[tyler_larson]

The problem here isn't so much that Amazon is going to hurt Google. Google will survive. But we only hear about this story because Google is who Amazon is attacking (today).

The bigger problem is that Amazon has set themselves up as the global arbiter of commerce, acting as a relatively neutral marketplace matching buyers to sellers worldwide, replacing many or most of the smaller commerce hubs and marketplaces that used to exist.

But once in that position, they exercise control over which products can be sold with the explicit intention of destroying competitors, replacing what would otherwise be a consumer favorite with their own inferior (according to market preference) alternate.

Everyone talks about monopolists and moral hazard and market manipulation, but Amazon seems to be the only modern company with the unique combination of dominance, confidence, and poor executive judgment to actually make it a consistent and overt company policy.

[philipodonnell]

If you saw the article yesterday about counterfit Nests still for sale and Amazon taking no action, I think it's actually worse than that.

Banning competition you don't like is monoploistic for sure, but intentionally leaving counterfitters versions up and promoting them to searchers for those products so it damages your competitors brand is just straight up evil.

[philipodonnell]

Sorry, I got this mixed up with the counterfeit chromecast devices that Amazon is ignoring. Its hard to keep track of all the anti-competitive stuff Amazon is doing lately. ;-)

[briga]

Is it intentional though? Like the old proverb goes--never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[gordon_freeman]

This is so true! And now as they have bought Whole Foods, they can do the same thing with grocery products by having options such as WF branded ones over the competitors (stocking 365 branded Sugar and dropping Safway Signature branded Sugar) through their Amazon Fresh or Prime NOW service.

[justonepost]

People like variety in food. You don’t usually see network effects (ie, recipe only works if you use ingredients from same supplier)

Home automation though is a great network effects play which is why amazon is doing this.

[bduerst]

If home automation is their goal, then why doesn't Amazon open an API for making automated purchases? They can sell more through their marketplace this way.

[mcherm]

Because automating homes is not their goal; profiting when others automate their homes is their goal. They appear t believe that they will make significantly more profit by selling home automation tools and the things that attach to them than by carrying some other company's home automation tools in their catalog in addition to their own.

[justonepost]

Having interviewed with Alexa I can assure you home automation is there #1 goal.

[justonepost]

Fraud concerns most likely. They have an api they support for hooking up to Alexa.

[stickfigure]

Why do you assume they aren't working on it?

Big companies move slowly. I doubt Amazon could roll something like this out without 5+ years of development - possibly longer depending on how many times the department gets reorg'd.

[adrianN]

Because they want people to buy Alexa?

[oceanstone]

Whole Foods was already abusing their position by setting strict quality standards for foods they carried, and reducing the requirements for their own 365 brand.

[nextstepguy]

i've already seen that. Try buying some products that are not 365 (the WF private label.) The march has already started and is accelerating. Consumers beware1

[ethana]

Google is no angel themselves. What they did to Windows Phone is no different than Amazon's behavior. I'd imagine Windows Phone might as well died even if there were Google apps on it. But by actively preventing third-parties from porting their services to WP, Google intentionally tried to kill it. Now they now practically own the global market of smartphones. Not saying any of this is right, but I've less empathy for them.

[notatoad]

>But by actively preventing third-parties from porting their services to WP

[citation needed]

The only history i'm aware of with google blocking app development on windows phone is when they sent C&Ds to people developing apps that stripped all the ads off youtube and played background audio. They also consistently take down and block android apps that violate the TOS in this way, and i don't see anybody saying that google is trying to kill android.

[microtonal]

Google blocked the web version of Google Maps in Internet Explorer for Windows Phone:

https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/#g...

Maps worked fine with exactly the same Trident engine on the desktop. Moreover, if you change the user agent string, maps also worked fine with Windows Phone.

[thaumasiotes]

That seems like a pretty simple fix for Microsoft to make on behalf of every Windows Phone user... Google can't compel MS to identify its phones for Google's benefit.

[arcticfox]

Google would just change the user-agent they were blocking to whatever Microsoft changed it to. It was intentional.

[thaumasiotes]

Again, there's no rule that says devices must have unique user-agents. Once you've established that Google wants to block Windows Phone from using maps, you can send the user-agent string of something they don't want to block.

[zeusk]

Hahaha

https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win...

https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4625502/microsoft-respond...

