Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcappleton | Hacker News Reader

I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them. However if they stifle competition, that's a problem.

From what I have read and my experience, they are stifling competition. For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten. Also I have an ebook on amazon and in order to get exposure you have to exclusively sell on amazon. I get why he does these things, but that's just not right.

Amazon isn't a horrible corporation, but I think some of the things they do are anticompetitive and should be changed.

So are they too big? No being big is fine and helps them be more efficient. The real question in my mind is if they are using their size to compete unfairly.

View on HN

They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV).

So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.

Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position.

Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.

Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.

I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action.

The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year.

I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.

Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly.

When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble.

Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off.

By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.

I believe Apple bought Beats...

Na that's a bunch of BS Amazon came up with to validate their position. There is nothing stopping Amazon from putting Chromecast app support other than Amazon. The only thing I can guess is Amazon wanted chromecast to enable support for their player format and chromecast didnt'.

The Chromecast app is a Google App. Google App access is conditional on agreeing to a Google contract called the MADA which requires device makers preinstall all of their software and set Google Search as default.

One of those apps is Google Play Books. So in order for Google to permit them to support Chromecast, Amazon would've had to agree to pre-install their competitor's ebook store on every single Kindle.

See the issue?

They also already have a contract with Bing for search.

I read the Google Cast SDK license agreement and didn't see anything about search engines or requiring certain apps to be installed.

The Cast SDK is not at issue, the Google Cast app likely is. (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...)

That would be for adding chromecast support to their devices... doesn't preclude them from supporting chromecast, or having Amazon Video in the Google Play store, supporting chromecast for playback.

Adding Chromecast support to their devices is what this blockage is about. Amazon doesn't want to sell devices that won't be supported by their Kindle Fire line of products.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure one of the conditions is also to make the Play Store the primary (if not only) preinstalled source of apps for the device. This conflicts with Amazon's own app store, which is integrated into the Amazon app (as distributed by Amazon; the one on the Play Store omits this feature).

Hell, the whole Play Store is basically a direct competitor to Amazon's multimedia offerings. While Amazon's own behavior is scummy, it's also unsurprising given the situation.

Do you have a source? I searched and got this story [0], that says Bezos wanted "Prime Video Player to be a pack-in app on units sold through Amazon" and Google/Apple refused, so he pulled it.

0: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains...

I'd refer you to Ben Edelman's explanation of the Google MADA. http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html (Note: He has been paid to consult for Microsoft, he's a biased source. But he's the person who initially discovered these agreements and put them somewhere public on the Internet.)

EDIT: Sidebar, but the whole "Private business discussions should stay private" comment in your link... Bezos knows how appalled we'd all be if we saw the way these companies acted behind closed doors. There's a reason the MADA is confidential too.

There's zero mention of Amazon there. My link has a purported quote direct from Bezos on the issue. If you want to make the case that Amazon's Fire devices aren't Google-suite compatible because they don't follow Google's requirements, uh, yeah, that's fine. I don't see the conflict.

That has nothing to do with Prime Video on Android (i.e. in Google Play) not supporting Google Cast. That's an intentional decision by Amazon. To enable Chromecast in their iOS/GPlay apps, Amazon just needs to register the app (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration), not agree to the MADA on other devices.

Amazon might as well ban all Microsoft products because MS doesn't allow Amazon to replace Cortana with Alexa on all sold-thru-Amazon PCs.

uh, for chromecast, they have an open API and you are responsible for making your android app compatible with that. There are no built in apps for chromecast.

It's a prisoner's dilemma, and they are structurally locked into the defect position. Neither company can switch to cooperating of its own accord without coordinating with the other.

It's simply a coordination problem.

If it were simply a coordination problem, Sundar has Jeff's phone number.

Google's entire business model around Android depends on withholding their apps unless manufacturers agree to preload their apps and set default search and the like. It's not a coordination issue, their whole business depends on them not backing down on the requirement.

And being required to preload Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle platform, is similarly fundamentally unacceptable to Amazon. These two companies are completely unable to come to terms on this because their requirements are so blatantly opposed to each others' businesses.

As these mega-conglomerates start selling everything under the sun service-wise in lock-in ecosystems, these sorts of clashes are likely to increase in impact and number.

> They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV

This is such an interesting topic.

If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand?

The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my stuff, not yours.

What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM?

It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

It's about intersection of "anti-competitive" and "big enough to alter market dynamics".

