[Apocryphon]

Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short.

Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.

[themacguffinman]

So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay).

If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice.

Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.

[Apocryphon]

Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors.

The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.

[themacguffinman]

No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one else's place to tell them what they should prioritize.

Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it doesn't help consumers.

Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and reach get, their competitors are still one click away. Finding out about competitors is one search query away, one media article away, or one advertisement away. Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a product, they're basically not trying at all. And not trying is their choice.

[Apocryphon]

Consumers don't have a choice if there is information asymmetry and they are unaware of better offerings. And as I have illustrated, there is no single "Amazon competitor" as they are all online retailers in different spaces. Even Walmart's e-commerce initiatives are relatively new. A cursory search of competitors yields this list (https://www.shopify.com/blog/amazon-competitors) which has eBay (auction house, not in same class), Walmart (relatively new entrant to online space), Flipkart (India), Target (brick-and-mortar, smaller footprint than Walmart), Alibaba (China and APAC), Otto (Europe), JD (China), Netflix (only a competitor in streaming), and Rakuten (Japan and APAC).

As far as anti-competitive behavior, I will defer to luminaries more informed than I

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/amazon-wins-ruling-resu...

[themacguffinman]

Yes they do have a choice. Information asymmetry does not remove choice, it's just an asymmetry. Are you really telling me you don't have a choice to shop beyond Amazon? Consumers can't know enough to find other ways to shop besides Amazon? Do you know a single person who thinks Amazon is the only possible shopping option, either online or in-person?

It doesn't matter if there isn't a direct Amazon competitor. All large companies compete on multiple fronts. It does not mean there is no competition in shopping.

I don't respond to essay dumps like this. If you want to say something, you're going to have to say it or quote it.

[Apocryphon]

Most people do consider Amazon as the default and online shopping retailer for general goods, as opposed to specialized needs such as secondhand products (eBay, Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace) or specialized products (Wayfair for furniture, boutique retailers).

If you refuse to engage further in this conversation, that is your prerogative and it is noted. We can consider this matter closed.

[ryan93]

everyone is award apple brand cables are good quality compared to 4 dollar cables on amazon

[passivate]

There were a lot many years from the time of Amazon's inception till they became a monopoly. It seems like your "what could be" experiment has already been done. There was plenty of opportunity, but nobody managed to build a better competitor to them.

It is a separate argument, but 'more competition' isn't a magical fix to everything. This sort of gating mechanism relies on the end user/consumer having good knowledge, sound judgement, etc. Also what is best for the consumer isn't best for the society. A wild example - For me, as the consumer I'm happy to get an iPhone for $200, but that might mean that Apple pays their employees below US minimum wage.