Google pulls this same bs with consoles as well, both PS4 and Xbox One (S/X) have a shitty HTML5 app that just doesn't fit well with rest of the system.

[oceanstone]

Really? I've used the ps4 YouTube app a bunch to watch videos, and movies purchased from the play store. My phone can cast to it as well. Seems to work as well as the Netflix app. I've had more issues with the ps4 store app honestly.

[snuxoll]

So does Apple TV now after the most recent update, and it’s absoultely terrible.

[snuxoll]

Nobody stripped ads offf YouTube videos - Google doesn’t provide an API you can use to display them in the first place and they had no desire to make a native application themselves to remove the necessity.

The background audio stuff, sure - that happened.

[hota_mazi]

If you do a Google search for "Alexa" or "dot echo", the first hits will be Amazon's products.

As long as this is true, Google is acting a lot more objectively than Amazon and its anti-competitive behavior.

[pjc50]

Shady anti-portability tactics against Microsoft is just karma.

[pkaye]

I'm sure Microsoft could have worked out a deal with Google. For example there were some patents for filesystems that Microsoft was enforcing for a while on Android phones.

[jd20]

Not to mention when Google blocked YouTube from Echo Show devices. This almost seems like retaliation.

[mooman219]

The block was because Echo Show devices don't support various features like ads. Also at the time, the YouTube block could be seen as retaliation for Amazon de-listing ChromeCast.

[Buge]

That was the first block. Then Amazon re-implemented it to just be a browser that views youtube.com so ads show just as on the normal website, and Google blocked their user agent.

[sincerely]

"features"

[oh_sigh]

Ads are a feature which allow the various companies involved to provide content for free to the consumer.

[cloudwalking]

This should not be downvoted. YouTube does not have a viable competitor because serving video is incredibly expensive.

Edit: This is being downvoted as well. Downvoted is for off-topic or inflammatory comments, not for comments you disagree with. If you disagree, leave a comment and explain why!

[Buge]

Google blocked Echo from viewing Youtube in retaliation for Amazon not listing Chromecast. If Amazon agreed to list Chromecast, all the blocks could be eliminated and the war could end.

[yellowapple]

Or when Google blocked YouTube from Fire TV devices, after which Amazon stopped selling Chromecasts. Or maybe it was the other way around.

This is - in other words - not the first time Amazon and Google got in a spat like this, and probably ain't the last.

[notatoad]

that was the other way around.

and amazon's rationale for not selling chromecasts was because the chromecast didn't support amazon prime video. which was, of course, a decision that amazon had made.

[scarface74]

It wasn't Google that didn't support Amazon Prime Video, Amazon didn't add support. It was the same reason the Amazon gave for not selling the Apple TV 3rd and 4th generations. Apple worked with dozens of other providers to add apps to the 3rd gen ATV and a time could write an app for the 4th gen TV.

The proof is that there is now an Amazon Video app for the 3rd and 4th gen ATV. It was a surprise to almost everyone that Amazon/Apple ported Amazon Video to the 3rd Gen ATV after it had been discontinued for over a year.

[karavelov]

I don't think it's Amazon decision to not allow Prime video on the google chromecast devices - it's available of consoles, Roku and other 3rd party devices.

[vanviegen]

Sure it is. Chromecast offers an API everybody can just use, without asking Google for permission.

[Slansitartop]

> Google is no angel themselves. What they did to Windows Phone is no different than Amazon's behavior.

That's why breakups or heavy regulation needs to seriously considered for these companies. They have too much market power and have shown a proclivity towards abusing it in anti-competitive ways. The market has developed, and I don't think leaving it unregulated is working anymore.

[tyler_larson]

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Spooky23]

We live in an era where people will assert that Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly. If a corporate action doesnt directly raise consumer prices, under modern legal thinking it isn't a monopoly.

The most ironic or telling thing about Amazon is that Walmart has now become the punchy underdog in comparison.

[qmarchi]

And they sell Nest electronics!

But on a more realistic note, Walmart has been pushing to be more innovative in the e-commerce ecosystem, purchasing various companies and opening new storefronts (like Allswell) to be more competitive.

There's also the advantage that they have in physical location.

Anyways, Disclaimer, I work for Walmart but my views and comments are my own.