In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive.

If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft.

Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive.

Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by Amazon, merely distributed by them.

To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively affecting customers.

Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire Sticks.

No kidding... I finally broke down and got an NVidia Shield TV so I could have one device for just about everything, I also wanted a 4K capable device, but that was secondary.

> In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive.

what? That's complete nonsense.

If I want to bring something to market, I can't just force my competitor to sell it in their stores. "Dan's Cars" could start up and force Ford to sell their cars in the Ford stores - crazy.

That's not how this works. If "Dan" expects to sell cars, then he has to do that himself, not rely on, or expect his competitors to do that for him.

How Dan's competitors sell their cars is frankly none of Dan's business.

You're completely ignoring the "if Ford controlled all dealerships" part of the hypothetical. Which means you're railing against a pure strawman.

The interesting thing here is that they are selling both their own products AND providing a platform for others to sell their products. Unless they compete with the products Amazon is making.

And that's their choice.

If I go to the trouble of building a store (bricks n mortar or online) then I'm going to sell what I want to sell.

I built the fruit store, NO, I don't want to sell live Aardvarks from my store, and it's preposterous that you think you can force me to do that.

It's more like I will sell the apples and oranges of all the farms except for that one farmer who dared to try to open up an apple store. At some point, if you are the only apple and orange store in the area, the government may decide you are abusing your power as the biggest such store and are acting anti-competitively

Surely it only makes sense that I prioritize selling MY apples in MY store, and no somebody elses.

I built a store to sell my stuff and make money, after all.

Sure, if your store mainly sells your apples do whatever you want. But once you open everyone else to sell their apples at your store for a cut, and everyone starts to rely on it as the only apple marketplace, screwing over the apple farmer next door who tried to open his own apple store is questionable

I see a few problems with this argument.

1. Market share matters, for what should be obvious reasons. Amazon is, in that regard, a far cry from your sole proprietorship fruit stand.

2. Amazon is much closer to Walmart than it is to Apple or Ford; Amazon didn't do retail to support their product line, they rolled out a product line once they dominated in retail.

3. Sure, consumers can go order a Chromecast from somewhere else; just like how users could always download Netscape on Windows. That didn't stop antitrust claims from being brought against Microsoft for their practice of tying, because they were fundamentally abusing a dominant position in one market to assure their dominance in others despite weaker product offerings. And here we are, with everyone subscribed to Prime for the free shipping, and getting an unasked-for set of streaming services bundled with. Which aren't compatible with Chromecast. Which Amazon uses to justify banning Chromecast from its store. It makes the tying of MS years past look amateurish by comparison.

> If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand?

Analogies are limited but to play along, it's as if you own the largest supermarket in a place that only has 3 orchards (assume you're isolated from the rest of the world), and you own one of those orchards, and ONLY sell fruit from your orchard while refusing to sell fruit from the other 2 orchards.

Those other two sell directly to the customer (and to small grocers) so they still survive. But they miss out on the customers that come to the supermarket and might have otherwise bought fruit from those other 2 orchards.

But if it's "their store" and not a "marketplace" then they should be required to deal with counterfeit goods, and deal with returns regardless of seller... they're trying to have their cake and a piece of everyone else's too.

This is when I cancelled my Prime account and started trying to figure out how to put a gift wishlist somewhere else.

Try https://www.dreamlist.com

That's the thing; Amazon itself has sort of become a search engine of things/products. There are so many third party sellers that only sell their products through Amazon and not even their own websites that many people use Amazon as the first place to look for a product.

Better yet: if you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon, guess which company's $40 multimedia stick is the first result? Hint: it's named after a South American rainforest, starts with an "A", and ends with a "mazon".

I recall their reasoning at the time was because those devies didn't support Amazon Prime Video and this was 'confusing' to customers.

I see this as flexing their muscles and stopping the sale of competitive video on demand services unless they play nice and support Amazon Prime Video.

What we don't know is if Amazon refuse to build their app for these devices.

>For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.

Every distribution contract I've seen has that clause. I worked for a game company that used to give away (to friends and family) the games they couldn't sell through their distributor because they weren't allowed to sell directly below list.

You're allowed to list on Amazon at whatever price you want, you just need to charge at least as much everywhere.

That said, I'm not aware of recent enforcement of this, but it is in the terms.

>Amazon isn't a horrible corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies. I call your attention to "Anti-competitive practices" and "Treatment_of_workers".

