nonsense by their owner, not sales related, they were purchased and the owning company's debts were pushed on the toysRus unit)

Amazon does a lot of questionable crap, I'm sure, but the monopoly accusation is a big deal to throw around, it isn't a substitute for 'I don't like them'. Which is a problem with the paranoia of the thread title and the OP's source article.

I suppose we interpret Amazon's actions differently. I think their behavior has made it clear they intend to take over the online retail market. I don't begrudge them or avoid them for this because it is more a product of the system than anything.

 Easy E wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd have much more sympathy for the "victims" of Amazon if they weren't also morally big corporations. Sucks to be their shareholders, but their business model is dead in 2019 and I will not miss it.

I agree. Amazon have most hurt the big boys. If anything they have helped the small retailers by offering a route to market. People complain about the destruction of the high street, but I see a return to town and city centres being places where people live, with pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, barbers, hairdressers and specialty and impulse shops like sweet shops, butchers, and so on, and he high street will be much better than when it was filled with supermarkets, phone shops and the other dutritus of life. It may be hard on some retailers, and some old people will need to learn how to use the internet, but we can’t stop progress for a small few.

Amazon have also helped build trust in online retailers. Without them we would not have many of the other online shops we use every day.

Have you been to a downtown in the US lately, it is all paper-pushers (Accountants, insurance, real estate agents, etc) and food businesses. There is no small retail anymore. As a entrepreneur myself who has looked at the numbers, there is NO WAY I would ever open a brick and Mortar retail store in this environment. The only thing that can make a small margin is restaurant/food service jobs and the afore mentioned paper pushers who have almost no overhead and live on trailers. Small retail like toy stores, clothing, shoe stores, etc just does not exist after being hammered by Wal-mart/chain retail and now Amazon. This is a huge challenge for small to mid-sized towns as these types of businesses use to be a big driver of employment and tax revenue. Without it, the towns have to turn to other revenue drivers such as fines/fees and property tax increases. You can see how this becomes a vicious circle really fast.

On this note, one things ive noticed of late is services replacing retail space. Instead of having TrendyMallChain#382 be replaced by GenericFashionOutlet#94 at the mall or downtown shopping district, an Alteration/Tailor shop, Brewpub, Escape Room, Cinnabon or Salon will move in instead, something that Amazon doesn't compete with.

This just in; Amazon uses drones with toaster ovens to deliver hot cinnabon to your door!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This just in; Amazon uses drones with toaster ovens to deliver hot cinnabon to your door!

My body is ready for this gloriously utopian future.

I would meet my heart attack induced end with a smile on my face.

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not have a problem with online beating retail, that is the nature of technological advance. What I have a problem with is Amazon being allowed to monopolize.
.

They don't really even vaguely qualify as a monopoly, though. I can get anything I'd buy off of amazon somewhere else. Not necessarily as quickly and I'd probably have to hit a couple shops before I found some of it (and going to other online retailers would be faster than driving an hour and hoping), but i can do it.

There are even some things (like hobby stuff) where Amazon is a pretty poor option. But there are other places to buy books or music or clothes or whatever (personally I don't buy food and properly sized clothing/footwear online at all), which pretty much negates any 'monopoly' status. They're probably cheaper or more convient, and likely the place I'll look first due to reliability, but not a monopoly.

If one company owns all the grocery stores that is a monopoly, even if I could buy those groceries direct from the farms.

If that were the case, that would be correct. Since one company doesn't own all the grocery stores, in reality, it is not even vaguely correct.

But weird and incorrect metaphors aside...
Does Amazon own b&n? No. So books and music can be had elsewhere (along with various other avenues for books)
Does amazon own iTunes? No, so no monopoly on music and movies. Plus, again, other chains and stores, even still
Clothes, no, there are still a lot of those around.
Various other things, some of which overlap with the above categories: Walmart, kohls, target, etc.


So... What actual monopoly are you referring to?

The monopoly over small towns. If your only choice for retail is 'Amazon', it's a monopoly on those items in that place.

Amazon's not there yet, though. Wal-Mart holds the current small-town monopoly, where your options are your local Wal-Mart, or drive thirty miles down the road to the next town and THEIR Wal-Mart.

That still isn't a monopoly. All those other businesses I mentioned also provide online options- if Amazon can get packages to you, so can they. 'Your only choice' isn't a real-world scenario outside of bizarre circumstances, like someone living on an island by themselves.

And realistically speaking, even fairly economically ruined small towns still have local businesses. My family's home town (a small craphole town) certainly qualifies. All the major job providers are gone, half of main street is empty, but there are still stores that aren't Walmart or major chains.

I bet it's not a vibrant, thriving retail high street environment, though.

 Vulcan wrote:
The monopoly over small towns. If your only choice for retail is 'Amazon', it's a monopoly on those items in that place.

Amazon's not there yet, though. Wal-Mart holds the current small-town monopoly, where your options are your local Wal-Mart, or drive thirty miles down the road to the next town and THEIR Wal-Mart.

"There are some areas where wealth and population density can only support one store and there isn't enough sales volume for anyone else" is hardly a monopoly. And TBH the existence of Amazon (and online retail in general) opens up the options considerably. Yeah, your package still arrives in an Amazon box, but you have access to a vast range of brands through Amazon instead of the limited stock a rural Wal-Mart has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I bet it's not a vibrant, thriving retail high street environment, though.

No, but the poverty causing that state is not relevant to the subject of this thread.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This just in; Amazon uses drones with toaster ovens to deliver hot cinnabon to your door!

My body is ready for this gloriously utopian future.

I would meet my heart attack induced end with a smile on my face.

I would love for Cinnabons on demand.

 Skinnereal wrote:
How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

It's harder to get away from Amazon than you think. Likewise Google and Facebook.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

It's harder to get away from Amazon than you think. Likewise Google and Facebook.

I knew I'd seen it listed somewhere recently. Ta

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

It's harder to get away from Amazon than you think. Likewise Google and Facebook.

A journalist wrote:Having to run to a physical store rather than opening my Amazon app every time the house runs out of paper towels is annoying,

Well, if you're so geographically deprived, or physically lazy, that you can't manage to buy some paper towels from a supermarket before they run out, you're going to have to continue to rely on Amazon.

Amusingly, Facebook has been down throughout the world for about 12 hours as I write.

Yeah, the convenience of things like amazon can definitely make people lazy.

The internet and all these new smart devices have made it possible for companies like this to install themselves squarely into the lives of the general public, to the degree that soon people will not know what to do without them. its a scary thought.

Amazon does have positives though. I own a kindle and buy ebooks for it occasionally, and sometimes I will buy from the site, but I just see it as another option. its nice to get deliveries as quickly as they send them. Like everything in life I try to use it in moderation.

I'm certainly not going to let it worm its way into my life with an app harvesting my data, or smart devices like echo dot/alexas recording my conversations.

Of course, Amazon is hitting many of the main retail motivators:

1. Save money
2. Convenience
3. Save Time

They also have enough cache right now to provide Status. Their main weakness is providing Security as a motivator.

Once you add the low cost model of not supporting Brick and mortar (and the employees that go with them) it makes trying to compete against them almost impossible. The more they shift into the food market, the more challenging competition will become for local eateries.

I look forward to the day when basic services can also be provided via facetime like programs or sending "local partners" out through Amazon for things like Plumbing, Doctors, Mechanics, Accounting, Legal services, Mental Health, etc.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

It's harder to get away from Amazon than you think. Likewise Google and Facebook.

Reading that made me simultaneously feel like an elite hacker and total luddite.

I would never rely on Amazon for things like paper towels, I dont have Alexa devices scattered about to respond to voice commands to play music and TV, I basically never use mobile apps if I have any choice in the matter and have never used one to shop on Amazon. I use Slack but extremely sparingly. All those sites mentioned that are reliant on AWS I use rarely or not at all. I dont send bajillions of links to people. My life is not *that* integrated into the E-World. I'm not exactly Whole Foods target demographic either.

But on the other hand, basically by living a half mile from a grocery store and a block from a convenience store, and more importantly, knowing how to use Bittorrent, I feel like that pressing weight of growing Amazonian monopoly just isn't there. I use Amazon for stuff I'd have to order online or make an out of the way trip for either way, but integrating Amazon into my life at the level described in the article is wayyyyy beyond me.

Facebook I could drop on a dime, it's pretty much just an event organizer for me at this point. Google is another matter however, that's the one that really concerns me personally.

This site has great analysis of the many things amazon does.
https://stratechery.com/company/amazon/

He also gets into the other "aggregators" such as Google/Facebook/Netflix.

Hmm what I use from Amazon?

We have an Echo, an Echo Dot, two Kindles, two Amazon Prime Chase credit cards, Amazon Prime Video on our TV, and two Prime accounts.

Out of that list only kindle account for phone/PC qualifies. Not much use for it though as amazon.com doesn't sell that much books I would be buying and the amazon.co.jp that does doesnt' sell to me. For non-japanese books bookdepository.co.uk is my go to place.

Biggest use of amazon for me is japanese books that I can't find elsewhere. Though some I can find on yesasia.com but their web site sucks for japanese books(stupid romanisation for names) and they don't sell all. Don't know much other stores that would sell those to europe. Direct stores in Japan would require using reshipper which adds to prices.

AWS sounds like unavoidable but...well somebody's always going to be unavoidable in that area. That level of blocking is just silly anyway. You'll just end up blocking entire internet.

Well, yes. That was the point. to demonstrate exactly what FAAMG are into. In the case of Amazon, it’s not just groceries and ebooks. Vaktathi says he doesn’t visit many websites reliant on AWS? I bet he’s wrong and doesn’t know it.

Using Amazon for basic groceries? Why not? If I was housebound and Amazonwill deliver a pint of milk and some j-cloths in a couple of hours, then sure. Sure, that might come back and bite me later when the corner shop goes out of business, but people don’t think like that.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Well, yes. That was the point. to demonstrate exactly what FAAMG are into. In the case of Amazon, it’s not just groceries and ebooks. Vaktathi says he doesn’t visit many websites reliant on AWS? I bet he’s wrong and doesn’t know it.

I'm sure there are sites I visit that use AWS, but of those mentioned by the article (AirBNB, Twitch, Fed Gov resources, phone apps), they're not the type of thing I personally engage with particularly often (hence my luddite comment) and my employer doesn't run our web presence on Amazon's backbone either the way the author's did (it is however reliant on Google to a degree that changing that relationship would be almost impossible). I actually would be pretty thrilled if my last Fed docs were handled by Amazon instead of the unstable rube-goldberg frankenstein setup that they have to take down and reserve for internal use once a week and that can't be used for half the forms one may need of that particular agency

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm sure there are sites I visit that use AWS, but of those mentioned by the article (AirBNB, Twitch, Fed Gov resources, phone apps), they're not the type of thing I personally engage with

If you install uMatrix on Firefox/Chrome you'll be able to see all the other services the sites you are visiting rely on. AWS tends to appear regularly on all kinds of sites.

