Your assumption is that Amazon, the middleman, must exist.
If Best Buy, a brick and mortar, were anything like Amazon, they would be under investigation as well. Nonsense comparison.
If Best Buy, a brick and mortar, were anything like Amazon, they would be under investigation as well. Nonsense comparison.
You don't think stores should exist? How do you justify that?
>If Best Buy, a brick and mortar, were anything like Amazon, they would be under investigation as well.
I don't see how they are so different. Both are stores that sell third and first party items. BB even does significant online business. Care to explain?
There are less obvious differences such as the contract terms agreed between brands and Best Buy versus the ones between sellers and Amazon. Those details often are only discovered through litigation.
To suggest Best Buy was already doing what Amazon is doing is nonsense.
> This is not true of _all_ the brands carried by Best Buy.
Now you're just playing word games. Both Amazon and Best Buy sell some amount of stuff that could be sold direct to consumer, and some amount of stuff that could not. Even if the proportions are different, I'm not seeing how they differ in principle.
How would they acquire it? Amazon is normally their answer to "I'm trying to sell, but don't have the web traffic". Seems like if they could get the traffic without Amazon, they'd leave the platform, like Nike did.
The facts are that Amazon does not sell only payment processing, order fulfillment or customer services.
I might agree with you if this sentence used a generic term instead of "Amazon". However it specifically refers to Amazon.
I think people forget that Amazon did not operate as a middleman when they first appeared in the early 1990's.
Amazon was originally a bookseller, not a middleman for other sellers.
Not only does the sentence above from GP assume the existence of Amazon, it assumes that Amazon must act as a middleman for other sellers.