I mean, all warehouse work sucks. It's $12-15/hr work with literally zero educational requirements and no people skills required. Any warehouse job paying more than $10 is going to be fairly miserable.

Is Amazon evil? Maybe. But no more or less evil than most every other organization that runs a large warehouse.

Appaling thinking.

Firstly, I don't know that all warehouse work sucks. Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same.

Secondly, if that were the case, it would be only more reason to be outraged! What, companies paying workers under minimum wage (as low as 2.70£ an hour), treating their employees as cattle without the bare minimum conditions of dignity, all the while making its CEO the richest man on earth? We're supposed to be okay with this?? Shrug our shoulders and say "eh maybe they're evil, so what", say "a company that makes 150,000,000,000$ a year can't pay its workers minimum wage, their work will be miserable but that's life"?

What an appalling way to see things.

> Post an assessment that shows this are the widespread conditions in the industry, or at least other examples of companies doing the same.

What? Hot summers with lots of heavy lifting and long shifts for low pay, all while being treated by management as a completely replaceable cog (because at-will employment, union busting, and the low-skill nature of the job means YOU ACTUALLY ARE a replaceable cog)? That's warehouse work.

I'm not even sure if there are studies about this because it's just... completely common knowledge among the populations who work these jobs. Here's a blog post for example from 2011, describing exactly this conditions at probably-not-amazon from a former employee. Note he talks in broad strokes -- not "my employer sucked", but "warehouse work sucks". https://warehousetomarketer.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/warehou...

> What an appalling way to see things.

I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm describing reality. I don't think positive descriptions of reality can ever be appalling, unless your goal is to bury your head in the sand.

Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior.

Realizing that working conditions for low-skill blue collar folk are systematically crappy, and that we need a systematic solution, is not "appalling". It's realistic and pragmatic.

Besides which, counting on the beneficence of particular corporations and/or particular instances of PR pressure has never been a sustainable method for producing good working conditions or livable wages.

Focusing on specific company's workers instead of focusing on systematic improvements to the negotiating power of labor is what's appalling. It takes a serious political problem and turns it into a corporate PR problem that's solvable without addressing the underlying problems. Because the empirically effective PR expenditures -- installing air conditioning, clamping down on loud mouths, token improvements to workplace culture, marginally shorter shifts... none of this makes manual labor on $12/hr with zero workplace protections and a minimal social safety net any less dehumanizing.

(And Bezos's net work has absolutely nothing to do with whether working conditions in warehouses suck -- IDC if the CEO is making 100K or 100B, and neither do the employees working in the warehouse because their job sucks just as much either way.(

>Focusing on Amazon doesn't solve the problem because Amazon is not the problem. They're just one more employer behaving the same way as all the other employers, in a system that explicitly allows and even incentivizes this behavior.

Fair enough, you changed my mind in that regard (if indeed it is the case that this is the widespread situation in the warehouse industry, which, again, I'm not convinced of based on word-of-mouth or one single blog post; nonetheless I will look into it).

What I was referring to as appalling, though, is the idea that this is somehow okay, somehow excusable, somehow not scandalous, either because "everyone does it", or because "it's unqualified labour", or any other excuse. There is no excuse. A company, furthermore one so obscenely profitable for its owners, absolutely cannot be allowed to operate this way and to treat their workers this way. That is what I classify as appalling. We the people cannot indifferently let that slide. We can give no rest, else the balance shifts entirely to their favour.

> . For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.

I don't know how much of a choice Amazon really has here. Amazon is the ubiquitous online marketplace for everything. If I find your product on amazon, and then later find it for cheaper on your website, I'm not going to visit amazon anymore to purchase said product. You just used amazon as an advertising platform against itself.

You make a good point. However I still think it's underhanded an unnecessary. People are going to buy from amazon for a host of other reasons such as convenience and maybe free shipping if they are prime members. I think amazon needs to compete based on value add, not with an underhanded contract.

I will almost never sign a so-called "standard" software development contract because standard practice is to treat the little guy poorly. I think the same goes with amazon. Just because it is standard doesn't mean it's right.

Most vendors don't charge that much less for direct sales, at least no more than is probably likely for Amazon's fees for "fullfilled by Amazon"

> For example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just rotten.

How is it stifling competition to say "If you want access to our marketplace, you can't charge a premium"?

The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?