[TimJYoung]

Yes, but the problem is that Walmart (and others, like Best Buy) proceeded to become also-rans by also opening up their ecommerce platforms to 3rd party sellers. This rush to make everything like Amazon is destructive to the retail chain's brand itself by making it harder for consumers to find the authentic products that they are looking for, with the implicit/explicit guarantees about product quality, low-cost shipping, and return processing. When I go to walmart.com or bestbuy.com, I want to purchase something from Walmart and Best Buy, not some 3rd party with whom I have no prior relationship. It's a total race to the bottom in the retail space right now.

[godzillabrennus]

I guess since Amazon can use it's monopoly position to hurt Google it would be fair for Google to punish Amazon by restricting who can find products through their search engine?

Maybe a little trade war between the giants would help them realize this is stupid.

[doorbumper]

It's more troublesome for Google to retaliate. Google is already under scrutiny for unfair search results from regulatory agencies all over the globe.

Amazon has gone mostly unnoticed, and exerts their power without fear of reprisal.

[drdrey]

if only there was some sort of federal trade agency that could fine companies for abusing their monopoly positions

[noarchy]

If only there was a monopoly. It isn't as if you suddenly can't get these device any longer.

[mattnewton]

Monopoly power can be exerted at a whole lot less than 100% of the market.

[Buge]

Google also doesn't have the only place you can get search results (eg Bing). But that didn't stop Europe from handing out a $2.8 billion fine.

[BonoboBoner]

35% of ecommerce customer journeys already start on amazon. It is not like they totally depend on SERP rankings.

[cornholio]

Let's see how that plays out when Chrome gives out a blank page for every Amazon domain ! <insert Brin & Page evil laugh here />

[gaius]

I guess since Amazon can use it's monopoly position to hurt Google it would be fair for Google to punish Amazon by restricting who can find products through their search engine?

All that will do is push people to search Amazon first cutting Google out of the loop altogether.

[stordoff]

I wonder if it hurts Amazon in the long term. One of the reasons for defaulting to Amazon is that they carry pretty much everything. The more items it doesn't stock, the more I will shop around and start doing that more generally.

[adventured]

> The bigger problem is that Amazon has set themselves up as the global arbiter of commerce

Amazon may yet become that. They are not that yet. Walmart has an infamous reputation for being brutal with suppliers. That reputation is far beyond anything Amazon has yet become known for. Walmart also completely dictates who has access to their vast retail system, which is still roughly three times the size of Amazon. Simply put, Walmart's system is radically more restrictive in terms of providing selling access, than Amazon - and it's three times larger.

Half of Amazon's retail sales aren't even from Amazon, they're from independent sellers, and that percentage has been perpetually increasing. For Walmart, it's almost entirely them controlling the sales.

It has merely become popular lately to point the fear cannons at Amazon. It's a cultural mania. Last week it was Walmart everyone was terrified of. In the late 1990s, every headline was breathlessly touting how Walmart was going to take over all of retail and put everyone else out of business.

[philipodonnell]

Straw man alert! Walmart introducing own-brand competition into it's marketplace and competing in price there. Amazon is introducing own-brand products into thier marketplace and forbidding specific competitors while leaving counterfitters of those same competitors. There's an enormous difference there.

[davrosthedalek]

Honest question: Is Amazon really that unique as a marketplace? How does the world wide volume of ebay compare to Amazon?

Do they have any traction in the Chinese market? I could easily see that one of the Chinese market places could make a push for the world market and be a serious contender.

[stordoff]

Is eBay the right comparison? I treat them as different services - Amazon: primarily new products, fixed price, and essentially dealing with one seller (if there's an issue with a Marketplace item, Amazon CS will address it); eBay: mix of new/used products, mix of fixed prices and auctions, primarily dealing with individual sellers.

[davrosthedalek]

I think ebay changed a lot. Every time I search something there it's like 90% new stuff from china. On the other hand, amazon has used stuff too. I would really like to see a break down what fraction of the products on ebay are new vs. old, and how much is sold for a fixed price vs. auction.

[sercand]

I also don't think Amazon that unique as a global marketplace. For me, I use AliExpress more than Amazon and both of them don't operate in my country.

[Izkata]

> I could easily see that one of the Chinese market places could make a push for the world market and be a serious contender.

Isn't Alibaba trying to do that? (I don't know much about it, but do hear its name every once in a while)

[ender89]

If amazon wants to get into the hardware game, they need to treat competitive hardware fairly or be hit with an anti-competitive lawsuit. There's no two ways about it.