Amazon is one of the best services ( companies ) in history.

My life has improved immeasurably because of Amazon.

I love it, and use it as much as I can.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
How much of Amazon's fortune is made by selling stuff these days?
Amazon seems to do:
Server hosting, used for antivirus updates, cloud servers, website hosting, etc. Probably number-crunching services and database hosting too, but I haven't looked into that.
TV, through Firesticks and such. Amazon Prime does a lot of original programmes.
Push-button ordering, which they just phased out. The convenience of ordering loo-roll by pressing a button must tell them more than just which account ordered it, but also when it was done and where from.

So, Amazon is far bigger than just a website selling goods. All of it feeds into their data stores. They can sell that to advertisers and marketers too, for even more money.

https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

It's harder to get away from Amazon than you think. Likewise Google and Facebook.

The websites (23 mil IP addresses) are somewhat concerning, but the rest is nonsense. This woman and her family have a problem that has nothing to do with Amazon. If someone is telling you when your daughter is pooping and you can't actually talk to someone when their partner dies, you're socially dysfunctional on a level that's unimaginable to me.

Yeah I didn't understand why she couldn't use the text function on her phone to text her husband.

Of course she could; that's not the point (although the particular app she uses is enrypted, unlike SMS). The point was that the service she was using isn't publically branded as an Amazon service, but is reliant on them.

The point is that rather than being just an online store and a TV channel, Amazon is basically running the Internet.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Of course she could; that's not the point (although the particular app she uses is enrypted, unlike SMS). The point was that the service she was using isn't publically branded as an Amazon service, but is reliant on them.

The point is that rather than being just an online store and a TV channel, Amazon is basically running the Internet.

People act like this is a new thing, but I wonder if anyone who does think that has ever tried shopping ethically before.

It's *not possible* to consume ethically. Every brand is owned by someone who's owned by someone who has a monster on their board of directors, or is owned in turn by a horrifying megacorp that buys politicians and suppresses negative information about their shady practices. Your organic produce might be saving the bees, but it's also killing fish. Literally everybody, even eco-friendly options, is dependent on the fossil fuel industry to one degree or another. All the big corporations use "image management" and PR agencies that also work for dictators and murderous regimes. All the big corporations cut corners and lie about it. As we've seen recently, even watching a movie can see you financially supporting a rapist by accident. Have a look into the way governments contract out to the private sector some time - they're not giving those school building contracts to your local brickies, or hiring some small-time security firm to look after an event, a tiny handful of "service provider" megacorps who can supposedly do everything from construction to elderly care to mental health clinics get the work. This isn't conspiracy mongering, it's just how capitalism works.

The only difference between how things were and how things are is that a combination of social media and people's general techno-fear mindset has made the domination of a handful of companies seem obvious to folk. Which is good, absolutely, people should be aware of this stuff, but just getting a bit wiggy over the tech companies and ignoring the wider issue isn't going to solve anything, and sometimes it seems that people are less outraged or fearful of "big tech" than they are angry that they can't continue to wallow in their previous blissfully ignorant complacency.

When people talk about consuming ethically, they don't mean they only want to buy things from companies which don't have anyone dodgy on the board or major shareholder.

They mean they want to buy stuff that isn't wrapped in layers of unnecessary planet-killing plastic, or food which has been produced with higher standards of animal welfare.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When people talk about consuming ethically, they don't mean they only want to buy things from companies which don't have anyone dodgy on the board or major shareholder.

They mean they want to buy stuff that isn't wrapped in layers of unnecessary planet-killing plastic, or food which has been produced with higher standards of animal welfare.

I think that varies a LOT by the consumer.

For example, activist ethical investors are very interested in the board members. However, folks in the stores are more interested in the things you note.

I shop ethically.

I shop for products and services that make my life better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When people talk about consuming ethically, they don't mean they only want to buy things from companies which don't have anyone dodgy on the board or major shareholder.

They mean they want to buy stuff that isn't wrapped in layers of unnecessary planet-killing plastic, or food which has been produced with higher standards of animal welfare.

Then evidently we've been speaking to different people, because corporate ethics has always been part of what people I've talked to who advocate "ethical consumerism" go on about.

Regardless, my point stands - "ethical" products often merely shift the unethical part a step or two up the supply chain, or reduce one kind of pollution or cruelty at the cost of increasing a different one, but evidently a lot of people are satisfied with "out of sight, out of mind".

I think one of the biggest issues with ethical products is that the modern supply chain for most things is so convoluted, so broken up, with so many steps between manufacture of components, shipping of components, assembly, assembly of assembly components shipping of assembled components etc etc that it's almost impossible for a lot of companies to fully account for where everything that goes into their products comes from.

I once saw an entire presentation solely based on the difficulty of sourcing computer parts.

When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

Alternatively, when a company is providing such good and cheap service that its competition keeps failing it's not time to break it up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

Alternatively, when a company is providing such good and cheap service that its competition keeps failing it's not time to break it up.

Alternatively alternatively, it's economics of scale rather than the service actually being good and the idea of fighting against a legal entity with more money than many countries is a complete farce.

Monopolies are not conductive to increasing standards in the long run. If counteracting monopolies means reduced efficiency in the short term then so be it. There are more factors to a living standard than just material wealth.

You can't break it up, not without some repressive legislations being introduced. It's humanities failing, in that we're happy to sacrifice all our freedoms and most intimate information for convenience, and this is the result. We've only got ourself to blame.

That and a lot of the time much of the information we "sacrifice" we can't see the connections with. Ergo its given away but we don't see how it can't not benefit us - or its information so commonly given out that we fail to see how it might be special or in need of protection in some situations.

That said with the way a lot of creative media an the internet is going I think we are also steadily growing generations who are used to the idea of our data being taken by marketing to allow better product marketing to us which in turn pays for many of the "free" things that we enjoy in life. Just consider how many websites are based off the backs of advertising (either directly or as part of large groups)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively alternatively, it's economics of scale rather than the service actually being good and the idea of fighting against a legal entity with more money than many countries is a complete farce.

Monopolies are not conductive to increasing standards in the long run. If counteracting monopolies means reduced efficiency in the short term then so be it. There are more factors to a living standard than just material wealth.

It absolutely is good service. What is Amazon doing with their economies of scale? They aren't just pocketing lots of easy profit, they're keeping prices down and providing a product that customers want. If other companies fail to compete with Amazon it's because they are providing a less desirable product, not because Amazon has exclusive ownership of a limited resource that online shopping depends on. In fact, there is constant competition from a great many rivals and Amazon only succeeds as long as it is doing a better job at meeting customer demands. So what exactly is the justification for shutting down this so-called monopoly?

(Obviously Amazon isn't a monopoly, but even under the assumption that they are there still isn't a great case for doing anything about it.)

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
You can't break it up, not without some repressive legislations being introduced. It's humanities failing, in that we're happy to sacrifice all our freedoms and most intimate information for convenience, and this is the result. We've only got ourself to blame.

AT&T was broken up without american becoming a fascist state, and anyway it became a fascist stare after 911, so I think we could break up amazon and microborg without oppressing anyone but a few poor helpless billionaires. And if they feel oppressed the can move to another country.

 Overread wrote:
That and a lot of the time much of the information we "sacrifice" we can't see the connections with. Ergo its given away but we don't see how it can't not benefit us - or its information so commonly given out that we fail to see how it might be special or in need of protection in some situations.

That said with the way a lot of creative media an the internet is going I think we are also steadily growing generations who are used to the idea of our data being taken by marketing to allow better product marketing to us which in turn pays for many of the "free" things that we enjoy in life. Just consider how many websites are based off the backs of advertising (either directly or as part of large groups)

Indeed. I tried to point this out to some of my work colleagues and they just shrugged it off. Said they'd rather have adverts tailored specifically to them.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Overread wrote:
That and a lot of the time much of the information we "sacrifice" we can't see the connections with. Ergo its given away but we don't see how it can't not benefit us - or its information so commonly given out that we fail to see how it might be special or in need of protection in some situations.

That said with the way a lot of creative media an the internet is going I think we are also steadily growing generations who are used to the idea of our data being taken by marketing to allow better product marketing to us which in turn pays for many of the "free" things that we enjoy in life. Just consider how many websites are based off the backs of advertising (either directly or as part of large groups)

Indeed. I tried to point this out to some of my work colleagues and they just shrugged it off. Said they'd rather have adverts tailored specifically to them.

That or they are using ad blockers.

Thing is if ads are targeted toward you then, generally speaking, it can improve ones experience because the annoying ads are at least somewhat focused on things one has searched for. However its still a very rough science. Eg it can't tell the difference between what you're looking for for yourself and a gift for another person. Or the difference between work and hobby purchases. Heck sometimes they can link together random information and start throwing some really odd results and wildcards into the mix. Plus a cookie re-set shuffles it all around once more (save on a specific website where they've got your purchase history tied to your account or a viewing history).

So there is logic in there - the people are accepting marketing targeted toward them more so than random marketing. Either way the marketing is going to happen. Of course one can argue that targeted has a greater chance of generating a sale over random - however its a bit like going into the corner shop in Open All Hours - you know you're going to be fleeced to buy stuff before you step in the door. In time I wonder if newer generations will either end up more led by marketing or might even grow to resist it at a greater degree; then again it might be a lot play into human habits - eg take Magic the Gathering. We can all see the product recycles a lot of abilities and concepts and we can all see that they recycle their whole line every year and invalidate (at least in the standard format) last years cards. The whole thing is built to just generate more card sales over more and encourage more buying - yet there are vast numbers of fans happy with this.

But ad blockers aren't 100‰ effective, especially on phones. I understand that companies need to advertise, but I object to them forcing upon me the need to access my personal photos, messages, and record my voice conversations to add data to their algortihims so as to aggressively monetise everything in my life. Its out of order really.

It's not just ads, it's prices. Amazon already changes the price of items depending on who's searching. Not a problem? What if they see that you buy something like nutritional supplements, and they know that you like in a small town where there's no alternative supplier. So the price you see will creep up slowly because you've got no other choice. Their system might even be able to determine if you own a car or not, and thus alter the price more for you than for your next-door neighbour who does have a car, because they know he can drive to the next town but you can't.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It's not just ads, it's prices. Amazon already changes the price of items depending on who's searching. Not a problem? What if they see that you buy something like nutritional supplements, and they know that you like in a small town where there's no alternative supplier. So the price you see will creep up slowly because you've got no other choice. Their system might even be able to determine if you own a car or not, and thus alter the price more for you than for your next-door neighbour who does have a car, because they know he can drive to the next town but you can't.

