Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Watchers Say the Company Has Accelerated Its Efforts To Sell Its Own Products -- and That's Worrying Regulators Around the World (businessinsider.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the aggressive-expansion dept.

By selling more products of its own, Amazon is becoming a competitor to the outside manufacturers it hosts on its platform -- and that's worrying regulators around the world. From a report: Governments have rarely tried to rein in Amazon's ambitions, allowing it to avoid most of the recent scrutiny directed at other large tech platforms. But the increased focus on Amazon's house-brand offerings suggests it may now be Amazon's turn. Driving the news: Amazon built a robust business as a participant in its own marketplace when it saw growth stall in stateside e-commerce, which is why holiday shoppers might have seen Amazon-owned brands like Happy Belly for food or Solimo for household goods when they browsed the site last year. It created more "private label" products, from its AmazonBasics line to brands for fashion and furniture, that are in-house versions of things others sell on the site. It struck deals with outside manufacturers to sell their products exclusively. Critics say Amazon uses its sales data to find fruitful areas where it can produce generic versions of already-popular products.

46 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Re: I'm happy to pay a few $ more not to feed them by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Half Jeff, half!

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. How is this different... by williamyf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?

    Say, Kirkland cashews and batteries, Win-Dixie bread and cleaning wipes, Kennmore appliances. And many more brands in europe, from retailers as diverse as Carrefour, aldi and "El corte ingles"

    All big retail chains have white/house brands that compete with all the other brands. And all retailers use their retail/POS data to know what items move and which one would benefit them most if they decided to enter with a white brand...

    So? what's different in this case?

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:How is this different... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So? what's different in this case?

      Stop using common sense, regulators need to regulate. The argument you're going to see is "Consumers are too stupid to make their own decisions. What could be worse for consumers than being able to buy a quality Amazon item at a lower price than a brand name item? It's unfair that Amazon can make comparable items at lower prices AND also sell them on their own site! Abusing market position, monopoly power, other scary words to justify our existence!!!"

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:How is this different... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now it's "On the Internet..."
      but that's about the only difference

    3. Re:How is this different... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?

      Say, Kirkland cashews and batteries, Win-Dixie bread and cleaning wipes, Kennmore appliances. And many more brands in europe, from retailers as diverse as Carrefour, aldi and "El corte ingles"

      All big retail chains have white/house brands that compete with all the other brands. And all retailers use their retail/POS data to know what items move and which one would benefit them most if they decided to enter with a white brand...

      So? what's different in this case?

      It's the depth and breadth of Amazon data that's different. Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly. Finally, they also can look at the consumer buying habits to price discriminate. All of that is not avaiable to those on the marketplace, as far as I know. Sellers could follow Amazon's lead but smaller ones may not be able to match Amazon and stay in business.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:How is this different... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are several differences. One is that foodstuffs are a very branded experience already, in ways many things sold on Amazon are not. Coke vs. Pepsi is a real brand war, and store-brand competes in that space. Or Chlorox wipes vs Lysol wipes vs Winn-Dixie wipes. Many things on Amazon just aren't. So, they'll either totally dominate that market or they'll force tons of advertising by companies building brands there (yay, more advertising!)

      Another is that Amazon's market share is significantly higher than most purveyors of white goods. Changes in scale are changes in substance.

      Yet another is that white labels in stores tend to be evergreen products. Amazon is in a position to move faster on new products with higher R&D costs. That means that smaller companies have less time to recoup their costs, meaning less innovation (assuming that they cannot afford the patent process).

      Lastly, there's visibility. It's far easier to see all the options on a store shelf then in a search result. We all know being the #1 Google result is worth a lot more than being #2, and being on the second page is a huge hit. Amazon is not only selling, but is ordering the search results. Meanwhile, at stores, they tend to put the white label good right next to the brand name good, because they're trying to sell it as an alternative. So, little things like say USB cords, fill with a bunch of Amazon Basics offerings of different sizes before you go to the next page. Meanwhile, in stores, there's say a 10oz box of name brand cereal next to a 10oz box of white label, and then there's the 20oz box of name brand next to the 20oz box of white label.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:How is this different... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly.

