How Amazon Wins: By Steamrolling Rivals and Partners

WhiteMemento9

The Wall Street Journal How Amazon Wins: By Steamrolling Rivals and Partners

One of the many stories in the article.

1. A small business began selling camera tripods on Amazon
2. It reached $3.5 million in sales, 0.001% of Amazon's revenue
3. Amazon copied the tripods exactly and sold them as AmazonBasics tripods
4. Amazon banned the tripod company from Amazon

At its height about a decade ago, Pi­rate Trad­ing LLC was sell­ing more than $3.5 mil­lion a year of its Rav­elli-brand cam­era tripods—one of its best­selling prod­ucts—on Ama­zon, said owner Dalen Thomas.

In 2011, Ama­zon be­gan launch­ing its own ver­sions of six of Pi­rate Trad­ing’s top-sell­ing tripods un­der its Ama­zon­Ba­sics la­bel, he said. Mr. Thomas or­dered one of the Ama­zon tripods and found it had the same com­po­nents and shared Pi­rate Trad­ing’s de­sign. For its Ama­zon­Ba­sics prod­ucts, Ama­zon used the same man­u­fac­turer that Pi­rate Trad­ing had used.

Ama­zon priced one of its clone tripods be­low what Mr. Thomas paid his man­u­fac­turer to have Pi­rate Trad­ing’s ver­sion made, he said. He de­ter­mined it would be cheaper to buy Ama­zon’s ver­sions, repack­age and re­sell them than to buy and sell them on the terms he had been get­ting; he de­cided not to do that.

Ama­zon sus­pended Pi­rate Trad­ing cam­era tri­pod mod­els that com­peted with the Ama­zon­Ba­sics ver­sions re­peat­edly, Mr. Thomas said, al­leg­ing his tripods had au­then­tic­ity is­sues. Ama­zon rarely sus­pended the tri­pod mod­els that didn’t com­pete with Ama­zon­Ba­sics ver­sions, he said. In 2015, Ama­zon sus­pended all Rav­elli prod­ucts, he said, and even though the sus­pen­sion ended, his com­pa­ny’s tri­pod busi­ness is now a frac­tion of the size it was. Mr. Thomas said he found be­ing a seller on Ama­zon too risky and has largely piv­oted to real-es­tate in­vest­ing.

https://twitter.com/DanPriceSeattle/status/1341489830379831300

Look at this in conjunction with this report

The median worker should be making as much as $102,000 annually—if some $2.5 trillion wasn’t being “reverse distributed” every year away from the working class.

Productivity has increased massively due to technological advancement. We produce far more than ever with far lower human involvement. If you look at trends since the 80's productivity has kept increasing massively while wages have not followed that trend. We are producing more stuff than ever but working the same hours and for less money indexing in inflation. That doesn't make sense unless you look at where the money goes.

As AI/Automation really takes hold and these companies can make more and more profit using less and less human endeavor this only continues to get worse.

Strumms

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanPriceSeattle/status/1341489830379831300

Look at this in conjunction with this report

The median worker should be making as much as $102,000 annually—if some $2.5 trillion wasn’t being “reverse distributed” every year away from the working class.

Productivity has increased massively due to technological advancement. We produce far more than ever with far lower human involvement. If you look at trends since the 80's productivity has kept increasing massively while wages have not followed that trend. We are producing more stuff than ever but working the same hours and for less money indexing in inflation. That doesn't make sense unless you look at where the money goes.

As AI/Automation really takes hold and these companies can make more and more profit using less and less human endeavor this only continues to get worse.

The world is seemingly at a place where corporations and business, instead of being in existence to facilitate and serve the public, and being a positive influence to aid human beings.... are trying to set the rules to suit themselves. They want to make money faster, but have pretty much a fraction of the high street cost base aside from maybe IT, shipping (customers pay for anyway), warehouse / inventory and management... don’t need to buy or rent a shop / store, don’t need frontline staff, don’t need proper presentation of products just a big warehouse and contact / callcenter both probably outsourced costing fûck all.