In fairness this happens in the real world too, but more so in some markets than others. Eg builders merchants or car dealers are often far more open to haggling right from the get-go - whilst if you're shopping in Tesco's the price on the till is the price you pay - end of (unless you want to try haggling and then you have to get a manager and its more of an argument than a haggle).

The only difference is that Amazon is controlling all the situation and isn't letting you the customer haggle back for the price. It's also a generational thing, I think that many generations today are brought up with barcodes and price tags to the point where we are conditioned to accept the price as advertised. Of course a free market also means that companies cna chop and change the prices on things a lot - supermarkets have been abusing this for years. Lowering the price on some goods for a period of time then raising the price on others then swapping it all over next week. The more they destabilize the concept of a price the easier it is for them to steadily increase it because the customer has less concept of the products value. At least unless they are a very dedicated shopper and keep records of the prices of key items and shop around all the time - which in itself is not a small investment of time to achieve.

In fact the only store I've sort of seen haggling on is Ebay with their "best offer" option.

Yes, but the difference there is even though I can't haggle in Tesco, I pay the same price for a packet of digestives as you do. They do change things to an extent - with the loyalty scheme vouchers you get - but the way Amazon do it is much less transparent.

Remember, one of the assumptions of the free market is an informed customer, not one that is misled by advertising and obfuscation.

Aye very true though I wonder how big the price differences are in reality. Though even a small difference is still adifference but I wonder if we are talking major price swings here.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Yes, but the difference there is even though I can't haggle in Tesco, I pay the same price for a packet of digestives as you do. They do change things to an extent - with the loyalty scheme vouchers you get - but the way Amazon do it is much less transparent.

Remember, one of the assumptions of the free market is an informed customer, not one that is misled by advertising and obfuscation.

Actually, it's entirely possible you don't pay the same price I do for a packet of digestives. There are five Tesco stores in and around my town, one of which is the local home delivery fulfillment centre - prices in each can be different for the same item depending on the affluence of the area and Tesco's judgement on how much access to transportation you have("luxury" items are more expensive in stores next to "posh areas" and both cheaper and less numerous in stores elsewhere; the city centre stores charge higher prices because Tesco know the majority of their customers are limited to public transport and getting out to the big, cheaper out of town stores is a hassle for them), and the online prices for customers who's product comes from the fulfillment store can be different from the prices for people who actually go there and physically buy things(heavy items tend to pick up a small hidden surcharge for online orders). All large chain stores do this, where do you think Amazon got the idea from.

And this is the problem with your latter statement - the entire concept of the informed consumer is a myth. It is not functionally possible to remain informed about the practices and activities of the companies you buy things from unless you devote your full attention and time to the task, the very *existence* of "marketing" alone makes it impossible because to be truly informed you have to double-check every. single. claim. you ever see made, since the level of truthfulness required from advertising is well, well below absolute. People see what Amazon et al are doing as being unique and sinister, when the reality is they're just automating and streamlining the sinister parts of the retail business along with all the others, and we've all been getting fleeced in very similar ways all along just without noticing.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
AT&T was broken up without american becoming a fascist state, and anyway it became a fascist stare after 911, so I think we could break up amazon and microborg without oppressing anyone but a few poor helpless billionaires. And if they feel oppressed the can move to another country.

One key difference: AT&T actually had a monopoly, Amazon just has a strong market position among lots of competition.

 Yodhrin wrote:

And this is the problem with your latter statement - the entire concept of the informed consumer is a myth. It is not functionally possible to remain informed about the practices and activities of the companies you buy things from unless you devote your full attention and time to the task, the very *existence* of "marketing" alone makes it impossible because to be truly informed you have to double-check every. single. claim. you ever see made, since the level of truthfulness required from advertising is well, well below absolute. People see what Amazon et al are doing as being unique and sinister, when the reality is they're just automating and streamlining the sinister parts of the retail business along with all the others, and we've all been getting fleeced in very similar ways all along just without noticing.

Also, it's not a problem with my statement - it's a problem for the proponents of free market economics, or rather a problem for the unfortunates who are getting suckered by them.

The free market is a scam. In america we have a free market cable and internet system and we get the highest prices and worst service in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

Our free market healthcare system turns lives into corporate profits. "Free market" is just dogwhistle for letting business rob people perpetually.

The "free market" is about corporate profits. Yiu can see the proof of that when some new innovation threatens big corporations and the laws, regulations, polices, etc come down on it almost instantly.

Typically any free market requires some degree of regulation in order to work. So yes its never fully "free", but its more free than government regulated prices. In theory a free market lower prices, but in truth once you get one or a handful of major players they can easily conspire to fix prices and will often do so until they are caught.

Several major supermarkets in the UK got caught a few years back as they were raising the price of milk/dairy to customers, but at the same time significantly lowering the price they'd pay to buy from the farms. Basically letting them pocket the margin between and because they were all major players they could get away with it. The farms were either tied into contracts or limited on who could purchase their volume of produce. So most had to trade with those supermarkets.

Regulation and monitoring of companies should, in theory (and in that case did) step in to exercise regulations and laws to prevent abuse of the system.

 Overread wrote:


Regulation and monitoring of companies should, in theory (and in that case did) step in to exercise regulations and laws to prevent abuse of the system.

That's only as good as the political will to carry it all out.

Hail S̶a̶t̶a̶n̶ Amazon!

 Overread wrote:
Typically any free market requires some degree of regulation in order to work. So yes its never fully "free", but its more free than government regulated prices. In theory a free market lower prices, but in truth once you get one or a handful of major players they can easily conspire to fix prices and will often do so until they are caught.

Several major supermarkets in the UK got caught a few years back as they were raising the price of milk/dairy to customers, but at the same time significantly lowering the price they'd pay to buy from the farms. Basically letting them pocket the margin between and because they were all major players they could get away with it. The farms were either tied into contracts or limited on who could purchase their volume of produce. So most had to trade with those supermarkets.

Regulation and monitoring of companies should, in theory (and in that case did) step in to exercise regulations and laws to prevent abuse of the system.

If a "unregulated" and therefore "free" market gives us medical priices so obscenely inflated thousands die each year from being unable to afford them, i'll take some government regulation. If we have to actually literally force the government to do it and corporation to accept it i'm ok with that too.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

You have a choice. If you don't want to buy from Amazon, don't. Just go out into the "real world" and hand cash to people for goods

A monopoly has never existed without the backing / sanction of a government ( force ). A monopoly between actors in a 100% unregulated, free market is impossible. Anytime you think you see a monopoly, what you are being lied about is the politician involved making it happen.

Amazon has improved my life ten fold. I love it, and I hope it does better and better each year.

Also don't forget that a lot of stuff sold on Amazon isn't "amazon". There are a lot of smaller and bigger sellers on the service who also sell their products through Amazon, much like they might through ebay. Sure Amazon takes a cut, but they also supply the website, advertising on the website and the shipping system (and honestly Amazons shipping is REALLY good now - the old days of " up to 14 working days " are long gone)

 BuFFo wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

You have a choice. If you don't want to buy from Amazon, don't. Just go out into the "real world" and hand cash to people for goods

A monopoly has never existed without the backing / sanction of a government ( force ). A monopoly between actors in a 100% unregulated, free market is impossible. Anytime you think you see a monopoly, what you are being lied about is the politician involved making it happen.

Amazon has improved my life ten fold. I love it, and I hope it does better and better each year.

Baloney. A lo of items are only physically on sale at certain areas. I can't just drive hundred of miles to get some things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BuFFo wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

You have a choice. If you don't want to buy from Amazon, don't. Just go out into the "real world" and hand cash to people for goods

A monopoly has never existed without the backing / sanction of a government ( force ). A monopoly between actors in a 100% unregulated, free market is impossible. Anytime you think you see a monopoly, what you are being lied about is the politician involved making it happen.

Amazon has improved my life ten fold. I love it, and I hope it does better and better each year.

Baloney. A lo of items are only physically on sale at certain areas. I can't just drive hundred of miles to get some things.

 BuFFo wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When a company becomes so big people have effectively no choice about using it, it's time to break it up.

You have a choice. If you don't want to buy from Amazon, don't. Just go out into the "real world" and hand cash to people for goods

A monopoly has never existed without the backing / sanction of a government ( force ). A monopoly between actors in a 100% unregulated, free market is impossible. Anytime you think you see a monopoly, what you are being lied about is the politician involved making it happen.

Amazon has improved my life ten fold. I love it, and I hope it does better and better each year.

I bet that is what Bill Gates was thinking as he was bankrolling Apple so Microsoft wouldn't be broken up by Congress, something along the lines of "Those dang politicians forcing me in to a monopoly!"

Basically what I am saying is you are wrong, so so wrong.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Baloney. A lo of items are only physically on sale at certain areas. I can't just drive hundred of miles to get some things.

Then buy it online from somewhere other than Amazon. I seriously doubt there are very many items where Amazon is the only reasonable source.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Baloney. A lo of items are only physically on sale at certain areas. I can't just drive hundred of miles to get some things.

Then buy it online from somewhere other than Amazon. I seriously doubt there are very many items where Amazon is the only reasonable source.

What are those other services? I never see them advertised. Always Amazon for advertisements. You could go directly to a companies store and order what you want I suppose, but if you do that with a lot of items then you are paying a lot of shipping. Much cheaper to use a service, the only one I ever see advertised and that has good reviews. (Because people know about it and use it a lot!) Soooo, what now? Looks like Amazon is my choice to save money on shipping, because shipping is the choke point for ordering online.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
What are those other services? I never see them advertised. Always Amazon for advertisements. You could go directly to a companies store and order what you want I suppose, but if you do that with a lot of items then you are paying a lot of shipping. Much cheaper to use a service, the only one I ever see advertised and that has good reviews. (Because people know about it and use it a lot!) Soooo, what now? Looks like Amazon is my choice to save money on shipping, because shipping is the choke point for ordering online.

Nice job moving the goalposts there, from "it's not available" to "Amazon gives me a better deal on shipping".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
What are those other services? I never see them advertised. Always Amazon for advertisements. You could go directly to a companies store and order what you want I suppose, but if you do that with a lot of items then you are paying a lot of shipping. Much cheaper to use a service, the only one I ever see advertised and that has good reviews. (Because people know about it and use it a lot!) Soooo, what now? Looks like Amazon is my choice to save money on shipping, because shipping is the choke point for ordering online.

Nice job moving the goalposts there, from "it's not available" to "Amazon gives me a better deal on shipping".

We are talking about Monopolies, this is how they are formed. Better deals over here, oh hey look now you can buy OUR version of the product for cheaper and 3 day shipping! Wanna group it with these other products for a bigger deal? No problem! No shipping if you sign up for our service! Want some clicker buttons that auto order things for you without even having to use the internet? Done! ALEXA!!!!!!!!!

