|
|
|
|
|
|
by geofft
2530 days ago
|
|
|
IMO there's a difference of scale - Amazon has quasi-monopoly power in the "buying things online" space, so much so that e.g. Anker, which makes cables and chargers and competes directly with Amazon Basics, has no distribution channel other than Amazon. If I make Unprovable Loops ("Part of this Turing-complete breakfast") and I'm not satisfied with the distribution deal I get from Safeway, I can always call up Von's or CVS or Target or Whole Foods or Walmart and see what they'll do, and in most cities there are multiple such options. I do wonder if the problem here is inherent to being an online store. If there's a Safeway in one part of town, a new Walmart in another part of town will sell roughly as much cereal as a second Safeway. But if Amazon.com exists and is generally useful, why would people go to another site? So perhaps some of the traditional/historical safeguards against any one store becoming a monopoly on the market no longer apply. |
|
|
What's the US market share of the largest offline retailer?
Also, consider this chart: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/worlds-largest-us-retail-chain...
Walmart, Costco, and Kroger are bigger than Amazon in terms of revenue. (Kroger only just.)
> But if Amazon.com exists and is generally useful, why would people go to another site?
Why wouldn't they? What's stopping them?
I agree we may need to reconsider some of our laws to better take into account online behaviour. But Amazon should not be penalised for mere success. They ought to be penalised for abusing market dominance if that is indeed what they are doing. No abuse, no penalty. Questions about tax payments on the other hand… Amazon have nowhere near the quasi-monopoly in their sphere that Microsoft has in desktop operating systems, Google has in web search, and Facebook has in social media.