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.

 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.