THEY want to tell us how we may shop, they want to make the rules.

Amazon have really redefined and redesigned how business will be done in the future... theirs has been a successful template.. for them.. it’s going to be copied.

I started using amazon to buy CD’s and records and books about 15 years ago. The likes of most main street retailers were reasonably unhelpful and indeed expensive if you wanted anything left field that they didn’t regularly stock. Amazon... see it, click it, get it.... That’s been 15-20 years now in the consciousness of all of us. We started off with bits and bobs on amazon, probably reducing our high street by xx%, then holidays... click and go, Ryanair and aer lingus..... everything is online only apart from a ticket desk at the airport where you’ll be charged probably 60% over the online price for no other reason then to discourage you from using their resources ie. expensive human beings at the airport, who cost all in about 160,000 in wages, uniforms, IT admin, and other sundry costs per desk.

Ultimately we are being faced with less jobs for people, less opportunities... big centralized warehouses are the future. They are not employment hubs, they use every technological advancement to ensure that from you clicking ‘buy’ the number of actual people, human beings required to get a product from a shef somewhere in xx town to your doorstep is minimal... in about 20 years it will be none.

Couriers are already replacing people with....



Will shipping charges reduce? No... they’ll give you a spiel about it being greener etc... xxxx less couriers, xxxx less vehicles...

Ultimately it will lead to less service, less jobs, more poverty... yet more profit but less cost as less human endeavor...

WhiteMemento9

The frustrating thing is the lack of opposition or fight in these areas. It was one of the single biggest problems we currently face as a society.

We don't seem to be able to create a groundswell of public opinion that is galvanized in an understanding of the problems and how they are affecting everyone. Somehow the narrative has been built so that people roll eyes when these larger problems are ideated while conversely being giddy with glee in sticking the boot into Jimmy on the dole who doesn't work and is so called gaming the system. These corporations are gaming the system and milking everyone dry. Something is wrong.

The so-called squeezed middle wants to know why they under so much pressure but the focus on all the wrong questions and answers. At one stage we had a system that connected human labor with fair remuneration for the labor they provided. The surplus is profit, as companies have managed to become more and more profitable who in this equation is losing?

It seems easier to focus on issues that divide us and continue to attack the most vulnerable in our society. We create narratives around these things so people have stories they can understand. We treat those who try to talk about the bigger issues with disdain while holding up many of the people responsible for this problem as demi-gods within society.

We currently have a situation where the stock market is breaking records left and right and many people are struggling to just get by in a time of immense hardship for many. There is something incredibly broken in the current time that we live.

the purple tin

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

The frustrating thing is the lack of opposition or fight in these areas. It was one of the single biggest problems we currently face as a society.

We don't seem to be able to create a groundswell of public opinion that is galvanized in an understanding of the problems and how they are affecting everyone. Somehow the narrative has been built so that people roll eyes when these larger problems are ideated while conversely being giddy with glee in sticking the boot into Jimmy on the dole who doesn't work and is so called gaming the system. These corporations are gaming the system and milking everyone dry. Something is wrong.

The so-called squeezed middle wants to know why they under so much pressure but the focus on all the wrong questions and answers. At one stage we had a system that connected human labor with fair remuneration for the labor they provided. The surplus is profit, as companies have managed to become more and more profitable who in this equation is losing?

It seems easier to focus on issues that divide us and continue to attack the most vulnerable in our society. We create narratives around these things so people have stories they can understand. We treat those who try to talk about the bigger issues with disdain while holding up many of the people responsible for this problem as demi-gods within society.

We currently have a situation where the stock market is breaking records left and right and many people are struggling to just get by in a time of immense hardship for many. There is something incredibly broken in the current time that we live.