> The "can't" is the stifling part. Why does the marketplace care what the prices are?

Not that I have any insider information but from what I read above I assume (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me if I am incorrect) that these agreements only apply to "ships from and sold by" and "ships from" Amazon.com.

So don't put it on Amazon. It's their ballpit; they're not stopping you from selling elsewhere, and they're not the only game in town when it comes to online sales. I can't buy a Honda from a Toyota dealer, but that doesn't mean Toyota is stifling the market.

Amazon is like 5-10% of the US retail market. Most companies are anti-competitive, it's when they are anti competitive and a big chunk of the market that it's a problem. Am I missing something?

>amazon had a rule that you can't sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site.

Why not create an Amazon exclusive SKU, the same way manufacturers do for Costco and the like?

That's a fairly standard retailer request. Walmart doesn't want you selling them something for $15 that they sell for $20 at $15 on your web site either.

Walmart is in fact even worse to 3p sellers: they will remove your offer if they decide it's too expensive, which tends to be (from what I hear from active sellers) in the double digit percentages of the time.

They monitor against other sites and may remove if yours is too much more than other sites.

This is the most unbiased view of Amazon I've seen.

The only fix available for big companies doing anticompetitive practices is splitting them. The question of "are they too big?" is basically interchangeable with "are they harming the market?"

Well, ok, there are others fixes around, tried more often. They have an unbeatable track record of failure. Thus it's perfectly fine for the author to ignore them.

At what point is something anti-competitive?

Facebook cloning snap features? They are dominant in social media, should they be allowed to do that?

Google and their ad blocker plans?

Being willing and able to lose money for a few years to drive a startup out of a new market?

Yeah I'd say those are all anti-competitive.

> I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them.

I'm seriously wondering what about Amazon (the store) is so great. They are just a shop. They may have a little more inventory than anybody else. Their ordering system works fine. They have good user reviews. But all that does not justify the enormous negative effect they have on competition. And they also have problems, e.g. with counterfeit products.

In other words, saying "more power to the best" does not make much sense if "the best" is only marginally better than everybody else.

Where Amazon absolutely kills it is in their logistics.

As a store they're... frankly terrible. Search is complete garbage. Filtering is clunky. The product categories are an absolute disaster. And it's often impossible to tell genuine product from counterfeit (a fact that, by the way, has me terrified for folks inadvertently buying fake solar observation glasses for use during the 2017 solar eclipse) It's honestly a terrible shopping experience in almost every way imaginable.

But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost (edit: to the consumer). IMO, that is what puts Amazon above the rest. With Prime I'm honestly dismayed when I see an arrival date that's more than 2-3 days out... that's the level of expectation they've set in the market.

Of course, competitors are starting to match them. Walmart, for example, is really advancing in this space. But IMO Amazon is still the king of logistics.

For now, anyway.

> But through direct supply and their fulfillment program they can get products to consumers insanely fast for zero cost.

What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right?

When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days. I don't see the difference with Amazon, except that I have to find that small shop through a Google search, whereas I can order on Amazon directly.

What do you mean zero cost? They still have to pay for mail, right?

I had a feeling that would be confusing.

Zero cost to the consumer.

When I order a product from a random small internet shop, it also arrives usually within 1-3 days.

Well, maybe this is unique to Canada, but that's absolutely not my experience. Not even close. 7-10 days is optimistic for smaller retailers. 14-21 is not unexpected.

You mention "fake solar observation glasses". do you mind elaborating a bit: how do you tell if they are fake? Is there something missing in the knockoffs? What is the effect of a fake?

Worst-case, the effect could be that they don't protect eyes properly, causing blindness.

This exactly.

They claim certifications and safety ratings they do not have.

If they're not actually suitable, the result can be severe eye damage.

As for identifying the "real thing", I found the specific brand NASA recommends, and then tried to find a reputable supplier through Amazon with reviews indicating, by people who've tested them, that they were genuine.

It's still not foolproof, but at least it's something.

At minimum, if you're in the market for glasses for the eclipse, if you can see anything other than the sun when you put them on, they're not dark enough. Solar glasses are REALLY dark.

I bought some glasses on line for the 99 eclipse and didn't have a problem

- posted from my screenreader

I do think competitors are catching up with shipping. I honestly find the reviews helpful. I could be completely wrong but the reviews on amazon seem superior to most other e-commerce sites. I could read the reviews and buy somewhere else but I rarely do that.