      And other businesses can't do this? Really? Hint: every business does this to the greatest extent possible. And computers have made "greatest extent possible" a lot broader than 40 years ago. Or made it faster, at least....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:How is this different... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      ...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?

      Say, Kirkland cashews and batteries, Win-Dixie bread and cleaning wipes, Kennmore appliances. And many more brands in europe, from retailers as diverse as Carrefour, aldi and "El corte ingles"

      All big retail chains have white/house brands that compete with all the other brands. And all retailers use their retail/POS data to know what items move and which one would benefit them most if they decided to enter with a white brand...

      So? what's different in this case?

      Because it doesn't take much for Amazon to just returning a list of products, to returning a list of products, ordered by Amazon house brands first. Amazon's search results are like Google's - being on the first page matters, a lot. So if Amazon is giving preferential treatment to Amazon's own house brands (and there are a lot of them, AmazonBasics is just a small player) it may not be giving a fair shot to competitors.

      And people may buy from those brands, not knowing that the results of the first page actually are all Amazon-owned brands.

      Google was fined for doing this - putting their own services higher in the search results.

    7. Re:How is this different... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      What's amusing is that the data mining Amazon does to better guess customers' preferences that TFA is complaining about, is exactly what websites like the one that published TFA do with viewer clicks to try to show them ads more likely to get click-throughs. Classic pot calling the kettle black.

    8. Re:How is this different... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly.

      And other businesses can't do this? Really? Hint: every business does this to the greatest extent possible. And computers have made "greatest extent possible" a lot broader than 40 years ago. Or made it faster, at least....

      As I said, it's the scope and breadth of the data they have that makes them different. It spans product lines, regions, geographies, customer demographics, etc. they have far more information than most businesses. I agree most do that but Amazon's scope and reach is much larger. Walmart may come close but it is primarily US Centric and doesn't have nearly the customer specific data of Amazon. For example, if you start shipping to a new address and stop at the old Amazon can surmise you've probably moved. If you start shipping to a second address, it might be a friend or family member that moved but still uses your prime account. If you ship somewhat often and the zip code has a university and Amazon has shipped to similar street addresses before they can surmise you are at university; and verify that with purchases such as textbook rentals. Sign up for Amazon Student and you've told them you are student. Most other businesses don't have that data available.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    9. Re:How is this different... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stop using common sense

      Well clearly you're following you'e own advice.

      Abusing market position, monopoly power, other scary words to justify our existence!!!

      Yes that is a thing. And it's bad and histoy is replete with examples. Amazon has well over a 90% share in some sectors. What's reasonable for most companies is not reasonable for a company with a 90% market share.

      Except instead of using common sense you're just "hurr derrr gubbmint is teh evul!!11!11oneelevenONE11!11"

      plonker.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:How is this different... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes that is a thing. And it's bad and histoy is replete with examples. Amazon has well over a 90% share in some sectors. What's reasonable for most companies is not reasonable for a company with a 90% market share.

      How about an 89% share? An 88% share? An 87% share? At what level is it reasonable, and how exactly do you determine that?

      Except instead of using common sense you're just "hurr derrr gubbmint is teh evul!!11!11oneelevenONE11!11"

      Common sense is allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions. Without interference from an obtrusive third party. Yes, that is a thing. And it's bad and history is replete with examples.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    11. Re:How is this different... by epine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hint: every business does this to the greatest extent possible.

      And that's exactly why regulation exists: because business finds itself congenitally incapable of standing down before it crosses over some critical line that actually holds the system together.

      Just imagine if the banks had said to themselves, "you know, 0% down and picture of the person's dog isn't actually a viable credit check" before melting down the global economy in 2008. We wouldn't have had the meltdown, no-one would be talking about "too big to fail", and none of the terrible new regulations would have been required in the first place. But they can't and they didn't.