Not broken. The system is working perfectly for the billionaires, that is all they care about.

mvt

What we need to do is organize groups of workers to smash those machines to protect their jobs.


Seriously though, we're all fecked :mad:

WhiteMemento9

the purple tin wrote: »

Not broken. The system is working perfectly for the billionaires, that is all they care about.

Where is the anger among everyone about it though? I see incredibly vitriolic, emotional responses from people when we start discussing issues such as lockdowns, social welfare, etc but these issues create a shrug of the shoulder almost like no one cares. I've never seen an issue that affects so many people and can clearly be seen in very visible terms that people seem so apathetic towards.

purifol0

It must look a bit rich to the citizens of other countries when Irish people complain about the mega corporations, as we run most of our services (ie paying the public sector way over the odds & having some of the most generous social welfare in the world) by way of enticing the mega corps over here (for international tax benefits) and taking a nice cut (corp tax).

Apple is the countries biggest exchequer benefactor btw! They've a hell of a human rights record as employees jump to there deaths in Foxconn but they're paying more tax (to us) than Ryanair from an unassuming office down in Cork

Strumms

purifol0 wrote: »

It must look a bit rich to the citizens of other countries when Irish people complain about the mega corporations, as we run most of our services (ie paying the public sector way over the odds & having some of the most generous social welfare in the world) by way of enticing the mega corps over here (for international tax benefits) and taking a nice cut (corp tax).

Apple is the countries biggest exchequer benefactor btw! They've a hell of a human rights record as employees jump to there deaths in Foxconn but they're paying more tax (to us) than Ryanair from an unassuming office down in Cork

Apple employment is significant but so is their dodging of taxes....

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0915/1075817-apple-tax-appeal-explained/

Strumms

mvt wrote: »

What we need to do is organize groups of workers to smash those machines to protect their jobs.


Seriously though, we're all fecked :mad:

Who is supposed to be standing up for us ? Politicians ? Not a fûcking spine between them...

Look at the the taoisigh we’ve entrusted to lead , represent and work for us...up to their gills in corruption, self interest and skulduggery...its endemic.

simongurnick

Can't get into too much detail, but through my work I have been close to a few partnership negotiations with Amazon and they are absolutely not shy in ensuring everyone knows they are the big boys in any deal. Not surprised by the OP post at all.

kowloon

If a machine can do the job better that shouldn't be an issue. Having everyone working is not a goal in itself. If society was thoughtfully organised we could all have enough to live on and have more time to spend doing things we actually want to do. As things are a few people have most of the wealth, a larger number have every last bit of value squeezed out of them by employers while another group are refused enough hours to make a decent living or are reliant on welfare. If aliens came to Earth they would be baffled at how poorly designed it all is unless they figured out it just sort of happened over time.

Strumms

kowloon wrote: »

If a machine can do the job better that shouldn't be an issue. Having everyone working is not a goal in itself. If society was thoughtfully organised we could all have enough to live on and have more time to spend doing things we actually want to do. As things are a few people have most of the wealth, a larger number have every last bit of value squeezed out of them by employers while another group are refused enough hours to make a decent living or are reliant on welfare. If aliens came to Earth they would be baffled at how poorly designed it all is unless they figured out it just sort of happened over time.

‘Enough to live on’ is great but what is life without trying to achieve goals, nice car, house for family.. holidays etc... life isn’t about existing in safety , it never has been, it’s there to be experienced, enjoyed, who the fûck is happy existing?

Machines doing our jobs and driving down the ability of people to earn and succeed is a problem...a big one.

Wibbs

Strumms wrote: »

Who is supposed to be standing up for us ? Politicians ? Not a fûcking spine between them...

Look at the the taoisigh we’ve entrusted to lead , represent and work for us...up to their gills in corruption, self interest and skulduggery...its endemic.

It's the very nature of politics sadly. It tends to filter for **** and that's a worldwide problem and getting worse because mass media tends to further filter for ****. Someone like Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have a hope in hell of making US president today, neither would Roosevelt.

