[simonh]

By itself that's probably not a violation if it doesn't actually hurt anyone, Netflix still seems to be doing fine. Lets assume that changes though and Prime video comes to dominate, then it could be a violation. This is my point, it seems like it's only a violation if it works, or works too well. There's a lack of clarity, at least to me.

[kybernetikos]

They aren't harming netflix yet, because even with a captive audience, the offering isn't good enough to make people feel like they don't also need netflix. I'd be very surprised if there hasn't been significant harm to second tier services though - people might want to supplement netflix with something, but if they already have amazon prime, they're probably a lot less likely to supplement it with now tv, Hulu, etc

[Nasrudith]

But isn't that the exact opposite of a monopoly? They are creating more competition in another space that is difficult to enter.

[kybernetikos]

Imagine how you would feel if people weren't buying your bicycles because the water company was charging inflated prices for water and giving away free bicycles.

Incidentally, the fact that Amazon can choose to set the price for 'free, fast delivery of packages' so high that they can slide a video streaming system in there for 'free', is one of the signs of monopoly power, and bundling as a way to push into unrelated industries is a well accepted example of monopoly power abuse.

> But isn't that the exact opposite of a monopoly? They are creating more competition in another space that is difficult to enter.

The key is that they're using their monopoly power dominance of one industry to gain advantage in an unrelated industry.

[anextomp]

It could be argued that it is similar to predatory pricing, where you accept a loss on your offering to drive competitors away before increasing the price.

Amazon video as its own service would not be able to survive so it is unfair on services that just try to do video.