Getting it? Goalposts be damned, this is how monopolies work.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We are talking about Monopolies, this is how they are formed. Better deals over here, oh hey look now you can buy OUR version of the product for cheaper and 3 day shipping! Wanna group it with these other products for a bigger deal? No problem! No shipping if you sign up for our service! Want some clicker buttons that auto order things for you without even having to use the internet? Done! ALEXA!!!!!!!!!

Getting it? Goalposts be damned, this is how monopolies work.

So any time a company has cheaper prices it's time to start worrying about monopolies, even when they have tons of competition? Is Walmart a monopoly because they sell a lot of cheap stuff?

PS: those auto-order buttons you're worrying about? Already discontinued because they weren't a successful product.

as much as it pains me to say it, I agree with peregrine here. a monopoly means you have no other choice but to use that company, which, especially in this modern age is most certainly not the case.

The problem with amazon is not its size, although the means with which it can afford to become so large could be called into question (there have been lots of accounts lately of the questionable working conditions of amazon employees, and i'd be interested to know if their delivery drivers are paid/employed properly as they all seem to be eastern european or african migrants.) but the insidious nature of its algorithms, and its creeping insertion of data mining devices into the household.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
and its creeping insertion of data mining devices into the household.

Thing is digitally they are just following a lot of other companies in that regard.
A lot of companies want the idea of the personal home computer to be a thing of the past. They'd rather it was cloud based, whereby they not only can keep all users on the same software version; but also add or remove whatever the ywant from the software at any time; manage accounts; monitor actual usage. Heck they even want users to store all their data offsite on the cloud rather than locally.


Whilst I grew up with Startrek and the idea of a personal computer like Alexa is really "neat" I've totally avoided ever owning one because as far as I can see its purely there to datamine. Of course I also use google so I can hardly say I'm perfect in avoiding data mining. I figure data mining is going to be a big thing of future politics (its sort of there now but I get the feeling that politics moves a lot slower than technology at present; and that I think there's still a bit of a generational technology gap going on - though its steadily closing).

of course. thats part of the reason I've deleted my facebook account. I still use instagram but almost purely for hobby now.
just the other day I switched my search engine from google to duckduckgo, which doesnt record your search items. I've removed googles permission to my microphone and photo albums on my phone. I want to make myself as less of a product for advertisers as possible.

I will never own an alexa, or a dot, or a smart doorbell or whatever other devices amazon hoist on us. I tried to broach this subject with my co-workers but I just get made out to be a luddite. theyre so blase about having their data mined for monetization by these massive companies.. people just dont care.

I supposed part of it is that there's no way for the individual to monetize their data themselves. Indeed the data of one person is pretty much worthless (at least the average person on an average income). It only gains value once its a huge body of data.

So in a sense you are giving companies money, but at the same time its not an investment in money that the individual can realise for themselves.

 Overread wrote:
I supposed part of it is that there's no way for the individual to monetize their data themselves. Indeed the data of one person is pretty much worthless (at least the average person on an average income). It only gains value once its a huge body of data.

So in a sense you are giving companies money, but at the same time its not an investment in money that the individual can realise for themselves.

The problem is people have no idea of the scope of this stuff and just how much of their data is getting shared around between different companies. "Meh, I can't make money off it, so why not let them analyse what I buy etc so I get free services" is a great deal...until you find out that you can't get medical insurance because you agreed to an EULA at some point that allowed providers to analyse your food shopping and they decided you're a bit too fond of doughnuts for your own good, or you find out your bosses are using the data from your period-tracking fertility app to figure out when to start trying to sideline/fire you since they know you're trying to get pregnant, etc etc.

Amazon as a shopping platform provide a good service, but Surveillance Capitalism is an actual dystopian nightmare.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We are talking about Monopolies, this is how they are formed. Better deals over here, oh hey look now you can buy OUR version of the product for cheaper and 3 day shipping! Wanna group it with these other products for a bigger deal? No problem! No shipping if you sign up for our service! Want some clicker buttons that auto order things for you without even having to use the internet? Done! ALEXA!!!!!!!!!

Getting it? Goalposts be damned, this is how monopolies work.

So any time a company has cheaper prices it's time to start worrying about monopolies, even when they have tons of competition? Is Walmart a monopoly because they sell a lot of cheap stuff?

PS: those auto-order buttons you're worrying about? Already discontinued because they weren't a successful product.

Don't accuse me of moving goalposts and then cherrypick my post. Where is the competition against Amazon? Who is their competition? Ive asked but get nothing. Do I Google that? (Look more tech monopolies!)

Since you cherrypicked I will mention it again, Amazon does the same thong Walmart does by providing their own version of a cheap product then not selling the original product anymore. They both do it a lot and it is a big problem that assists with the monopoly. The only difference is Walmart has major brick and mortar competition and unlike Amazon, they have been smart enough to not drive them out.

Amazon sucks up online real estate in advertising, they offer ridiculous deals and services nobody can compete with. This is where it hits. Why buy anywhere else when you can get Amazon Prime? You get free shipping, Amazon streaming, Audible, as well as countless other things.

PS: those auto clickers got discontinued for a lot of reason, having a better version of them with Alexa was a major factor. Lol

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Where is the competition against Amazon?

Anything with online shopping. I can go to Walmart.com and buy stuff if I don't want to use Amazon for some reason, and that's just competition for the "lots of products from a single source" service. There are vast numbers of individual companies selling a smaller product range online, including many of the sellers that also sell through Amazon.

Amazon sucks up online real estate in advertising

So what? Buying lots of ads does not make a company a monopoly.

they offer ridiculous deals and services nobody can compete with.

{citation needed}

If nobody is competing then why do tons of companies offer online stores?

EDIT: Never mind.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We are talking about Monopolies, this is how they are formed. Better deals over here, oh hey look now you can buy OUR version of the product for cheaper and 3 day shipping! Wanna group it with these other products for a bigger deal? No problem! No shipping if you sign up for our service! Want some clicker buttons that auto order things for you without even having to use the internet? Done! ALEXA!!!!!!!!!

Getting it? Goalposts be damned, this is how monopolies work.

So any time a company has cheaper prices it's time to start worrying about monopolies, even when they have tons of competition? Is Walmart a monopoly because they sell a lot of cheap stuff?

PS: those auto-order buttons you're worrying about? Already discontinued because they weren't a successful product.

Don't accuse me of moving goalposts and then cherrypick my post. Where is the competition against Amazon? Who is their competition? Ive asked but get nothing. Do I Google that? (Look more tech monopolies!)

Since you cherrypicked I will mention it again, Amazon does the same thong Walmart does by providing their own version of a cheap product then not selling the original product anymore. They both do it a lot and it is a big problem that assists with the monopoly. The only difference is Walmart has major brick and mortar competition and unlike Amazon, they have been smart enough to not drive them out.

Amazon sucks up online real estate in advertising, they offer ridiculous deals and services nobody can compete with. This is where it hits. Why buy anywhere else when you can get Amazon Prime? You get free shipping, Amazon streaming, Audible, as well as countless other things.

PS: those auto clickers got discontinued for a lot of reason, having a better version of them with Alexa was a major factor. Lol

amazon probably makes up less than 10% of my online shopping. Just because something is the largest, it doesnt mean its a monopoly. and your google example, there are plenty of other search engines out there, you just have to put a bit of effort in, which most people are too lazy to do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Where is the competition against Amazon?

Anything with online shopping. I can go to Walmart.com and buy stuff if I don't want to use Amazon for some reason, and that's just competition for the "lots of products from a single source" service. There are vast numbers of individual companies selling a smaller product range online, including many of the sellers that also sell through Amazon.

Amazon sucks up online real estate in advertising

So what? Buying lots of ads does not make a company a monopoly.

they offer ridiculous deals and services nobody can compete with.

{citation needed}

If nobody is competing then why do tons of companies offer online stores?

I already covered the individual company argument. Bringing it up again doesn't somehow make you right the second time.

If Amazon is buying up prime advertising spots it is an issue. It shows that a company has a monopoly and they can flex and push competition out.

No citation is needed. Does Walmart have a live streaming service? Audio book/e-book service? Do they offer it for $20 a month as well as free shipping and deals?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


amazon probably makes up less than 10% of my online shopping. Just because something is the largest, it doesnt mean its a monopoly. and your google example, there are plenty of other search engines out there, you just have to put a bit of effort in, which most people are too lazy to do.

Cool. What does your shopping have to do with monopolies? You are one person and you still use Amazon. You are not really disproving them having a monopoly by this statement. Same for Google. They made it easy so people would use it more. It's a part of the monopolies tactic. Make it a household name!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I already covered the individual company argument. Bringing it up again doesn't somehow make you right the second time.

You didn't cover anything, you just complained that shipping costs are higher. And "Amazon has cheaper prices than the competition" is not the same thing as "Amazon is a monopoly". The competition still exists even if you personally are not buying from them.

If Amazon is buying up prime advertising spots it is an issue. It shows that a company has a monopoly and they can flex and push competition out.

So now bud light has a monopoly on beer because I see their ads so often in prime NFL game advertising space? Spending lots of money on advertising does not make a company a monopoly. And Amazon hardly has exclusive control over advertising space. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Amazon ads are still a minority of all online advertising you see.

No citation is needed. Does Walmart have a live streaming service? Audio book/e-book service? Do they offer it for $20 a month as well as free shipping and deals?

What's your point? Why is Amazon's competition required to be an exact copy of Amazon? Amazon isn't a monopoy just because you have to buy your random stuff from Walmart, stream from Netflix, and buy e-books from Barnes and Noble. All of Amazon's products have competition even if you personally prefer to buy from Amazon.

Cool. What does your shopping have to do with monopolies?

The fact that 90% of their online shopping is going to companies other than Amazon demonstrates that Amazon does not have a monopoly. You know, since part of the definition of a monopoly is that there isn't competition to send 90% of your business to.

Oh boy, you are ignoring things in arguments. Should have seen that coming.

I did cover that. By pointing out that shipping costs are ridiculous and ordering from multiple sources might not be a possibility for people on a budget. Cheap saves people money and some people cant spend a lot on shipping. But here we are, going over it again.

Bud Light has major competition in the advertising space. Your argument makes little sense as an analogy.

Other online shopping places have to compete with Amazon and the services they provide. Its how Amazon stacked the deck in their favor. More bang for your buck. Or you could go somewhere else and get less. Preying on that feeling of losing a good deal or missing out on free stuff is what is making them a monopoly.

Your last paragraph, I'm not sure how that makes any sense. This is an online storefront, of course other places are making money. Id like to see the citation for the 90%. But regardless, they are the ones making money off every transaction and from their paid online service Prime. That is the issue here......