      Before that we got the Sarbanes–Oxley Act entirely from Enron, thank you very much. Greatest extent possible, thy name was Enron.

      And then we got Bernie Madoff because people somehow convinced the government that the regulations we actually had were too onerous to fully enforce, so when they got the letter "hey, the consistency of this guy's portfolio is mathematically improbable to an extreme level" (complete with twenty pages of detailed calculations) they did nothing much to investigate.

      The sad, appalling truth is that the root cause of regulation is failure to regulate, because there's always some goddamn megalith that takes the "greatest extent possible" to its logical, local conclusion — which turns out to be its concomitant global demise.

      Amazon is a corporation in the sumo sasquatch weight division. Once Amazon fully activates "maximum extent possible" in its business methods, it's going to leave a giant crater that was formerly a competitive, consumer economy. Jeff Bezos is widely regarded as an alpha-male apex predator, as thoroughly documented in The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013) to name just one.

      Behold the Apex Predator: "The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon" Review — 12 November 2013

      In the book — and I don't mean this as a criticism — Bezos comes off as the lead character in an Ayn Rand novel: a real world John Galt or Hank Rearden, with an e-commerce twist.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the book is out that Rand rarely portrayed innate forbearance.

    12. Re:How is this different... by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      every store charges manufacturers for the best floor space. been this way for decades. especially the displays by the check out lines

    13. Re:How is this different... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about an 89% share? An 88% share? An 87% share? At what level is it reasonable,

      What are you 12 or something? Have you really only just discovered that there can an entire continuum between something OK and something not OK? Clearly though you haven't realised that just because thee are unclear cases does not mean that some cases are not clear.

      and how exactly do you determine that?

      A court. That is literally their job.

      Seriously? How do you not know that?

      Common sense is allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions.

      No it's not common sense to allow absolutely anything provided some people agree. That's not how any legal system works for entirely good reasons.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:How is this different... by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      I have seen this before
      a parent company starts competing with it's venders
      Everybody bails out and leaves the parent to themselves

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    15. Re:How is this different... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      EVERYBODY invested with Madoff knew he was a criminal. They just thought he was _their_criminal_ and was eventually going to take the insider trading hit for them.

      Madoff's clients were some of the highest net worth people in the USA. Fuck those chumps, they got what they had coming.

      I saved the list of Madoff clients as a prospect list of suckers. Their greed should be getting the better of them again, right about now. Letting them keep their money would be an immoral and unethical act.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:How is this different... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      ...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?

      It's not, if those supermarkets are in an antitrust position. and if they get there they'll have the same scrutiny.

      Seiously why is the most basic point of antitrust so hard for people here to understand?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:How is this different... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Costco has big record-sized optical disks hanging in their halls proudly showing off that they had 1TB of customer data way back in .... 1997? maybe 1996 it was a long time ago. Costco has been playing this game far longer and Walmart is able to extract weird facts like people buy more strawberry flavored wafer thins than chocolate ones durring hurricanes. That last fact surfaced back in ~2006 so it's not like this is recent. The reason you have to plug in your phone number or rewards card for your rewards savings is that they need at least one piece of customer data to legally track your purchase... everyone does this and if your card number or phone number has not changed in a decade or more they likely have most all the same data as Amazon.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    18. Re:How is this different... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Just imagine if the banks had said to themselves, "you know, 0% down and picture of the person's dog isn't actually a viable credit check"

      Then the Justice Department would have started investigating them for violations of civil rights and the CRA, because doing a real credit check discriminates against poor people. They would have had groups like ACORN and PUSH breathing down their necks for racism. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would have gotten up on the floor of Congress and started ranting about the awful rich bastards who run the banks keeping their jackboots on the necks of the poor and keeping them from achieving the American dream of home ownership. And we know that would have happened because it did.

      and none of the terrible new regulations would have been required in the first place.

