[darkclarity]

I like being that irresponsible one.

Though it is impressive that Amazon has turned a delivery fee - that most people don't like paying - into an exclusive subscription service. A service that customers fall over themselves to sign up for when it's offered at a discount.

[MichaelGG]

I cancelled it because Amazon's abusing their position. Refusing to sell Chromecast and Apple TV, then lying, repeatedly, about the reason when asked?

I've been an Amazon customer for 13 years. I was rather annoyed to see them go with the anti-Wikileaks and try to be "sensitive" by banning certain cultural items. But this shows they've zero commitment to selling products customers want.

Edit: And it really hurts. Some times I buy stuff from Amazon every day of the week. I've tried Jet.com, which is just a poor experience. I hate to cry antitrust but Amazon really dominates in any usable online sales env, it seems.

[reustle]

Wow, TIL Amazon doesn't sell Apple TV or Chromecast, but instead immediately suggests their own competitors. For a company trying to replace all retail, that's pretty lame.

[giarc]

For what's it worth, I cannot buy a Chromecast or Fire TV Stick at the Apple Store, or an Apple TV or Fire TV Stick at the Google Play store etc.

[kdamken]

True, but the point of the Apple store is to sell Apple products, and the Google Play store only sells google devices. Amazon supposedly sells everything. It wasn't created to only sell Amazon products, and it's misleading to consumers to not be more open about that.

Case in point - they sell iPads. Why don't they just sell Kindles? The inconsistency comes off as sleezy.

[res0nat0r]

It's not sleazy, it's smart business. Amazon doesn't sell guns either, and they technically could probably do so if they setup the proper infrastructure and background checks and whatever else to do so.

Just because they are Wal-Mart of the online world doesn't mean they must sell everything everyone wants.

The devices they don't sell are in a heavily contested field, no wonder they don't carry them, that's smart business. It's a bit silly to get self-righteous about it otherwise.

[daveFNbuck]

They do sell streaming devices, though. They just don't sell the ones made by their competitors. Using their position as #1 online retailer to bolster their position as a streaming service is more than just smart business.

It's life if Microsoft had used its market position with Windows to push IE.

[giarc]

Apple sells many products that are not owned by Apple. I can buy headphones by Bose, RHA, BlueAnt, Beats (were on store prior to Apple purchase).

Amazon gets the criticism but they all do it.

Remember, we had a store that was willing to sell all these products, it's called Best Buy and it's on the way out. As consumers we choose to boost Amazon into the leading online position.

[cstejerean]

Yes, Apple also sells premium accessories for their devices including headphones, cases, backpacks, other hardware accessories and even 3rd party software for their devices. They are not a general purpose store. Amazon is, or at least pretends to be.

[kdamken]

True - but most of those products support or interact with the core apple products. Amazon offers way more things, like toilet paper and cat food. I'm not sure how they're supposed to interact with a Kindle.

[umanwizard]

"We" made that choice before Amazon started banning competitors' products. That's a recent change.

[appleflaxen]

Great point. Doesn't this directly contradict his statement of "focus on the customer, not the competition"?

[alttab]

It'd make more sense if they carried it - but advertised their own products heavily around it. At least they would be honest about the "selection" game.

But let's be honest - Amazon devices push more people into Prime, Amazon Instant Prime Video, and their other digital services. Maybe it had something to do with Prime Video not yet being on those devices, but we'd need to see them support Prime on Chromecast or AppleTV and then re-list those products on Amazon.

[fooqux]

But obviously anything Amazon makes is far superior to the competitor's offerings, so by refusing to sell those devices and pushing customers to our own products, we are focusing on the customer. It's for their own good, you see. /s

[austinjp]

Indeed. There's plenty in there that contradicts the "customer first" myth, particularly the "flywheel" part.

[njwi332]

Not really, it doesn't mean 'completely ignore your competitors and sell their products on your own store', it means 'Develop your products by listening to what customers tell you and not by watching and copying what your competitors do'.

[brownbat]

I got a lot of e-books with deceptive names and cover art that make it look like you're buying a Chromecast.

[organsnyder]

I cancelled my Prime subscription for the same reason. I've been experimenting with using eBay the same way I used Amazon (mainly for computer-related purchases—we never got into the habit of using it for many household goods).

