Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.