      Son, it was the terrible new regulations trying to force equality of results onto a system that had real, valid, serious reasons to discriminate against poor people that caused the problem, not a lack of regulation. When the regulations say you must have equal percentages of approved loans in every demographic and zip code you serve, you either make no loans and go out of business, or you make bad loans to keep the feds off your back.

      The sad, appalling truth is that the root cause of regulation is failure to regulate,

      No, the sad appalling truth is that in many cases, the root cause of regulation is because someone in power doesn't think the current situation is "fair", even if there are perfect reasons for it being the way it is. "I'm sorry, you have no income and three kids, have lived in the rental you have for a very short time, and no savings. You can't have a loan for a house" is very unfair, isn't it? Or "you could afford a $100,000 house, but you are asking for a loan on a $250,000 house, which we cannot approve" is really unfair. Turns out the regulations that solved that unfairness created a great deal of unfairness for the rest of us.

    19. Re:How is this different... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Costco has big record-sized optical disks hanging in their halls proudly showing off that they had 1TB of customer data way back in .... 1997? maybe 1996 it was a long time ago. Costco has been playing this game far longer and Walmart is able to extract weird facts like people buy more strawberry flavored wafer thins than chocolate ones durring hurricanes. That last fact surfaced back in ~2006 so it's not like this is recent. The reason you have to plug in your phone number or rewards card for your rewards savings is that they need at least one piece of customer data to legally track your purchase... everyone does this and if your card number or phone number has not changed in a decade or more they likely have most all the same data as Amazon.

      All true, however their are some differences in each which I think are fundamental:

      1. Costco has a lot of data but only on their consumers. That gives them insight on their buyers but not the broader market.

      2. Walmart has data on what is bought and when and is able to analyze that and has for a long time. They don't necessarily have as much data on the specifics of who is buying since there is no good way to identify who paid cash, which means some percentage of their data is not as granular. More to the point, Walmart can predict what will sell and how to best combine displays to sell more, Amazon is looking at predicting what individuals will buy before they even know they will buy, based on their data.

      3. Loyalty programs are a good tool for tracking, but again not all shoppers use one.

      4. None of them know how much, and to who at what price, competitors are selling like Amazon does since they handle the sales transaction. Of course, their information is just a subset of the broader sales since they don not have all the sales information, only that that goes through their system.

      Amazon has much better information on who buys what and when, what their competitors on the site are selling and to who for what price. I'm not saying other companies don't have a lot of useful data, they just don't have as much information in theirs as Amazon. Amazon knows immediately when a competitor's price changes and the impact on sales. They also have data on a much broader array of products.

      I am not calling for Amazon to be regulated or that what they do with consumer information is not the normal; just answering the OP's question of how is Amazon different from what others do? In my opinion, it is the breadth and depth of their information that sets them apart. That information is quite valuable, not only to Amazon but to other companies as well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    20. Re:How is this different... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How about an 89% share? An 88% share? An 87% share? At what level is it reasonable, and how exactly do you determine that?

      It varies from market to market. The test is whether you can behave as if you had 100%. For example, if you put up your prices, do you lose market share? There are a number of tests that regulators perform to determine whether your market share is distorting the market. In a market with no barriers to entry and high visibility for new entrants, even a 99% market share would not be likely to need regulating. A market with strong network effects and high barriers to entry may start to see distortion as soon as one player is bigger than the second-largest player.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:How is this different... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Translation: "I can't take care of myself and I need the government to tell me how to do everything."

    22. Re:How is this different... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Just as an example, in the UK, none of the big supermarkets are allowed to have more than about a 30% share. It goes down to planning and commercials, so (say) Tesco can't own all of the big out-of-town supermarkets around a town (or even within a general region). They also can't buy up one of the other smaller supermarkets as that would tip them over the 30% commercially.