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I did cover that. By pointing out that shipping costs are ridiculous and ordering from multiple sources might not be a possibility for people on a budget. Cheap saves people money and some people cant spend a lot on shipping. But here we are, going over it again.

And, again, "I prefer to buy from Amazon because shipping is cheaper" is not the same as "Amazon is a monopoly". The fact that you feel that Amazon's competition provides an inferior product does not mean that the competition doesn't exist.

Bud Light has major competition in the advertising space. Your argument makes little sense as an analogy.

Amazon also has major competition in the advertising space.

Preying on that feeling of losing a good deal or missing out on free stuff is what is making them a monopoly.

I think you have a very serious lack of understanding of what a monopoly is.

Id like to see the citation for the 90%.

The citation is queen_annes_revenge saying "Amazon probably makes up less than 10% of my online shopping". If they can give 90% or more of their online shopping business to Amazon's competition then Amazon clearly does not have a monopoly.

I could see why you'd view them as a monopoly, but they really aren't. They don't own the market in any particular area, except maybe home spy devices.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I did cover that. By pointing out that shipping costs are ridiculous and ordering from multiple sources might not be a possibility for people on a budget. Cheap saves people money and some people cant spend a lot on shipping. But here we are, going over it again.

And, again, "I prefer to buy from Amazon because shipping is cheaper" is not the same as "Amazon is a monopoly". The fact that you feel that Amazon's competition provides an inferior product does not mean that the competition doesn't exist.

Bud Light has major competition in the advertising space. Your argument makes little sense as an analogy.

Amazon also has major competition in the advertising space.

Preying on that feeling of losing a good deal or missing out on free stuff is what is making them a monopoly.

I think you have a very serious lack of understanding of what a monopoly is.

Id like to see the citation for the 90%.

The citation is queen_annes_revenge saying "Amazon probably makes up less than 10% of my online shopping". If they can give 90% or more of their online shopping business to Amazon's competition then Amazon clearly does not have a monopoly.

I didnt say other places provide an inferior product. If anything, Amazon is providing inferior products by poaching the products of other companies and selling them as their own, a well known monopoly tactic. But again, you are not getting what I am saying. Amazon is a service. The service they are providing is a monopoly.

Who are their major competitors? Third time I have asked now.

I have a good understanding of what a monopoly is. Which is why I am telling you Amazon has formed a monopoly, much like Google has.

Aaaaand your citation is an anecdote from somebody on a toy game forum. Even better it is from a person who says they understand why I would think that but they aren't a monopoly. Because, reasons? Amazing arguments folks.

Most of amazon is actually a mere platform. . . For you saying that Amazon is a "monopoly" . . . you do realize that 60% of their sales on amazon.com is because some small mom and pop shop are paying to host their goods on amazon, right? Damn near everything on Prime Day deals, all those discounts come from the deals that smaller businesses make with Amazon to not only list their goods, but also house in Amazon warehouses. . . If they don't sell well enough throughout the year, they end up on a sweet Prime Day deal to make room.

Amazon is not a monopoly in really any sense of the word. . . They have online shopping competitors in Ebay AND in the form of "traditional" retailers. They have data competitors because AWS competes directly with companies like SAP and the Watson Center IBM. They compete directly with Netflix and Hulu for streaming. They compete with Google, Apple, and a few other companies in IoT goods.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Amazon is a service. The service they are providing is a monopoly.

And yet you ignore the competition Amazon has. If Amazon has a monopoly on their service then how can I go to Walmart.com and buy many of the same products that Amazon sells? Why can I go to Netflix for streaming tv and movies? Etc.

Who are their major competitors? Third time I have asked now.

I've already given you some examples.

I have a good understanding of what a monopoly is. Which is why I am telling you Amazon has formed a monopoly, much like Google has.

No, you clearly don't because you keep bringing up things like "I really want to get free shipping" and ignoring the existence of Amazon's competition. You're clearly defining 'monopoly' in a way that isn't "has no competition in the market".

Also, Google does not have a monopoly either. They are the market leader, but there is competition for everything that Google does and there is nothing preventing a competitor with a superior product from taking over Google's market share.

Aaaaand your citation is an anecdote from somebody on a toy game forum. Even better it is from a person who says they understand why I would think that but they aren't a monopoly. Because, reasons? Amazing arguments folks.

Yes, my evidence is someone telling you "I do 90% of my online shopping from places other than Amazon". If Amazon was genuinely a monopoly then this would not be possible, there wouldn't be enough alternatives to Amazon available to take that business. So unless you're going to resort to saying they're lying about their purchasing habits that one anecdote alone is enough to demolish your claim that Amazon is a monopoly.

Oh, I understand the issue now. You don't understand fully what Amazon is. You keep comparing Wal-Mart, Barnes & Nobles, and Netflix to Amazon. But you can't really do that. Because each of those provides only a fraction of the entire Service that is Amazon. Amazon is one of a kind. You cannot compare it to ebay. The power Amazon can flex can destroy companies and it already has. Those "Mom and pops" that sell on Amazon, the ones they copy the products of then sell as their own brand to drive prices down and business to them.

You cannot compare anything to Amazon right now, it has a stranglehold on the marketplace. Walmart tried it in their stores with their own brands. But Amazon is doing it better and harder. While also doing the same thing Netflix, Barnes & Nobles, Hulu, and what 1000+ other stores do. Every time you turn around Amazon is doing something new that nobody else can compete with. Its usually front page news.

Amazon is a monopoly because Amazon is one of a kind and it is so efficient at what it does, it will never have a direct competitor.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Amazon is a monopoly because Amazon is one of a kind and it is so efficient at what it does, it will never have a direct competitor.

That's a ridiculous argument to make. Amazon having a lot of separate businesses under the Amazon brand doesn't meant that their competition has to compete with them on every part of it. From a customer's point of view Amazon's retail store and Amazon's web hosting services are two entirely separate things, and a customer doesn't need Walmart to provide web hosting services if they just want to order some cheap clothes or whatever. Likewise, a company that needs cloud services for their business doesn't care if the company they choose also has their favorite show on streaming video. In each of Amazon's various businesses they have competition and the customer has alternatives. That is not a monopoly situation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, to take your argument to its absurd conclusion, if Jeff Bezos put the Amazon brand on his private space program you could declare that Amazon has a monopoly because Walmart doesn't offer satellite launches. Even if Amazon dropped to 1% market share in retail, streaming video, hosting services, etc, there would still be no "direct competition" that offers all of those things and orbital launch services and Amazon would still have a "monopoly". Having a unique combination of products and services is not the same thing as having a monopoly.

 Dreadwinter wrote:




Aaaaand your citation is an anecdote from somebody on a toy game forum. Even better it is from a person who says they understand why I would think that but they aren't a monopoly. Because, reasons? Amazing arguments folks.

haha.. you question others critical thinking whilst engaging in a classic case of ad hominem. ironic

 Peregrine wrote:
They are the market leader, but there is competition for everything that Google does and there is nothing preventing a competitor with a superior product from taking over Google's market share.

While I by no means agree with the notion that Amazon or Google are monopolies...I don't think this statement is particularly true either. Neither are monopolies right now because as you point out there are alternative - if less convenient - ways to buy pretty much every product and service they sell/provide in exchange for sucking up your data like an industrial vampire-machine, but I'd say their objective is very much to become de facto monopolies they're just not there yet, and attempting to compete with that goal isn't as simple as you make it sound. Nobody's going to topple Amazon or Google with some plucky startup, or even a good idea and a big ol' hunk of venture capital, it would take one of the other megacorps and they have no real incentive until they've already drained dry whatever sector they currently inhabit, which could take decades.

So, while they're not actually monopolies, I think we should probably stop trying to conceive of these...entities in terminology and responses that are derived from the era of steam railroads and telegraph poles. I'm no longer sure a company should have to meet the traditional definition of "monopoly" in order to justify being interfered with to prevent them having a disproportionate impact on the marketplace.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They are the market leader, but there is competition for everything that Google does and there is nothing preventing a competitor with a superior product from taking over Google's market share.

While I by no means agree with the notion that Amazon or Google are monopolies...I don't think this statement is particularly true either. Neither are monopolies right now because as you point out there are alternative - if less convenient - ways to buy pretty much every product and service they sell/provide in exchange for sucking up your data like an industrial vampire-machine, but I'd say their objective is very much to become de facto monopolies they're just not there yet, and attempting to compete with that goal isn't as simple as you make it sound. Nobody's going to topple Amazon or Google with some plucky startup, or even a good idea and a big ol' hunk of venture capital, it would take one of the other megacorps and they have no real incentive until they've already drained dry whatever sector they currently inhabit, which could take decades.

So, while they're not actually monopolies, I think we should probably stop trying to conceive of these...entities in terminology and responses that are derived from the era of steam railroads and telegraph poles. I'm no longer sure a company should have to meet the traditional definition of "monopoly" in order to justify being interfered with to prevent them having a disproportionate impact on the marketplace.

The term you seek is called Oligopol.

If a monopoly is where a product has a single source, Amazon is nothing like one. There is hardly anything that Amazon solely provides. Apart from certain programmes only available on Amazon TV, everything else that Amazon sells can be bought elsewhere.
All Amazon does in terms of selling products is put them all in one place. Ease of shopping is their big thing, not blocking access.
By making the shopping process easier, lots of less-efficient businesses will fail. Economies of scale come into play too, making this more widespread.
But, if you wanted to avoid direct contact with Amazon, I can't think of anything you will not be able to get.
So, not a monopoly.

Oligopoly may not be the right term for this:
"An oligopoly is a market form wherein a market or industry is dominated by a small number of large sellers (oligopolists)"
Amazon does not dominate a single market, but many.
Also, not dominate.

 Skinnereal wrote:
If a monopoly is where a product has a single source, Amazon is nothing like one. There is hardly anything that Amazon solely provides. Apart from certain programmes only available on Amazon TV, everything else that Amazon sells can be bought elsewhere.
All Amazon does in terms of selling products is put them all in one place. Ease of shopping is their big thing, not blocking access.
By making the shopping process easier, lots of less-efficient businesses will fail. Economies of scale come into play too, making this more widespread.
But, if you wanted to avoid direct contact with Amazon, I can't think of anything you will not be able to get.
So, not a monopoly.

this has been said multiple times in this thread, yet seems to fall on deaf ears.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
If a monopoly is where a product has a single source, Amazon is nothing like one. There is hardly anything that Amazon solely provides. Apart from certain programmes only available on Amazon TV, everything else that Amazon sells can be bought elsewhere.
All Amazon does in terms of selling products is put them all in one place. Ease of shopping is their big thing, not blocking access.
By making the shopping process easier, lots of less-efficient businesses will fail. Economies of scale come into play too, making this more widespread.
But, if you wanted to avoid direct contact with Amazon, I can't think of anything you will not be able to get.
So, not a monopoly.

this has been said multiple times in this thread, yet seems to fall on deaf ears.