So far, I've found eBay to be in many ways better than Amazon was. Amazon has gotten to the point where you're often buying from some unknown vendor anyways, so in many ways it's already similar to eBay. However, eBay was built from the start to be a simple middleman, so I find its reputation system and expectations for sellers and buyers to be superior in many ways. Of course, I still have to be careful when evaluating sellers, but if I stick to the high-volume 99.5%+-positive sellers, there's rarely an issue.

I mainly only do this for small purchases—rechargeable batteries, game system controllers, cables, etc. For larger items, I try to find a niche vendor that offers more specialized customer service—ideally a local brick-and-mortar, but often an online seller.

[ikeboy]

If you stick to the 99% feedback with more than 50 feedbacks on Amazon you'll do fine as well.

Amazon has far stricter requirements for sellers. What specifically do you find better at eBay?

[rpgmaker]

> Amazon has far stricter requirements for sellers.

I wouldn't notice. The site is filled with dishonest merchants peddling their misrepresented wares. I've had far more issues with merchants on Amazon than on ebay.

[organsnyder]

I'm fed up with Amazon's business practices. I've found eBay to be an acceptable alternative that has a decent UI. And I find the closer interaction with the seller to be helpful.

[JohnTHaller]

Don't forget artificially tying their so-so Netflix competitor video service to their own so-so Android-based tablets and not allowing it to be used on proper Android at all for years. And now artificially tying their video service to their app store so Android users who pay for it can't use it without compromising the security of their device by enabling apps from unknown sources and manually installing the Amazon App Store on their device with full permissions for everything - and the ability for it to spy on and alter anything it wants.

[godzillabrennus]

Amazon sells the nVidia shield TV which is an android device for your tv that has chromecast capabilities but admittedly at a much higher price than the Chromecast. Still, if you buy on Amazon and want that kind of functionality it's a good value for a home theater in a box. The android games are pretty lame though.

[sbank]

Maybe you don't like it, and you are fully within your rights to cancel, but it is not abuse. They can or should be able to carry whatever products they damn well please.

[stupidcar]

Sure, but it flatly contradicts everything Bezos says in this letter, and elsewhere, about Amazon being customer-focused rather than competitor-focused.

A truly customer-focused company would sell the products its customers wanted, even if they competed with the company's own-brand products. And demand for these competing products would be seen as a spur to improve their own.

I personally don't think the Amazon's talk of customer-focus is entirely marketing fluff, but I do think it's unevenly applied. Petty, anti-customer, monopolistic business practices have been a mainstay of the tech industry for years, and it's inevitable that they would infect Amazon to some extent.

[sokoloff]

Amazon stopped selling players that don't support Amazon Prime Video. That can been seen as first-order customer unfriendly, but second-order customer-centric, if you take the view that Amazon Prime Video is a consumer benefit overall. (I do, but I'm still annoyed that I can't get Apple TV on Amazon.)

Context: I'll admit to being a fairly rabid Amazon fan (no other conflicts, other than as a retail shareholder). I still cross-shop NewEgg (to support anti-patent-trolling), Ebay, Aliexpress and others, but Amazon wins more than its share of my purchase traffic.

[Angostura]

Why doesn't Amazon Prime video support Chromecast?

[serge2k]

Because then you wouldn't buy a fire tv stick.

Amazon's customer centric nature is generally pretty good, but they toss it aside at times. AIV on Android is one of those times (took them years to release the app and when they did it required a completely screwy install)

[DannoHung]

nah dog, Apple has said they are free to make an Apple TV app. But they won't for some reason. They don't even have to sell items through the app and incur Apple's cut.

They're just shitstains

[njwi332]

I don't think it does contradict anything he says about being customer focused. In my opinion, and experience, it doesn't mean 'completely ignore your competitors and sell their products on your own store', it means 'Develop your products by listening to what customers tell you and not by watching and copying what your competitors do'.

If you take that as the intent behind the quote then it's kinda parallel to the issue of whether to sell chromecast or not.

[greghatch]

I think that was his point, he's critical of Amazon because they lied about their reasoning for not carrying the products, not questioning the legality of not carrying specific products.

I thought that was obvious, and a charitable interpretation of his post would've made this clear, I think.

[MichaelGG]

Yep. Several CSRs told me "Oh it's out of stock" (not explaining the 404, or no "marketplace" vendors). I escalated. Then I was told the Chromecast was not sold due to "too many complaints". A supervisor then flat out denied that, as well as denied there being any ban on any such product.