      The idea is that we, the consumer get to make decisions. Without this sort of regulation, there'd be bits of the country where you can only really buy from Tesco and other bits where you can only buy from Sainsburys (unless you fancy making a 50 mile round trip. ). If such a situation existed, we adults wouldn't be able to make any choices because we weren't offered any (Citation: this actually happened in a few places, largely before we had big cars and loads of motorways, hence the regulation)

      As a side note, the big super markets 'invented' small supermarkets (so called 'metro stores'). They sell as many of the same things as the big stores as they can fit in the floor space, charge a bit more for the privilege and aren't subject to the same planning and competition rules. Whilst it might be crazy to have a Sainsburys literally stuck to the side of a Tesco (citiation: just out the back of Waterloo station, London), it means we still get a choice - hence it's been left alone somewhat by the regulators.

    23. Re:How is this different... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?

      It's not. Regulators carefully watch this space and regularly crack down on abuse from companies about this process too.

    24. Re:How is this different... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At what level is it reasonable, and how exactly do you determine that?

      Ask a jury.

    25. Re:How is this different... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Once again you are yet again proving how apy your username is.

      I do like how governments allowing corporations to exist is fine by you, so clearly you're not anti government. You're more corpratist.

      Either that or you are stoned as shit and have lost all forms of basic reasoning.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:How is this different... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I'm anti-government over reach. Which is most of what they do these days. Also you couldn't pay me to be a corporate dick. I've been offered, I respectfully declined. But I happen to be part of that fleeting middle class that government and corporations are trying to kill.

  3. Amazon Has Clearly Jumped the Shark by organgtool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just search for "pillows" on Amazon and here is what you will see: full-page section of sponsored ads, large section of "Top Rated from Our Brands", two results from your actual search, large section of "Expert Recommendations", one result from your actual search, large section of "Amazon's Choice", and finally the bulk of your actual fucking search results. Google became the most popular search engine because they provided a clean and consistent interface that kept all of the ads clearly separated from the content. Amazon, on the other hand, can't seem to pack enough ads onto their site which makes it more difficult for you to do what you came to do which is pay them money to buy shit (not look at ads). Of course, this doesn't matter because they're so big that no one can possibly compete with them on the combination of price and shipping speed, so everyone will likely continue to put up with their shit despite how terrible they've gotten. My only form of reasonable protest is refusing to buy any products that show up in the ads, no matter how good its reviews are.

    1. Re:Amazon Has Clearly Jumped the Shark by Gronkers · · Score: 1

      Amazon seems to be more interested in advertising everything under the sun, then actually selling you a product. Makes it hard to find something specific and the details of it.

      --
      - Gronk!
    2. Re:Amazon Has Clearly Jumped the Shark by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Searching Amazon is like Googling.

      You can't just look at the first page of results or use a single search.

      Google, in particular, loves to push any company not paying them off the first page of results.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Yes it has by CQDX · · Score: 2

    I have a prime account that I use (or used to use) frequently.

    When I know exactly what I want I often have a annoying time finding because what I'm looking for gets push behind the sponsored and recommended products. Essentially I have to "search" my search results to find the exact item. Since I've paid their membership, I feel I am entitled to an ad free UI. I know brick and mortar stores often move their stock around to force you to wander the aisle, hoping you'll buy additional products that you didn't plan too. I know that Amazon is doing the same thing by polluting the search results. But instead of getting me to buy more stuff it's actually encouraging me to look for alternative shopping portals.

    My prime renewal is next month. I have no compelling reason to renew.

    1. Re:Yes it has by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Since I've paid their membership, I feel I am entitled to an ad free UI. "

      Feel?
      Read your contract. You're entitled to free shipping and free movies and TV series.
      That's about it for a handful of bucks.

  5. Re: I'm happy to pay a few $ more not to feed them by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    Half Jeff, half!

    I wonder if the upgrade was worth it?

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  6. Re:They do because they can by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Wait a second. You think someone is entitled to forever make a profit off something by buying at wholesale and selling on Amazon?