I don't have an Amazon account and wouldn't want one. It's an utter scumbag company across the board IMHO. Don't use Arsebook. I use duckduckgo for my searching and the only google sh1te I have to deal with is because they own youtube.

Way back in the US the government broke up the oil and tobacco companies because of antitrust/monopoly legislation and it's sorely needed now with a few companies, but I fear their huge wealth and lobbyists in their back pockets that's not going to happen any time soon. If anything the rise of say China will want them to support monopolies so long as they're American. The EU should do more and I suspect they might when they can.

WhiteMemento9

Wibbs wrote: »

It's the very nature of politics sadly. It tends to filter for **** and that's a worldwide problem and getting worse because mass media tends to further filter for ****. Someone like Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have a hope in hell of making US president today, neither would Roosevelt.

I don't have an Amazon account and wouldn't want one. It's an utter scumbag company across the board IMHO. Don't use Arsebook. I use duckduckgo for my searching and the only google sh1te I have to deal with is because they own youtube.

Way back in the US the government broke up the oil and tobacco companies because of antitrust/monopoly legislation and it's sorely needed now with a few companies, but I fear their huge wealth and lobbyists in their back pockets that's not going to happen any time soon. If anything the rise of say China will want them to support monopolies so long as they're American. The EU should do more and I suspect they might when they can.

This is the difficulty. If you want a mass movement to do this then you need to provide good alternatives. Ideally, people would step up to be the face of these alternatives that people trust and can get behind. They would promise things like better profit sharing, data privacy, transparency, etc. I think many people would jump ship in a heartbeat if they thought those alternatives existed.

All companies then become aware that they are here to serve the people and if they don't do that in a fair way that people like then **** them they will just move. It transfers the power back to the people. It should be us that gets them to enter into a service agreement with us of what we expect, not the other way around with them telling us you need to sign this crap before we let you use our service.

WhiteMemento9

On the political end of the spectrum, I don't even know how to comprehend what is going on. I try to come at it with empathy that people are just incredibly lost. They don't know what to believe. They have been dehumanized, downtrodden, and feel left behind in the current shift in the world. They seem unable to see that the direction in which they vote is steering the ship towards even worse outcomes for them. I don't know who coined the **** it vote but I think it encapsulates much of what has happened. We tried it this way, we tried it that way, well let's go the crazy way cause I just don't know anymore. There is a lack of anyone offering real answers because no one wants to address the bigger issues.

Vic_08

Wibbs wrote: »

It's the very nature of politics sadly. It tends to filter for **** and that's a worldwide problem and getting worse because mass media tends to further filter for ****. Someone like Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have a hope in hell of making US president today, neither would Roosevelt.

We get the leaders we deserve, sadly.

People don't seem to understand that the main power of democracy isn't to elect the leaders you want but to dispose of those that are bad.

Ireland is the perfect example of the disfunction that ensues when this does not happen. FF and FG get to pass the leadership ball back and forth here ad infinitum, there is no real consequences for their awful leadership, a few years in the cosy wilderness of opposition and back in power they pop. There is simply no incentive to do better, in fact the population mustn't think they are doing that badly if they keep re-electing them.

purifol0

Strumms wrote: »

Apple employment is significant but so is their dodging of taxes....

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0915/1075817-apple-tax-appeal-explained/

Two things:
1. Apple and Ireland are in cahoots
2. The amount of people employed by Apple over here has nothing to do with the amount of tax they pay us.

Basically Ireland is enabling Apple and other US companies to dodge US taxes - as long as we get a cut.

quokula

At its height about a decade ago, Pi­rate Trad­ing LLC was sell­ing more than $3.5 mil­lion a year of its Rav­elli-brand cam­era tripods—one of its best­selling prod­ucts—on Ama­zon, said owner Dalen Thomas.