I asked about the Apple TV. After other lame "stocking" issues, a supervisor said "oh, we don't have licenses to sell Apple TV" and went on about how there's all sorts of legal issues.

It's vile for a company that's supposedly pro-consumer.

[yomly]

Disclaimer: I used to work at Amazon.

Amazon and Apple have had a long patchy history when it comes to selling Apple products.

Primarily it comes down to Apple's need to control the pricing of their products and Amazon's desire to drop prices far into the realms of lossmaking, which in part is due to their customer centricity. I cannot comment on this specific case but it is not always necessarily as clear cut as you think.

As an aside, the customer obsession is not fluff. It is deeply engrained within the business and is taken very seriously. Any decision that is not customer centric (e.g. Halting the sale of Harper Collins titles) is usually escalated to Diego (head of Retail) if not to Jeff himself. Any business is well within their rights to make money and preserve their self interests, and occasionally strategic decisions may well clash with the culture so not every decision Amazon makes will be perfectly customer centric. With that said, from both the inside and outside I've witnessed really great customer obsession on the whole especially when compared to other businesses.

[ikeboy]

The problem is that they won't allow third parties to sell them on marketplace. Even if Apple won't sell to Amazon, as long as third parties want to list they should be allowed to and it shouldn't cause problems. (I'm probably missing something; what is it?)

[mywittyname]

Amazon is big enough that they could be seen as abusing their power as the largest online retailer to suppress competitors in other markets. These are products that consumers would reasonably expect Amazon to carry, but they don't because it competes with Amazon's other businesses.

[marincounty]

I cancelled it because I was buying crap I didn't need. I cancelled it because I noticed the prices of items rising. I cancelled it because I felt guilty about a huge truck delivering an AM radio. I cancelled it because I was having problems with third party sellers.

The real reason I cancelled it; the prices went up. It was slight at first, but after reading feedback, I noticed a trend. They all bought their item at a lower cost than Me.

[JBReefer]

Yeah, that's also definitely why they shut down PriceZombie. They're not the cheapest anymore, they know it, and they don't want to advertise it.

[TheAndruu]

> Refusing to sell Chromecast and Apple TV

This is kind of like expecting a Ford dealer to sell Chevys.

[lowmess]

It's more akin to a used car lot deciding to manufacture cars, and removing Ford & Chevys from their lot. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is interesting that they only removed those two items and not Rokus and other streaming options.

[infocollector]

When can we regulate this .... and break this company into 4 companies, that compete with each other :) I bet 3 will sell Ford and Chevy's on their display.

[izacus]

Yeah, the huge vertically integrated corporations are starting to seriously limit competition in several economic markets. Good for their profits, bad for pretty much everyone else. It's like Weyland-Yutani in the making.

[mywittyname]

The issue is that Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world and they are refusing to carry items that compete with their other business units.

Your example misses the point. People reasonably expect Amazon to carry electronics. Amazon is abusing their position as the largest retailer in world to suppress competition. That's illegal.

But with your example, Ford does not control 90% of car dealers in the US, so they are not in a position of power. Now, if Ford owned 90% of car mechanics in the US and they refused to repair Chevys, that would be abusing their position of power to suppress competition.

[TheAndruu]

They're both giant companies who manufacture and sell competing products.

Apple Google and Amazon are even larger companies who manufacture and sell the competing products mentioned by this guy.

It's a direct comparison.

[izacus]

Or Microsoft refusing to allow installation of competitive browsers. The line is in market reach, anti-competitive legislation was inacted due to such abuses by a powerful player.

[fleitz]

It's the value of certainty that people are buying. Think of it more like 'Shipping Insurance', delivery fees are an unfortunate unavoidable thing, like car accidents.

However, by purchasing 'shipping insurance' one can normalize the cost of shipping similar to the way one normalizes the cost of car accidents through car insurance.

There is a virtuous circle too that is the opposite of moral hazard typically incurred by insurance companies as having certainty of cost makes risk taking less costly. Similarly, if shipping is free, then people order more things, creating economies of scale that reduce shipping costs, enabling amazon to make more profit, or price prime cheaper.

[manyxcxi]

There are other valid reasons besides not paying the initial shipping cossts.