    The world has never worked that way. In the case you posit there are no barriers to entry and you are delivering no significant value. Competition is _supposed_ to cut your margin to the bone. Fuck useless middle men.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Re:Amazon "Watcher"? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I heard a rumor that Google doesn't actually hire people to index the web...might be bullshit.

    Over the years, I've occasionally made a buck by scraping web sites. Robots.txt, shmobots.txt. Put it on the public web and you have no expectation of privacy.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Re:I just want to marry Jeff's ex-wife by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Gonna be thunderdome to get that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  9. Re:How is that different? by greenwow · · Score: 2

    Grocery stores don't hide name-brand items on the shelf behind their own.

  10. Often the case by McMattNZ · · Score: 1

    This is often the case with large companies who don't produce what they sell. Step 1: Sell other peoples products Step 2: Build a large audience doing so Step 3: Create your own products Step 4: Slowly remove other peoples products Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit

  11. how is it different by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    how is this any different from the big retailers like kroger and walmart? and some of them even allow third party sellers on their website.

  12. Re:How is that different? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Grocery stores don't hide name-brand items on the shelf behind their own.

    They don't have to. They just don't give them any shelf space at all.

    You didn't think that every grocery store sells every brand of every item, did you?

  13. If nothing else concerns regulators about Amazon by mysidia · · Score: 2

    This should not "bother" regulators..... This is equivalent to what many large retailers do: even Walmart has their own "generic" brand of product.

    This is providing a generic unbranded version against higher price named brand products. Sure it is competition against the name brand, but it is also an option that is friendly to customers' wallets ---- the public is better WITH this type of competition than not having this type of competition.

    Competition is a good thing. What should bother regulators is not introducing and marketing their own alternatives, but complete exclusion.

    For example: You can no longer purchase a Google Home from Amazon's store. Even if you explicitly search for the product -- it is simply no longer listed for sale, nor will they stock their store with it, nor fulfill, nor offer a sale.
    The product is in high demand, but is excluded from being stocked and offered, solely because Amazon has their own horse in the game and wants retail customers to Not buy into Google's smart speaker platform.
    That's not competition in Amazon's store though; thats excluding the competition from accessing Amazon's retail customers for no good reason other than they're competition.

    Tell the regulators to worry about that --- Amazon marketing PREMIUM products and excluding competitors from being sold in their store; not "Generics" competition like AmazonBasics AA Batteries, and such.

  14. Re:If nothing else concerns regulators about Amazo by DethLok · · Score: 2

    "You can no longer purchase a Google Home from Amazon's store."

    I'm fairly sure you can't buy a new Dodge, Honda, VW or Ford from a Chevrolet dealership, nor go to MacDonalds and ask for a Whopper and expect to get one.

    Excluding the competition from accessing your customers - in your own store - is quite standard, I understand?

  15. Re:If nothing else concerns regulators about Amazo by mysidia · · Score: 2

    I'm fairly sure you can't buy a new Dodge, Honda, VW or Ford from a Chevrolet dealership

    Amazon is not a manufacturer's car dealership franchise.

    nor go to MacDonalds and ask for a Whopper and expect to get one.

    Amazon is not a restaurant that sells food they prepare.

    Excluding the competition from accessing your customers - in your own store - is quite standard, I understand?

    Not for general retailers it is not. Amazon has made their business as a general retailer,
    and in that regard they have captured 49.9% of online retail sales in the US --- that percentage is not a complete monopoly, but it is close.
    Amazon's exclusion of products from the store solely because Amazon has made a competing product and wishes to discourage purchases or make it hard for customers to purchase a competing product could be construed as Unfair Competition in several states, and possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust act.

  16. Re:If nothing else concerns regulators about Amazo by DethLok · · Score: 1

    +1 informative! :)

    Thanks!

  17. Worried by sadafba786 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this happens, then would be happened to my business? https://www.urtasker.com/