In 2011, Ama­zon be­gan launch­ing its own ver­sions of six of Pi­rate Trad­ing’s top-sell­ing tripods un­der its Ama­zon­Ba­sics la­bel, he said. Mr. Thomas or­dered one of the Ama­zon tripods and found it had the same com­po­nents and shared Pi­rate Trad­ing’s de­sign. For its Ama­zon­Ba­sics prod­ucts, Ama­zon used the same man­u­fac­turer that Pi­rate Trad­ing had used.

Ama­zon priced one of its clone tripods be­low what Mr. Thomas paid his man­u­fac­turer to have Pi­rate Trad­ing’s ver­sion made, he said. He de­ter­mined it would be cheaper to buy Ama­zon’s ver­sions, repack­age and re­sell them than to buy and sell them on the terms he had been get­ting; he de­cided not to do that.

Ama­zon sus­pended Pi­rate Trad­ing cam­era tri­pod mod­els that com­peted with the Ama­zon­Ba­sics ver­sions re­peat­edly, Mr. Thomas said, al­leg­ing his tripods had au­then­tic­ity is­sues. Ama­zon rarely sus­pended the tri­pod mod­els that didn’t com­pete with Ama­zon­Ba­sics ver­sions, he said. In 2015, Ama­zon sus­pended all Rav­elli prod­ucts, he said, and even though the sus­pen­sion ended, his com­pa­ny’s tri­pod busi­ness is now a frac­tion of the size it was. Mr. Thomas said he found be­ing a seller on Ama­zon too risky and has largely piv­oted to real-es­tate in­vest­ing.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, this story boils down to:

- Manufacturer makes tripods
- Entrepreneur buys tripods from manufacturer, sells them to giant marketplace provided by amazon, and makes $3.5 million
- Amazon starts buying the tripods from manufacturer, sells them to consumers more cheaply, entrepreneur can no longer compete
- Consumers end up with cheaper tripods and manufacturer continues to do trade directly through Amazon
- Entrepreneur ends up with a sob story and $3.5 million in his pocket

Without Amazon, it's doubtful the small business in question could ever have made that amount of money to begin with. The original manufacturer wouldn't be getting the sales they were through this business and now through amazon. And consumers who want a tripod would be paying more for it.

Ultimately that's why amazon succeed, they give consumers what they want which is convenient access to a wide array of cheap products. For the 99% of people who aren't Amazon's employees or competitors, the company's existence effectively improves their lives by making things affordable that otherwise might not be, which is why there's no kind of mass uprising against them. You could argue that some point may come where they put their competitors out of business and then hike up the prices without having to compete, but so far that has never happened, and it is unlikely to happen as there is really no barrier for new entrants into the market to compete with them if they were to do that. It's not like there are no other online shops, there are thousands of places other than Amazon where you can buy stuff, in contrast to a traditional monopoly where there are usually massive barriers to entry.

That's not to say they're some kind of saints obviously, their treatment of employees is reputedly terrible, and they don't pay enough tax (but that's no different to any other multinational and that's on governments to cooperate with each other to solve it), but the idea that Jeff Bezos is sucking money out of the economy that could be spread around everyone else isn't really that simple - his wealth exists on paper and if it were to disappear overnight it wouldn't suddenly mean there was more for the rest of us, as economies are way more complex than that.

WhiteMemento9

quokula wrote: »

To play devil's advocate for a minute, this story boils down to:

- Manufacturer makes tripods
- Entrepreneur buys tripods from manufacturer, sells them to giant marketplace provided by amazon, and makes $3.5 million
- Amazon starts buying the tripods from manufacturer, sells them to consumers more cheaply, entrepreneur can no longer compete
- Consumers end up with cheaper tripods and manufacturer continues to do trade directly through Amazon
- Entrepreneur ends up with a sob story and $3.5 million in his pocket

Without Amazon, it's doubtful the small business in question could ever have made that amount of money to begin with. The original manufacturer wouldn't be getting the sales they were through this business and now through amazon. And consumers who want a tripod would be paying more for it.