Typically anything shipped Prime is a no-fee/no-hassle return. Great for when you're buying clothes. After accidentally buying something NOT shipped prime, then getting hit with a bunch of fees from the seller to return it I've gotten much more careful about it.

We also get discounts on our monthly recurring purchases that make it cheaper than going to the store to replenish, not even factoring for saved time.

There's also the Prime video- which has a surprisingly good catalog of shows and movies (in the US at least). I still watch Netflix more, but I use prime video at least once a week.

[sokoloff]

Most non-clothing items are not no-fee returns unless Amazon has made an error or the product is defective.

My wife and I double-bought a gift for our daughter and the return shipping fee was going to be $6.99 as it was our mistake. That's fair enough, IMO, but it's not free.

Returns are often free on clothing/shoes and around Christmas.

Prime Video is indeed a bigger benefit than I originally thought. The kids watch it several times a week and I probably once a week.

[fleitz]

I got prime pretty much for the new Top Gear, everything else is just gravy. And now that I know I can return stuff I'm probably going to start buying clothes through prime.

[ArkyBeagle]

It's very effective sleight of hand. The cherry on top is 2-day delivery being prepaid. I wouldn't have paid for 2-day otherwise. They "fixed" that for me.

The whole thing makes going to a brick and mortar store feel like going to the DMV.

[pc86]

With the exception that if you drive to store and back home for a single item, you'll have the item inside of an hour. If you live close, inside of 15 minutes?

When I know I will need batteries in a week, I'll buy a box on Amazon and get it in a few days. If I need batteries now, I'll have them within an hour. It's certainly not "like going to the DMV."

[ErrantX]

Here in the UK Amazon seem to be heading for same-day delivery for Prime customers (we already have free next day on Prime) and ultimately "within the hour" types of delivery in major cities.

[ArkyBeagle]

Relative to not having go it feels like going to the DMV.

[eric_h]

Well, the advent of prime now means you can get many things in an hour from Amazon, though of course there are additional fees that are not covered by the annual prime membership fees.

[mikeash]

It's funny, it feels like the opposite to me. Going to a regular store is pretty simple. Buying with Prime is a pain in the ass, since half the stuff they sell isn't eligible. Amazon is rarely the cheapest option anymore, too, so I no longer have the luxury of skipping the price comparison and knowing I'm getting a pretty good deal anyway.

[dpark]

> Buying with Prime is a pain in the ass, since half the stuff they sell isn't eligible.

From what I can see, Amazon sells very little that isn't Prime eligible. There are lots of "Marketplace" offerings that aren't Prime eligible, but you can filter those out by clicking the "Prime" checkbox that pops up on the left whenever you're in a search or category view.

[mikeash]

From the user's (i.e. my) perspective, "Marketplace" offerings are still things that Amazon sells. The "Prime" checkbox doesn't work well. It doesn't filter out add-on items (which can be removed with another checkbox), and it doesn't do a very good job of only showing me Prime items. Searching for hard drives, just as a random example, I get results where the primary seller isn't Prime, and the Prime option is either more expensive than what's listed, or is a used or refurbished item. I'm sure there's a combination of checkboxes that will do what I want, but they sure don't seem to be optimizing for the common case.

[dpark]

I don't have any particular problem with the system as it is today. I certainly wouldn't complain if Amazon made it more obvious/friendlier, though.

[audleman]

I was gifted Prime and it surprised me how awesome it was. Say I want to buy a few pairs of SmartWool Socks, but since I'm buying them over the internet don't get a chance to try them on. Do I buy 7 pairs and risk it? No, I just buy 1 pair and get it in 2 days with no shipping fee.

In fact I buy all kinds of things now on Amazon because I can get them in 2 days with no shipping fee.

I get that I'm paying upfront for shipping, of course, which really only incentivizes me to shop more on Amazon. After a certain number of orders I'm beating the system, and that's fun.

Plus you get a lot of freebies, like movies.

[hvm]

> After a certain number of orders I'm beating the system, and that's fun.

That's only true if you would have bought those items anyway. If you wouldn't have then the system is beating you.

[brownbat]

> That's only true if you would have bought those items anyway.

And if you would have insisted on 2-day shipping for everything you buy, which seems unlikely. Some purchases, sure, but everything?

[andys627]

The fee is getting paid somehow - either by you up front, as a subscription, or for "free" built into the cost of the item.