Probably because it is wrong. Kinda the same way when you said I made an ad hominem attack against you, you have been reading what is written but not understanding it.

no, I understand perfectly. your point would've been valid had you left it at my point being 'anecdotal' but then you suffixed it with 'on a toy soldier forum' (or something along those lines,) with the purpose of discrediting me. that is ad hominem, and adds nothing to your argument.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Probably because it is wrong.

No, it isn't. . . . there is literally no definition of monopoly that exists in a real world application where Amazon is a monopoly.

Are they powerful? Sure. Do they have a size/power that is detrimental to economies as a whole? It's arguable, and I may agree with that, but that alone doesn't make a monopoly.

As mentioned numerous times already: they have many direct competitors because they operate in so many different business sectors and they are not a monopoly in any one of them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Probably because it is wrong.

No, it isn't. . . . there is literally no definition of monopoly that exists in a real world application where Amazon is a monopoly.

Are they powerful? Sure. Do they have a size/power that is detrimental to economies as a whole? It's arguable, and I may agree with that, but that alone doesn't make a monopoly.

As mentioned numerous times already: they have many direct competitors because they operate in so many different business sectors and they are not a monopoly in any one of them.

Stop comparing parts of Amazon to entire businesses. That is not how this works. It is all Amazon. No company is competing with them as a whole. Not a single company on the planet. This is where the issue is. If a company wanted to start up to compete with Amazon, they wouldn't be able to. It's not possible.

Lol, OK, you're right. . . Ohh wise one, please forgive me for ever questioning your imperious brain powers.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Stop comparing parts of Amazon to entire businesses. That is not how this works. It is all Amazon. No company is competing with them as a whole. Not a single company on the planet. This is where the issue is. If a company wanted to start up to compete with Amazon, they wouldn't be able to. It's not possible.

Blimey, someone should tell Jack Ma of Alibaba/Taobao his website doesn't exist then.

Otherwise, guv, Amazon isn't a monopoly. You can't just redefine the word because you feel like it (leastways, not without being corrected).

Amazon, by very literal definition (textbook, colloquial, or otherwise) is not a monopoly. Regardless of however wide ranging its scope of trading. Selling a lot of different items at considerable scale and size does not create a monopoly.

A monopoly exists where a specific service or product can only be obtained from one source, and one source alone. Given that virtually everything sold on Amazon can be obtained elsewhere, there is no monopoly of product. The service labelled 'online shopping' is clearly not controlled solely by Amazon either (y'know, given other webstores exist by which you can buy virtually all of the products on there).

Ergo, it is not a monopoly. It is many things, but not a monopoly. Finit.

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Stop comparing parts of Amazon to entire businesses. That is not how this works. It is all Amazon. No company is competing with them as a whole. Not a single company on the planet. This is where the issue is. If a company wanted to start up to compete with Amazon, they wouldn't be able to. It's not possible.

Blimey, someone should tell Jack Ma of Alibaba/Taobao his website doesn't exist then.

Otherwise, guv, Amazon isn't a monopoly. You can't just redefine the word because you feel like it (leastways, not without being corrected).

Amazon, by very literal definition (textbook, colloquial, or otherwise) is not a monopoly. Regardless of however wide ranging its scope of trading. Selling a lot of different items at considerable scale and size does not create a monopoly.

A monopoly exists where a specific service or product can only be obtained from one source, and one source alone. Given that virtually everything sold on Amazon can be obtained elsewhere, there is no monopoly of product. The service labelled 'online shopping' is clearly not controlled solely by Amazon either (y'know, given other webstores exist by which you can buy virtually all of the products on there).

Ergo, it is not a monopoly. It is many things, but not a monopoly. Finit.

To add to this, this specific subject was discussed during the course of one of my MBA classes, and I think it bears pointing out that even certain courts in the US have been unable to adequately define Amazon in the anti-trust cases they have heard thus far. . . To rewind a little bit, if anyone in the US remembers Office Max and Office Depot, at one point they tried to merge. The courts halted the merger citing anti-trust laws. The court ruled that each store was an "office supply store" and their merger would thus inhibit competition by leaving 2 main points of competition (office depot and Staples). . . A few years later, Staples acquired the remains of one of the companies, but this time the deal was allowed to go through. Largely the reasoning for this, was that with Walmart and Target carrying more and more office supplies, the court viewed Staples as a "large retailer" with competition on the market.

Bringing this back to Amazon, the court docs/articles that we read discussing this issue where Amazon was concerned, the judges essentially ruled that because there is not an adequate singular definition for what amazon is, it is therefore important and a requirement to look at the constituent parts. Therefore, because amazon competes with Netflix in one segment of their business, but Alibaba in another, and IBM's Watson in yet another, they are not a monopoly.

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Stop comparing parts of Amazon to entire businesses. That is not how this works. It is all Amazon. No company is competing with them as a whole. Not a single company on the planet. This is where the issue is. If a company wanted to start up to compete with Amazon, they wouldn't be able to. It's not possible.

Blimey, someone should tell Jack Ma of Alibaba/Taobao his website doesn't exist then.

Otherwise, guv, Amazon isn't a monopoly. You can't just redefine the word because you feel like it (leastways, not without being corrected).

Amazon, by very literal definition (textbook, colloquial, or otherwise) is not a monopoly. Regardless of however wide ranging its scope of trading. Selling a lot of different items at considerable scale and size does not create a monopoly.

A monopoly exists where a specific service or product can only be obtained from one source, and one source alone. Given that virtually everything sold on Amazon can be obtained elsewhere, there is no monopoly of product. The service labelled 'online shopping' is clearly not controlled solely by Amazon either (y'know, given other webstores exist by which you can buy virtually all of the products on there).

Ergo, it is not a monopoly. It is many things, but not a monopoly. Finit.

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. This is the definition of Monopoly. Amazon is in possession of the only type of service they provide, which is such a wide ranging service it stops competitors from competing with it. Nobody has the wide ranging services that Amazons provides and nobody ever will because of how hard it is to get in. Here is another definition of Monopoly which talks about this: "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."

The problem is there is no possible way for anybody to compete with Amazon, this is restricting other businesses from stepping in to the same ring as them. They are literally the definition of Monopoly.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

May as well ignore him, he knows everything, and us mere mortals simply cannot comprehend the plane of existence he inhabits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

Show me a service like Amazon Prime.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

May as well ignore him, he knows everything, and us mere mortals simply cannot comprehend the plane of existence he inhabits.

Something seems to be bothering you. Is it because I am disagreeing with you about something and you cannot fathom that?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

Show me a service like Amazon Prime.

netflix. spotify, and you can usually select a fast delivery on online orders. and again, this is not evidence to you claim. just because a service offers a somewhat unique product, doesn't make it a monopoly. but we're clearly going in circles here, despite the masses of evidence to counter your claims.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Show me a service like Amazon Prime.

First off, define Amazon Prime.
Without a proper definition, you cannot claim it controls a single market.
And until you have that, there is no Amazon monopoly.

Amazon Prime is many services in one package. None of them control any one market.

I don't know why I'm bothering asking you that though. We'll only spend another page going around and getting no further.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Yes, that is what I said, slightly reworded.

Amazon is in possession of the only type of service they provide, which is such a wide ranging service it stops competitors from competing with it.

I literally just pointed out Alibaba/Taobao, who fulfill much the same role. Just because you don't use them much in the West doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar position elsewhere in the world. And nothing is stopping either one from trying to edge in on the other's market. I think there's an Indian equivalent as well as an African one too; which Amazon are trying to get a foothold against abroad.

Nobody has the wide ranging services that Amazons provides and nobody ever will because of how hard it is to get in.

Again, selling a wide range of services does not constitute a monopoly. Stop and think about it for a minute.

Sainsburys supermarket is to a corner shop what Amazon is to say, a 3rd party Wargame Bitz reseller in terms of online retailing. The former has a massive range of goods which both incorporates what the latter sells, but also a wildly more extensive wide range of goods. It owns Argos which has order points in store, has its own clothing range, deals in branded electronics, and so on. It might even have in-store pharmacies. It has every advantage you claim for Amazon (note, not every service, every advantage), just in the material domain instead of the electronic one.

Yet nobody would accuse them of having a monopoly of clothes. Or pharmaceutical goods. Or food.

You could say, 'yeah, but Sainsburys don't handle things like online data hosting', but you'd be missing the point. We're looking at the position they fulfill in regards to the other services available. And it is quite clear that they 'monopolise' none of them. Every service or product they provide can be obtained elsewhere. Some of them only in larger places (Argos furniture competes mainly with Ikea, for example), some of them mainly in smaller (pokemon cards for example). But in none of them do they occupy a monopoly, because it provides exclusive access to none of them.

Amazon is in the same position. Sure, they might do something supermarkets don't (amazon prime, for example). But supermarkets can do things that amazon doesn't (prescription drugs, for example). It doesn't negate the general point which I am making.

Here is another definition of Monopoly which talks about this: "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."

The problem is there is no possible way for anybody to compete with Amazon, this is restricting other businesses from stepping in to the same ring as them. They are literally the definition of Monopoly.....

There is nothing stopping somebody else building a more successful version of Amazon. As mentioned, Taobao/Alibaba and others already exist elsewhere in the world. Large scale existing brands could combine to make a competitor (Perhaps Ebay might team up with Argos or somesuch to launch a competitor). Alternatively, they might suffer reputational damage from something and fall out of favour. Or a new sleeker brand new website with much more attractive offerings might suddenly gobble up their market share for various reasons.

What you are saying, I am afraid, is simply not true. Whilst I'm always hesitant to resort to mob rule as a yardstick for what is correct or incorrect (sometimes the mob is wrong); you might want to consider that (given everyone disagrees with you), in a colloquial sense at the very least, you are likely to be wrong.

Whilst I agree that Amazon is far from being a monopoly at present, I also don't think it is true that nothing is stopping a competitor rising against Amazon within the same niche. Those that already exist (like the aforementioned Alibaba) are big enough to compete, but any upstart has to deal with these big players.

The market issue with companies the size of Amazon is not that they are a monopoly, but that they are sufficiently large enough to manipulate the market already to the detriment of all but the biggest of competitors. This makes entering the market much more difficult- even with a superior product/business model to the existing players, you have to survive them wielding their resources to persue non-market methods* of shutting you down.

This in compounded by the datamining issues already brought up. As mentioned, datamining gets more valuable the more you have access to, so an individual cannot do much with their own data, but Amazon/Google/etc gain a hugely valuable commodity. Because they are already that big, they have an advantage no smaller competitors can match. It is also drawing value directly from the labour of their customers, which most of us freely give to them whilst scrounging for our next paycheque.

