[rfdub]

I am perennially amazed at the ire of sellers who build businesses on someone else's platform, and then complain when the purveyor of said platform changes the rules. If you want to get to determine the rules of the game, you have to build your own playing field.

[mattnewton]

I don't think that's a fair viewpoint, it's not realistic for most businesses to create international commerce powerhouses to sell their bespoke goods. Complaining is the only realistic leverage they have in this game.

When you get as big as Amazon it's reasonable to expect some concessions to the people who use your platform, just like if you get as big as GM your workers will want to unionize.

[qznc]

So they should create an "Amazon Sellers Association" or something like that?

[dgfgfdagasdfgfa]

Well, they can go to jet.com instead. It's not like Amazon is without competition.

[macintux]

You say that, yet I'd never heard of jet.com.

[Sleeep]

Jet.com is owned by Walmart.

[zapt02]

The biggest leverage they have is threatening to leave the platform, which they should do.

[wolco]

If they grouped together it could be more effective. Leaving would be a stronger message.

[brightball]

It's a bit of a 2 way street. One of the big reason's for Amazon's dominance is carrying virtually every item out there which makes it a great place to go look. That's made possible because all of these other people have built businesses around the platform.

This really isn't all that different than what Walmart has a history of doing. Become your biggest source of business, then force you to lower the price or lose it all.

[Sleeep]

This is unfair, you're always "building businesses on someone else's platform," as you're always dealing with outsiders.

If your supplier raises prices you can become unprofitable, if your distributor changes policies you can become unprofitable, if FedEx raises prices you can become unprofitable, if price of gas goes up you can become unprofitable, if your rent goes up you can become unprofitable, if taxes go up you can become unprofitable, if laws change you can become unprofitable, even if a local employer closes you can become unprofitable, if a competitor comes in and undercuts you you can become unprofitable, etc.

It's not fair to criticize a small business for not building up, from scratch, the infrastructure and customer base that Amazon has. Especially when many of these small businesses wouldn't even be feasible without Amazon's infrastructure.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>If you want to get to determine the rules of the game, you have to build your own playing field.

Amazon is basically a monopoly, I'd like to know how you imagine a small business competing against them. And why should a small shoe/fidget-spinner/alibaba-reselling business need to build their own shopping website anyways? "Platforms" should be free.

[ghostly_s]

How are they a monopoly exactly? I can google "<Product name> for sale" easily enough.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Look at it from the other direction. Little moves by them, like what's described in the article, can kill off all sorts of small businesses. How else would that be possible without extreme amounts of market power?