[zeven7]

That's not what I've heard. A quick search found me this:

> The company loses an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion on Prime shipping annually

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-free-shipping-killing-am...

Amazon wants market share enough to absorb a loss on shipping costs. It's part of why Amazon is still not profitable.

[andrewfong]

Saying Amazon is absorbing a loss on shipping costs to get market share implies that that they're engaged in predatory pricing (i.e. they're selling below cost to get market share with the intent to raise prices once competition has been destroyed).

There might be some truth to that, but the better explanation for why Amazon isn't profitable is that it's simply plowing all of its profits back into the business. This link is older, but it does a pretty good job of going through the numbers and Jeff Bezo's thinking: http://a16z.com/2014/09/05/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why...

[nitrogen]

It's not uncommon for an ecommerce site to charge less for shipping than it actually costs them (for perception/psychology reasons), and make up the difference on margin or services.

[unclebucknasty]

Is there anyone who believes Amazon's prices wouldn't rise in the absence of competition?

[sokoloff]

How much are Walmart, Home Depot, and BestBuy losing on "operating retail stores"?

It's a cost of operation or cost of sales, IMO, and you have to look at it in the context of overall profitability and revenue growth, not as a standalone line item. Otherwise, you might argue for those other three to close all their retail outlets or charge admission in order to "stem the losses".

[unclebucknasty]

It's an operational cost, not COGS. And, sure it's a standalone line item as much as any other.

Not sure I understand the distinction you're attempting to make. It's a function of their model that can affect their competitiveness and may well argue for (or against) closures.

[sokoloff]

I used "cost of sales" when I meant "cost of revenue". However, I suspect the revenue from Prime counts as top-line and the shipping cost losses are absorbed as a cost on the COGS line, so the net effect is probably reflected as revenue and COGS. If I get some time, I'll poke through their last 10-Q/10-K to see if I can confirm that treatment.

The point I was trying to make is that Prime (and any associated losses) is part of Amazon's go-to-market strategy, just as opening retail stores is part of HD, WMT, and BBY's strategy. Saying that Amazon is "losing money on Prime" but that the others aren't "losing money on stores" seems a double-standard to me.

[unclebucknasty]

I guess you can parse it any way, but I consider those to be very different. A more valid comparison is between the retail stores and Amazon's distribution network, fulfillment centers, warehouses, etc. These things all fall under capital expenditures (CapEx) and represent hard costs that must be paid/financed.

Like retail stores, they are also part of the required infrastructure to fulfill customer orders.

Prime, OTOH is more a marketing expense. I would compare it to coupons, store savings cards, etc.

So, the double-standard doesn't exist in my view; unless you were to count retail store costs without counting Amazon fulfillment costs.

[marme]

amazon is very profitable but they plow back all profits into new business ventures so they pay 0 taxes because they can report no profit. If you make a billion dollars profit and then immediately spend that building a new datacenter or warehouse whether you need it or not that still counts as a business expenses that is subtracted from profits. Amazon will never stop trying to enter new businesses because they have no plans to ever pay out dividends or hold on to cash profits

[dlgeek]

Not profitable? They made almost 600 million dollars profit, after taxes last year.

[amdavidson]

Almost $600 million on $107 billion in revenue.

A profit margin of 0.57% [0]. That's so close to zero that I'm comfortable saying they're not profitable.

[0]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMZN+Key+Statistics

[fapjacks]

Well, I'd take that profit margin over a 200% profit margin that nets me $1,000 any day.

[tamana]

That's not a fact, that's some rando's guess.

[_pmf_]

That's a concise description of why I (as an Amazon fanboy) have probably unconsciously abstained from becoming a Prime member ... something just smelled off.

[ProAm]

It's very Apple-esque to be a member of an elite community.

[bonoboTP]

How can subscription to a shipping service be compared to membership in a community? Where is the "community" in this? Do Prime-subscribes gather sometimes to discuss how they are subscribed to Prime?

[ProAm]

I was more relating the OPs comment:

> Though it is impressive that Amazon has turned a delivery fee - that most people don't like paying - into an exclusive subscription service.

Where Amazon has convinced people to prepay $100 per year for shipping on select items similar to how Apple has convinced customers to overpay on hardware and accessories to be part of the same style club. Community was probably the wrong word, but exclusive/elite membership maybe? And yes I hear people all the time talk about their prime memberships, especially at work.