I don't know what the sustainable solution to datamining is that gives more benefit to those who generate the data, but as a society we need to find one.

*In which I am including circumventing supply-demand economics to undercut a smaller competitor via unsustainably low prices, such as how Walmart achieves local monopolies in many US towns.

I have Amazon Prime, but I don't buy much off Amazon. Why? Because I'm generally buying specialty goods I can't get locally and Amazon is crap for that. Anything uncommon is jacked through the roof, price wise, because it's probably the only one listed on Amazon and they think they have a closed market, and have baked in shipping costs to the other side of the planet for everyone. But most retailers these days have web stores and can compete on that level - selection at a fair price and actual shipping costs making it cheaper than Amazon with free shipping.

An example: I wanted to get some 100% buckwheat noodles, which I've been having a hard time sourcing locally. Amazon prices were 3-6x the price of MSRP, so I went looking for a health food retailer with a web store and bought noodles at retail plus shipping - still expensive, but way less than Amazon. Amazon vendors seem to prey on the lazy people who are only willing to use the Amazon environment because "Hey free shipping".

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Something seems to be bothering you. Is it because I am disagreeing with you about something and you cannot fathom that?

Nope. . . You disagree, even though you are patently wrong. I mean, if you think you know more than business court judges, maybe you should hire your services to them, because even they say that because defining a market space for Amazon is impossible, and therefore you must take their constituent parts on a case by case basis. . . .

There's what, 5, 6? people in this thread saying you're wrong, but you're doggedly holding this idiotic position because you simply cannot admit that you are wrong? When more than 2 or 3 people are saying you're wrong AND providing evidence for it, maybe you ought to reconsider your position.

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Yes, that is what I said, slightly reworded.

Amazon is in possession of the only type of service they provide, which is such a wide ranging service it stops competitors from competing with it.

I literally just pointed out Alibaba/Taobao, who fulfill much the same role. Just because you don't use them much in the West doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar position elsewhere in the world. And nothing is stopping either one from trying to edge in on the other's market. I think there's an Indian equivalent as well as an African one too; which Amazon are trying to get a foothold against abroad.

Nobody has the wide ranging services that Amazons provides and nobody ever will because of how hard it is to get in.

Again, selling a wide range of services does not constitute a monopoly. Stop and think about it for a minute.

Sainsburys supermarket is to a corner shop what Amazon is to say, a 3rd party Wargame Bitz reseller in terms of online retailing. The former has a massive range of goods which both incorporates what the latter sells, but also a wildly more extensive wide range of goods. It owns Argos which has order points in store, has its own clothing range, deals in branded electronics, and so on. It might even have in-store pharmacies. It has every advantage you claim for Amazon (note, not every service, every advantage), just in the material domain instead of the electronic one.

Yet nobody would accuse them of having a monopoly of clothes. Or pharmaceutical goods. Or food.

You could say, 'yeah, but Sainsburys don't handle things like online data hosting', but you'd be missing the point. We're looking at the position they fulfill in regards to the other services available. And it is quite clear that they 'monopolise' none of them. Every service or product they provide can be obtained elsewhere. Some of them only in larger places (Argos furniture competes mainly with Ikea, for example), some of them mainly in smaller (pokemon cards for example). But in none of them do they occupy a monopoly, because it provides exclusive access to none of them.

Amazon is in the same position. Sure, they might do something supermarkets don't (amazon prime, for example). But supermarkets can do things that amazon doesn't (prescription drugs, for example). It doesn't negate the general point which I am making.

Here is another definition of Monopoly which talks about this: "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."

The problem is there is no possible way for anybody to compete with Amazon, this is restricting other businesses from stepping in to the same ring as them. They are literally the definition of Monopoly.....

There is nothing stopping somebody else building a more successful version of Amazon. As mentioned, Taobao/Alibaba and others already exist elsewhere in the world. Large scale existing brands could combine to make a competitor (Perhaps Ebay might team up with Argos or somesuch to launch a competitor). Alternatively, they might suffer reputational damage from something and fall out of favour. Or a new sleeker brand new website with much more attractive offerings might suddenly gobble up their market share for various reasons.

What you are saying, I am afraid, is simply not true. Whilst I'm always hesitant to resort to mob rule as a yardstick for what is correct or incorrect (sometimes the mob is wrong); you might want to consider that (given everyone disagrees with you), in a colloquial sense at the very least, you are likely to be wrong.

Are you really comparing Alibaba/Taobao to Amazon? The only real thing they have in common is the Marketplace. Strangely, I didn't get free offers for shipping or an account or access to a large streaming library of videos/music/audio books for signing up. Hell, I bought some specialty hot sauce on Amazon the other day and they gave me Prime free for a month and knocked off my shipping. So comparing them is far, far from realistic here and we should really stop.

Also, Sainsbury does not have every "advantage" that Amazon has. Not even close. Cutting out services that Amazon provides just so you can say they are on the same footing is I guess just not understanding the issue. Amazon has these extra services to entice people use their product, Amazon Prime. How you do not see that as an advantage is beyond me.

Alibaba/Taobao/Sainsbury are not even close to what Amazon is and we cannot really compare them. They don't provide the same full ranging service. You cannot look at Amazon as a company and then pick it apart.

If you guys could put up an argument for Amazon as a whole instead of picking apart its pieces and trying to compare it then I might consider you guys to be right. But until that point, you guys are going about this in an awful way.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Something seems to be bothering you. Is it because I am disagreeing with you about something and you cannot fathom that?

Nope. . . You disagree, even though you are patently wrong. I mean, if you think you know more than business court judges, maybe you should hire your services to them, because even they say that because defining a market space for Amazon is impossible, and therefore you must take their constituent parts on a case by case basis. . . .

There's what, 5, 6? people in this thread saying you're wrong, but you're doggedly holding this idiotic position because you simply cannot admit that you are wrong? When more than 2 or 3 people are saying you're wrong AND providing evidence for it, maybe you ought to reconsider your position.

Those judges only said Amazon was hard to define, not that they were not a monopoly. When a proper definition, or as they were meaning when the Law actually catches up to Amazon, then they can deal with it. Getting disagreed with 5-6 people is not going to change my mind if they cannot throw up a solid argument.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you really comparing Alibaba/Taobao to Amazon? The only real thing they have in common is the Marketplace. Strangely, I didn't get free offers for shipping or an account or access to a large streaming library of videos/music/audio books for signing up.

You'd be wrong actually. They do the marketplace and hosting (which is arguably the vast, vast majority of Amazon's business), but also large other sections of business which Amazon doesn't, from live ticket sales, one of the most popular messaging apps in china (think Chinese Whatsapp), and more. Just because they only share (to pluck a number) 70% of Amazon's core functions doesn't mean they're not comparable. Heck, given you're saying people aren't looking at Amazon in their entirety; Alipay is a much bigger deal than Amazon Prime.

Not to mention that their online sales are equivalent to more than Walmart, Amazon, and Ebay combined.

Seriously, if you're going to insist that they're not comparable because they don't currently stream your favourite Disney film to your telly, there's not much point carrying on.

Also, Sainsbury does not have every "advantage" that Amazon has. Not even close. Cutting out services that Amazon provides just so you can say they are on the same footing is I guess just not understanding the issue. Amazon has these extra services to entice people use their product, Amazon Prime. How you do not see that as an advantage is beyond me.

The point of Amazon vs Sainsburys is not to compare Amazon and Sainsburys for you. Something which I went to excessive and great lengths and pains to try and specifically signpost you away from doing. It's to compare Sainsburys relationship vs your corner store and Amazon's relationship vs your 'corner webstore' and explain why neither is a monopoly. I'm honestly not sure how I can engage with someone very deliberately not reading what I am writing.

If you guys could put up an argument for Amazon as a whole instead of picking apart its pieces and trying to compare it then I might consider you guys to be right. But until that point, you guys are going about this in an awful way.

You're a funny man/woman/child/nonspecific.

 Ketara wrote:

The point of Amazon vs Sainsburys is not to compare Amazon and Sainsburys for you. Something which I went to excessive and great lengths and pains to try and specifically signpost you away from doing. It's to compare Sainsburys relationship vs your corner store and Amazon's relationship vs your 'corner webstore' and explain why neither is a monopoly. I'm honestly not sure how I can engage with someone very deliberately not reading what I am writing.

I mean, at this point, it's clear that Dreadwinter knows more than even arguably the best legal minds in the US, and we're woefully under utilizing that brain power. . . I think its best we just leave them in their ivory tower and move on with our pitiful little lives

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, and Amazon does not have exclusive possession of any commodity or service. All of the various things they sell have competition.

May as well ignore him, he knows everything, and us mere mortals simply cannot comprehend the plane of existence he inhabits.

I found many discussions here started going much more smoothly once I put him on my ignore list. If everyone did the same this forum would be much more peaceful.

If you define a monopoly as any company that is the only one in the marketplace to offer exactly the mix of goods and services it does then almost any large company could be defined as a monopoly. Just because Amazon offers streaming, or web hosting, but a competitor doesn't offer that service, doesn't make Amazon a monopoly. That's just not the definition of monopoly.

An analogy (I hesitate to do this given how thoroughly misunderstood the last analogy was): I work for a university. We offer a huge range of degree courses. No other single university will offer exactly the same range of courses we do. That doesn't make my university a monopoly just because our precise mix of offerings are unavailable elsewhere.

I can get access to any of the types of service Amazon offers elsewhere, often at better prices. In fact, thinking back over the last few medium-large purchases I've made I haven't used Amazon for any of them. I've checked prices with Amazon but each time they weren't the best option. That hardly seems like the sort of thing I could do if Amazon were truly a monopoly. I use Netflix for my streaming TV, not Prime. Meaningful competition exists.

 John Prins wrote:
I have Amazon Prime, but I don't buy much off Amazon. Why? Because I'm generally buying specialty goods I can't get locally and Amazon is crap for that. Anything uncommon is jacked through the roof, price wise, because it's probably the only one listed on Amazon and they think they have a closed market, and have baked in shipping costs to the other side of the planet for everyone. But most retailers these days have web stores and can compete on that level - selection at a fair price and actual shipping costs making it cheaper than Amazon with free shipping.

An example: I wanted to get some 100% buckwheat noodles, which I've been having a hard time sourcing locally. Amazon prices were 3-6x the price of MSRP, so I went looking for a health food retailer with a web store and bought noodles at retail plus shipping - still expensive, but way less than Amazon. Amazon vendors seem to prey on the lazy people who are only willing to use the Amazon environment because "Hey free shipping".

All of the above is because you're in Canada.
Up here, Amazon is no cheaper or better than local retailers. The only time I use Amazon is when I can't find it in a store, and this is because in Canada, Amazon prices aren't much cheaper. If at all.