Ultimately that's why amazon succeed, they give consumers what they want which is convenient access to a wide array of cheap products. For the 99% of people who aren't Amazon's employees or competitors, the company's existence effectively improves their lives by making things affordable that otherwise might not be, which is why there's no kind of mass uprising against them. You could argue that some point may come where they put their competitors out of business and then hike up the prices without having to compete, but so far that has never happened, and it is unlikely to happen as there is really no barrier for new entrants into the market to compete with them if they were to do that. It's not like there are no other online shops, there are thousands of places other than Amazon where you can buy stuff, in contrast to a traditional monopoly where there are usually massive barriers to entry.

That's not to say they're some kind of saints obviously, their treatment of employees is reputedly terrible, and they don't pay enough tax (but that's no different to any other multinational and that's on governments to cooperate with each other to solve it), but the idea that Jeff Bezos is sucking money out of the economy that could be spread around everyone else isn't really that simple - his wealth exists on paper and if it were to disappear overnight it wouldn't suddenly mean there was more for the rest of us, as economies are way more complex than that.

It is a false economy where the cheapest product is not better for the overall economy. In its very simplest form, let's say we create a society and we have 10 people in it. One person owns the market place and 9 other people are the owners of the products. Each of us makes a good living and can afford lots of different products. The marketplace decides to copy and run one of these people out of business. The other 8 people do now get the product at a slightly cheaper price but one person is now broke. We now have a concentration of wealth in one area. Now, this has happened in the past on small scale and the system can function fairly well if the marketplace in this scenario is making up for the increased profit by redistributing it in a somewhat equitable way. When the other 8 get swallowed up in a similar fashion without proper distribution back by the company doing it. You now have decreased everyone's standard of living but great they can buy some products at a cheaper price?

This is now happening on a global scale. It is why I made the connection between increased productivity but stagnation in wages. It is a completely false economy.

As to your point about this working the way it should. We are in the very early days of the internet and mass markets and understanding the impacts they have on society. The advantage that Amazon is gaining from other companies 3rd party metrics and the ability to analyze companies and then copy and stifle them as competition is in no way ethical or working along the lines you have outlined. It should be considered something like insider trading but as of yet we haven't got proper regulation in these areas.

kowloon

Strumms wrote: »

‘Enough to live on’ is great but what is life without trying to achieve goals, nice car, house for family.. holidays etc... life isn’t about existing in safety , it never has been, it’s there to be experienced, enjoyed, who the fûck is happy existing?

Machines doing our jobs and driving down the ability of people to earn and succeed is a problem...a big one.

I'm not saying people shouldn't strive for more, I'm saying society can afford to give everyone a basic standard of living to start from. Some people look on success as a relative thing. They require other people to live in misery before they can appreciate their higher standard of living.
As for the machines, what if a machine was created tomorrow that could do all the work and replaced the entire labour force? That should free up people to do something else with their time, but under the current system, those people would suffer. Society is crazy enough that we would have poverty in a post-scarcity world.
If we were to design a society that took care of everyone and sought to minimise overall suffering it wouldn't look like what we have now.

astrofool

The producer of the item is still making as much, if not more than before (via volume), the middle person is making less (Entrepreneur or Amazon in this case), consumer spends less for the same item. This comes up on business shows every week, if you're the middle person, you're at risk, you need to keep innovating to make money, or you need to be the manufacturer of the item (and/or have a patent).

While there are issues with Amazon/Capitalism/Corporations, in this case the system worked.

Ubbquittious

astrofool wrote: »

The producer of the item is still making as much, if not more than before (via volume), the middle person is making less (Entrepreneur or Amazon in this case), consumer spends less for the same item. This comes up on business shows every week, if you're the middle person, you're at risk, you need to keep innovating to make money, or you need to be the manufacturer of the item (and/or have a patent).

