Hacker News Reader

Comment by aniketpant | Hacker News Reader

> For example, people have more ways to search for information than ever before — and increasingly this is happening outside the context of only a search engine. Often the answer is just a click or an app away: You can ask Alexa a question from your kitchen; read your news on Twitter; ask friends for information via WhatsApp; and get recommendations on Snapchat or Pinterest. When searching for products online, you may be visiting Amazon, eBay, Walmart, or any one of a number of e-commerce providers, where most online shopping queries happen. Similarly, in areas like travel and real estate, Google faces strong competition for search queries from many businesses that are experts in these areas.

I like how they've mentioned competitors as if they want to take a stand against regulations together while also enacting a feeling that there's enough competition within each of these markets.

View on HN

I think it was Thiel in Zero to One, who said something like "Companies with monopolies love to talk about their competition", and then he goes on to use Google as a case study, ironically.

Historically, Google made themselves look small by casting themselves as an advertising company, instead of a web-search company. (they own a very small portion of overall advertising, compared to their portion of web search). By making advertisers their competitors, they look like the underdog.

Here, it seems like Google's position has evolved further: "hey, look at all of these other websites with search bars, they are our competition, and they're crushing us". I guess moving the goal-posts is a very effective strategy. :)

The Amazon PR writing says the same, they compare themselves to US Retail saying that they are just 1% of that huge diverse market.... really?

Is that not fair? Amazon is legitimately in competition with me walking to the store.

I don’t think it’s fair, just like I don’t think Standard Oil could have pulled off a “We’re in competition with millions of people’s feet” and millions of horses.

Tangential thought that this reminded me of - I remember reading that when Rockefeller started Standard Oil, the total market for refined oil products was tiny, and the reason it was called "Standard Oil" was because it was so hard to find reliable refined oil products with consistent chemical qualities, and that the introduction of more standardized products contributed to the demand exploding. Within a few decades, the market for oil products was a few orders of magnitude larger than it was when Standard Oil began.

By 1890, even though Standard Oil sold like 90% of the oil in the US, the size of the market not controlled by Standard Oil was bigger than the total market when Standard Oil started (or close). So, in a sense, Standard Oil could have plausibly said they were in a competition with feet and horses? If they disappeared entirely, the market would have been the same size it was before they existed. Obviously the demand for oil would have gone up dramatically anyway without Standard Oil's anti-competitive practices, but it doesn't seem exactly right to treat Standard Oil as taking a slice of a fixed pie when the pie grew so much during it's existence...

Here's a chart of US oil production - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...

Standard Oil was started in 1870.

I personally think Amazon's dominance in ecommerce of physical good is fragile and it would be hard to argue monopolistic behaviour there. If Shopify grows like it is growing right now, it would be quite easy for brands to build their own stores through it without bothering to list on Amazon. At least the ones with their own name pull can afford to do this.

Amazon hasn't really been able to use their dominance in online retail to any great extent. They failed or are after thoughts in every other market they entered. Video, music, phones, tablets, auctions, handmade (i.e. etsy competition) and their app store are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Profit margins aren't great either.

The only really abusive thing that they do is around eBooks. They definitely have a monopoly there and doing anti-competitive things to maintain it.

Their AmazonBasics line has been very successful and incredibly anti-competitive too.

Before you go and compare it to brick and mortar in-house brands like Walmart has, consider that Walmart has a higher investment in things they end up stocking in store (they pay for things up-front and shelf space is comparatively scarce). Amazon doesn't have the concept of "shelf space", and Amazon doesn't paid for the product up-front in many cases.

Walmart is notoriously pushy on suppliers, but once product is on the shelf both Walmart and the supplier's interests are heavily aligned. Amazon would rather peddle you their Basics line instead.

Walmart's interest are only aligned till they can cut a better deal with some other brand or they come up with their own product.

I didn't ascribe any virtue to Walmart's position, but it helps to illustrate how Amazon is able to be much more effective at corning the market.

Is it? Maybe 1% of all retail, but is Whole Foods 1% of "supermarkets" in the US?

It's because a lot of anti-trust law depends on defining the market you operate in and your scope within that market. So by insisting he's not just e-commerce (where amazon is just over 30%), but retail in general he frames the discussion to avoid anti-trust problems.

An effective strategy against people that don't care...

> Often the answer is just a click or an app away.

It used to be "a click away". Now that it's "an app away", what does that say about App Store antitrust?

Also, "We face competition from... the other gigacorps in this hearing" is not a great look.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com