These competitors are catching up with shipping because of the way Amazon's demands changed the entire shipping economy. UPS offers entire categories of delivery products now available to Amazon's competitors because they developed them originally for Amazon.

In Europe it's even crazier both ways.

Amazon UK sends me tons of counterfeit products, and their stock of many items I like is extremely unstable. That is, many products or supplies I need often get discontinued.

That said, almost everything is 1-day delivery on Prime. I often order at 10 pm and have my products at 9 am. Sadly, they now use contractors to deliver on their Amazon Logistics, instead of good parcel companies. And the quality of service is going down.

They still use DPD for expensive items (that's how much they trust their own Amazon Logistics), which is cool as they offer a 1 hour delivery slot. When they used DPD for everything it was awesome.

As they've focused more and more on third-party resellers and rebranded/white labeled products their store experience has gone down-hill.

Search for something specific like "white nike hightops" and maybe 30% of the results will be what you are looking for. Even if you navigate through their categories to "Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry : Men : Shoes : Athletic : White", 20% of the results are not white athletic shoes for men.

The relevance tanks even further if you're searching for specific computer components -- I have fled to NewEgg or NCIX for this purpose.

I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product", or they could find a nearby internet shop so shipping is fast. They should be able to replicate the same experience as Amazon, and make it better, and apply it to the whole internet.

I don't understand what is taking Google so long to figure this out. This is where the money seems to be.

(Otoh ... maybe they are afraid of becoming too large.)

>I think Google is failing here really. They should be able to find the exact product. I should be able to click on an image, and select "Find stores in my area selling this product

Google already does that. At least in my area. Type in a search. Click "Shopping" and it shows stores nearby that could have the item. It's not 100% perfect because it'll be decades before retailers allow Google to monitor their inventory in real-time, but it at least gives me leads, especially when I'm in an unfamiliar city.

While I understand your frustration, there is an explanation. You are thinking of search & filtering as some sort of mathematical / boolean algebra process (hey, it's ok, I'm a CS grad).

Amazon is thinking about it as, "what does our show show that customers who have searched for [white nike hightops] have actually purchased in the past?" This is their search fitness function and they don't think they are wrong.

I agree on the broader point that 3p sellers and counterfeit products along with spam listings are a mess.

You may be assuming intent where there is really only incompetence

The ordering systems works fantastically given the volume, Prime shipping is huge, and their inventory really is broader.

The combination of (a) not needing to log in again to place an order (b) most things I'm interested in ordering being in their inventory (c) receiving most orders within 48 hours (and many within 24) is really potent. I've placed maybe a half-dozen non-Amazon orders online in the last six months, and apparently 163 with Amazon.

When possible, I avoid anything that's not fulfilled by Amazon due to point (c) above -- I'll find alternatives or even pay slightly more to get prime shipping.

Most people already have Amazon account, and the lock-in effect is huge. I also have one, though I buy occasionally (few items per year max).

Recently I wanted to buy some electronics, and I found a good offer on a non-Amazon website. But when I wanted to proceed with the purchase, they asked for so many of my personal data (all of it required) that I decided I prefer to pay slightly more and buy from Amazon, than to hand my personal data to yet another third party.

Their search is pretty terrible. Everything else (the ordering process, delivery options, delivery time, returns system, etc.) is pretty fantastic. From my phone, I can order, say, another batch of my favourite kitchen towel brand in about 5 seconds. It will be in my hallway the next day. I don't know of anyone else that does that.

Amazon is scary in that way, because the ease of which you can magically manifest goods through its app means it becomes ingrained your routine, even to the point where you're itching to order something, even if you don't need it. They've really nailed the worst of consumerist culture, too.

It's also scary in the sense that they're slowly becoming the source of everything I buy. Whether I want household stuff, electronics, a suitcase, some hardware tool -- I invariably reach for Amazon unless it's something I know that Amazon doesn't have. (Amazon is still pretty useless for high-end, quality home decor and furniture, for example.)

As for the search, I suspect it works fine from Amazon's point of view. It's designed to offer you products that Amazon thinks you will buy, not what you searched for, and it tries very hard not to return "no results found". It is very frustrating for "power users", though.

The single source payment system is pretty nice too... I don't like entering my CC on random sites, and given Paypal's reputation, they're far worse than Amazon from what I can tell. My bigger issue is the spammy/counterfeit products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com