A lot of the pricing arguments seem to apply in the US only. In Canada Amazons prices are rarely better than what I can get in store.

Is it a Monopoly or isn't it a Monopoly is irrelevant. The real question is two-pronged and relatively simple.....

1. Is Amazon good for Consumers?

2. Is Amazon good for the national economy?

Those are the two questions that matter to me.

 Easy E wrote:
2. Is Amazon good for the national economy?

More importantly, how about the world economy?
As a mostly-US-based company, is it good that they scoop up so much of the profit?
If the founder, chairman, CEO, and president is so hugely wealthy, is Amazon's business model a good way to run such a huge company?
We hear that countries where Amazon has offices do not get paid the right amount of taxes. Cities and countries make deals to lure Amazon to them, because of the employment opportunities, etc.

 Easy E wrote:
Is it a Monopoly or isn't it a Monopoly is irrelevant. The real question is two-pronged and relatively simple.....

1. Is Amazon good for Consumers?

2. Is Amazon good for the national economy?

Those are the two questions that matter to me.

I think both questions have 2-pronged answers, because I do think there is good and bad in both. . . It has been well noted elsewhere the pay scales of certain employees at amazon is, not great. Are they consumers? Of course they are, so in that case, amazon is not good for them due to the pressures they are under. Is amazon great for that person who needs to buy 3 widgets per month, but live a 3 hour drive from the nearest town and so they can order on amazon and their order arrives in a timely manner? Yeah, that part is great.

2. Amazon being good, or not, for the economy would likely require discussion of the "P word", and given that we've just had the tax deadlines, that would be a thing I'd focus on, however discussing the P-word here ist verbotten, so I won't do so beyond this. I have a father in law who is a mail carrier for the post office. He has a very love-hate relationship with amazon because they have a rotational basis for who works on Sunday, when in years past there were basically ZERO postal workers who worked sunday, at least not carriers (not sure about distribution centers or the large facilities that only process on to others). Amazon has apparently paid the post office something of a premium price for this, but many of the people affected don't like it, especially as it cuts down on their personal time to engage in economic activity (shopping, I mean shopping here).

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you really comparing Alibaba/Taobao to Amazon? The only real thing they have in common is the Marketplace. Strangely, I didn't get free offers for shipping or an account or access to a large streaming library of videos/music/audio books for signing up.

You'd be wrong actually. They do the marketplace and hosting (which is arguably the vast, vast majority of Amazon's business), but also large other sections of business which Amazon doesn't, from live ticket sales, one of the most popular messaging apps in china (think Chinese Whatsapp), and more. Just because they only share (to pluck a number) 70% of Amazon's core functions doesn't mean they're not comparable. Heck, given you're saying people aren't looking at Amazon in their entirety; Alipay is a much bigger deal than Amazon Prime.

Not to mention that their online sales are equivalent to more than Walmart, Amazon, and Ebay combined.

Seriously, if you're going to insist that they're not comparable because they don't currently stream your favourite Disney film to your telly, there's not much point carrying on.

Also, Sainsbury does not have every "advantage" that Amazon has. Not even close. Cutting out services that Amazon provides just so you can say they are on the same footing is I guess just not understanding the issue. Amazon has these extra services to entice people use their product, Amazon Prime. How you do not see that as an advantage is beyond me.

The point of Amazon vs Sainsburys is not to compare Amazon and Sainsburys for you. Something which I went to excessive and great lengths and pains to try and specifically signpost you away from doing. It's to compare Sainsburys relationship vs your corner store and Amazon's relationship vs your 'corner webstore' and explain why neither is a monopoly. I'm honestly not sure how I can engage with someone very deliberately not reading what I am writing.

If you guys could put up an argument for Amazon as a whole instead of picking apart its pieces and trying to compare it then I might consider you guys to be right. But until that point, you guys are going about this in an awful way.

You're a funny man/woman/child/nonspecific.

Hey there funny man/child/woman/nonspecific, are you telling me the only differences between those two services is the streaming? Because if so that is very much wrong as far as services go for them. Again, you are attempting to downplay what Amazon is compared to everything else on the market. It gets tiring to deal with when people aren't willing to have an argument without resorting to insults and their echo chambers whining alongside them. Rule #1, but you are a mod so we see how that goes.

As for the Sainsbury argument, you should really read what I said again as far as Sainsbury goes. I am pointing out that the services Amazon provides are "advantages" because of how Amazon Prime works and thatcomparing Sainsbury and Amazon without them is a bad argument. Again, you cannot pick apart Amazon as you choose to make an argument. How am I going to convince you otherwise? Will you actually read what I post instead of accusing me of doing that to you?

I, for one, support the future Space President Bezos

I do unironically enjoy Amazon, even if I don't think it's particularly great. I appreciate being able to get books for cheap.

Amazon didn't really kill the high street, it just patted the dirt on the grave.

Amazon let’s me shop while I’m in my underwear at 3am. The future is here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Hey there funny man/child/woman/nonspecific, are you telling me the only differences between those two services is the streaming? Because if so that is very much wrong as far as services go for them. Again, you are attempting to downplay what Amazon is compared to everything else on the market. It gets tiring to deal with when people aren't willing to have an argument without resorting to insults and their echo chambers whining alongside them. Rule #1, but you are a mod so we see how that goes.

For starters, chill. Relax. Take a deep breath. I said you were funny, because I actually laughed. Then I wrote 'You're a funny guy', but realised I was making assumptions and edited appropriately. We're all here to have fun. I'm not here to be rude to you, and if you felt like I was; that wasn't my intent and I'm sorry for that. I'm here for a civil chat, and nothing more/less. It's not worth anything to anyone if everyone's backs are up. We've all better things to do than fight with people on the web.


Now, with that all said, let's approach this a different way. I personally (as someone who is in the middle of writing an academic piece featuring oligopolies quite heavily), do not understand your argument. Or at least, from where I'm sitting, it doesn't appear consistent. I don't say the above to try and big myself up (I'm not appealing to authority); but to just try and drive home that I'm not an idiot, I'm quite familiar with terms like 'monopoly', and yet I still don't see how you're getting 2+2=4 in your own mind. And that whether or not one of us is right or wrong, there's clearly some kind of communication problem here. So I'd be happy if you could explain to me in a nice bitesize fashion that we can both engage with.

Referring to earlier, we're both in agreement that a monopoly is, as you and I both put it:-

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Now from what I can see, Amazon sells no individual product exclusively. You would appear to agree with that, given you keep telling people to stop looking at any individual segment of Amazon's activities. So that's cool.

I think (correct if wrong) that what you're trying to claim is that Amazon has a monopoly on selling the exact set of products/services that they do as a whole/holistically. In the same way that an imaginary furniture store might not have a monopoly on selling, say, chairs specifically. But one could still say that they have a monopoly over the 'furniture market' if there are no other large furniture stores in town. Is something along those lines how you're mentally dividing this up? Let me know if I'm in the right ball park.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Again, you cannot pick apart Amazon as you choose to make an argument.

Of course you can, because that's how monopoly status is decided: by exclusive ownership of a market. "Streaming video and books and groceries and cloud services" is not a single market, it's several unrelated businesses owned by the same parent corporation. And Amazon doesn't have exclusive ownership of any of those individual markets. So why should it matter that Amazon's combination of unrelated businesses is not precisely matched by one of its rivals? From the point of view of a consumer if I'm deciding between Netflix and Amazon for entertainment it doesn't matter if Amazon provides business-class hosting services and Netflix doesn't. There is still competition in the market and multiple options to choose from.

And, again, to take your position to its absurd conclusion, what if Jeff Bezos put his space project under the Amazon brand? By your argument Amazon could drop to 1% market share in retail, streaming video, cloud hosting, etc, but because none of Amazon's competitors in those markets offer orbital launch services Amazon has a monopoly. That, to put it politely, is nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Again, you cannot pick apart Amazon as you choose to make an argument.

Of course you can, because that's how monopoly status is decided: by exclusive ownership of a market. "Streaming video and books and groceries and cloud services" is not a single market, it's several unrelated businesses owned by the same parent corporation. And Amazon doesn't have exclusive ownership of any of those individual markets. So why should it matter that Amazon's combination of unrelated businesses is not precisely matched by one of its rivals? From the point of view of a consumer if I'm deciding between Netflix and Amazon for entertainment it doesn't matter if Amazon provides business-class hosting services and Netflix doesn't. There is still competition in the market and multiple options to choose from.

And, again, to take your position to its absurd conclusion, what if Jeff Bezos put his space project under the Amazon brand? By your argument Amazon could drop to 1% market share in retail, streaming video, cloud hosting, etc, but because none of Amazon's competitors in those markets offer orbital launch services Amazon has a monopoly. That, to put it politely, is nonsense.

To go with this point a bit further, and rebut a previous comment. . . Earlier, I mentioned that the courts have ruled Amazon is not a monopoly, this isn't because the law needs to "catch up" to things, its because the breadth and scope of what Amazon does lead the judges to see that, in the eyes of the law, Amazon must be seen for its parts in regard to anti-trust status. This would be true as well if, for instance Ford Motor Company made motorcycles, ATVs, airplanes, and toasters. The motorcycles wouldn't count against the car/truck division for purposes of monopoly, nor would any other hypothetical division outside of "cars and trucks". No one would say Ford is a monopoly because they are the only company making cars, trucks, vans, ATVs, motorcycles, airplanes, and toasters (in this hypothetical).

 Ghool wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
I have Amazon Prime, but I don't buy much off Amazon. Why? Because I'm generally buying specialty goods I can't get locally and Amazon is crap for that. Anything uncommon is jacked through the roof, price wise, because it's probably the only one listed on Amazon and they think they have a closed market, and have baked in shipping costs to the other side of the planet for everyone. But most retailers these days have web stores and can compete on that level - selection at a fair price and actual shipping costs making it cheaper than Amazon with free shipping.

An example: I wanted to get some 100% buckwheat noodles, which I've been having a hard time sourcing locally. Amazon prices were 3-6x the price of MSRP, so I went looking for a health food retailer with a web store and bought noodles at retail plus shipping - still expensive, but way less than Amazon. Amazon vendors seem to prey on the lazy people who are only willing to use the Amazon environment because "Hey free shipping".

All of the above is because you're in Canada.
Up here, Amazon is no cheaper or better than local retailers. The only time I use Amazon is when I can't find it in a store, and this is because in Canada, Amazon prices aren't much cheaper. If at all.

A lot of the pricing arguments seem to apply in the US only. In Canada Amazons prices are rarely better than what I can get in store.

I kind of figured this was part of the problem, but it's nice to have some confirmation of my hunches. I think the specialty item argument still holds some water even in the USA, because there's way less competition on Amazon for those sorts of goods, it's such a small portion of the market compared to books/DVD/home electronics/etc.