While there are issues with Amazon/Capitalism/Corporations, in this case the system worked.

In this case I doubt it would have stopped Bezos if the company was making the tripods themselves but the problem is there are loads of those middle people around now and if they all folded next year the economy of the Western world is in trouble


There are loads of entitled middlepeople around who think they have the right to a bottomless source of income by buying stuff from poor countries for cheap to sell in rich countries however eventually that temperature differential will fade away


Eventually companies become hopelessly set in their ways when they stop local production and turn to outsourcing. A crowd that employed 20 carpenters years ago might only have 1 now and 20 marketing staff to try and stay ahead of the other companies reselling the same stuff. It will be very hard for them to stop being a simple resale company


Doesn't make Bezos any less of a cnut though

WhiteMemento9

In one of the examples given he took a shoe company that was making on-trend products with recyclable material. He copied them and sold them at half the price with non-recyclable materials.

I often think when you see people come out to defend these kinds of things that maybe we do deserve the world we get.

Works the way it should, ffs.

ShooterSF

mvt wrote: »

What we need to do is organize groups of workers to smash those machines to protect their jobs.


Seriously though, we're all fecked :mad:

Nope. We need to move away from the idea that everyone should have a 9-5 5 day work week while still keeping their living quality at the same level or better. We should be embracing machines taking over menial tasks for us, we can't stop that, but should make sure the public are the ones that benefit. Me personally I'd like to see some form of UBI but I'm sure others would have different views.

astrofool

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

In one of the examples given he took a shoe company that was making on-trend products with recyclable material. He copied them and sold them at half the price with non-recyclable materials.

I often think when you see people come out to defend these kinds of things that maybe we do deserve the world we get.

Works the way it should, ffs.

That's pretty much what every fashion outlet does (it's often called fast fashion), from Penneys to H&M to TK Maxx, in that example it's 2 different products (presumably branded different as well), so Amazon had to design and manufacture the new product themselves, and it's not as functional as the other product.

I do agree that recyclable products, and products made from recycled materials, should be encouraged, as you've shown, consumers won't do it by themselves, so legislation may be needed (e.g. lower VAT) to encourage this behavior.

WhiteMemento9

astrofool wrote: »

That's pretty much what every fashion outlet does (it's often called fast fashion), from Penneys to H&M to TK Maxx, in that example it's 2 different products (presumably branded different as well), so Amazon had to design and manufacture the new product themselves, and it's not as functional as the other product.

I do agree that recyclable products, and products made from recycled materials, should be encouraged, as you've shown, consumers won't do it by themselves, so legislation may be needed (e.g. lower VAT) to encourage this behavior.

You are missing the point here that this is a central marketplace in which all of these companies operate. Amazon has access to massive databases of information which are trawling through to find profitable situations and squeezing out people where they can in the name of more profit. We can argue that this has happened in the past but the sheer scale, size, and dominance of Amazon along with the data it has on all of the users makes this incredibly dangerous. Acting like this is a run of the mill thing that has always happened to this point is extremely native.

astrofool

I'm not disagreeing, just the examples you're using don't support your theory, and show a lukewarm knowledge of how retail and business works.

Arthur Daley

This is where the left should be cleaning up.

But what we have now in politics is a fake left concerned with SJW nonsense that impacts miniscule numbers of people.

WhiteMemento9

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing, just the examples you're using don't support your theory, and show a lukewarm knowledge of how retail and business works.

They are all examples of the same thing? :pac:

The thing which I just referenced. You are the one trying to equate them to something which isn't the issue here.

Triangle

Surely if people understand the issue theyll move from amazon.
The only link I have with them is prime video and maybe 2 purchases throughout the year.
There's plenty of options out there if you do your research. It's not like amazon is the cheapest always.
It also opens up the opportunity for a smaller player to start getting into that market and undercut amazon I. E. Stripe vs PayPal.