Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjoonathan | Hacker News Reader

Obviously Amazon's anticompetitive behavior is good for Amazon. Why on earth does that make it good for me? Why shouldn't I oppose it?

View on HN

competing is not anti-competitive.

> Even though some competing platforms charge much lower fees, if Steve lowers his prices on another shopping site, Amazon’s algorithms punish him

I think in most cases, this "fair-pricing" bot kicks in because a seller has instead inflated prices on Amazon to squeeze more profit from Amazon customers. Amazon thinks that such tactics diminish the value of their marketplace, so they apply this crude heuristic as a way to disincentivize it.

So to answer your question: it's good for you, because if you're shopping on Amazon you can reasonably expect that you're getting good prices (at least in theory). This leads to a virtuous cycle which feeds the beast: people buy more stuff from Amazon, Amazon can operate more efficiently, you get lower prices.

Steve is griping against Amazon, but quite possibly he just has a bad business, and the core of his problem is that he can't compete effectively with other sellers on Amazon. But to him, Amazon seems like the problem because he feels like he's between a rock and a hard place.

But, hypothetical harm aside, Amazon (FBA especially) is currently a really good deal for sellers in terms of shipping costs and access to customers.

Your comment isn't an argument, just a pair of questions. Don't ask me to justify your opinion, figure it out yourself.

Amazon promoting products that Amazon is most likely to sell is NOT "anticompetitive behavior."

Every company seeks to do things to benefit themselves. Do you oppose them all?

Yeah, yeah, you're "just asking questions." Lol. Questions that relentlessly frame the matter in an agrgessively pro-amazon stance.

Amazon is obviously free to show the best deals on Amazon. That's not at all what this is about, and you know it.

You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We don't have to justify that to anyone.

You are missing the point of the whole argument. Amazon is successful because it does TONS of things that are GREAT for consumers. And lots of other stores do too. When a store opens at 6am on Black Friday, do you think they are doing it because their employees requested it? No, consumers did. Do you think retailers like slashing margins razor-thin? No, but if they don't, consumers will go elsewhere. Result is lower prices across the board. "Good for giant retailers" would be for you to pay shipping on all orders. To limit refunds as much as possible. To be "out of stock" on popular items they put on deep discounts and have you select an expensive alternative instead (i.e. bait and switch). Amazon and Walmart have enabled consumers to buy all kinds of goods without paying the premium that established brands charge -- the cheapest tent at REI.com is an $80 Kelty. Meanwhile Amazon has a wide selection at $60 and below from "SEMOO" and "ILOFRI" and "TEKOMI".

The OP suggested lawmakers should somehow make it illegal for Amazon to offer preferential treatment -- prominently featuring their items -- to suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Every store does the exact same thing -- and this is GOOD for consumers. When your supermarket puts Coca-Cola on sale (because Coke paid the supermarket), it brings out extra bottles and places them at the front of the store and makes it easy to buy. Sure you can still buy Pepsi, it's back somewhere on aisle 12 where it always is.

...suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers.

Haha you can't even pretend to have misunderstood the situation to this extent. QED on the bad faith. Amazon DGAF what percentages other retailers get. How would they even know those? They are penalizing suppliers for the prices that consumers pay at other retailers. So long as Amazon are allowed to do this, they'll just keep slowly increasing their cut. What's 34% today will be 40% next year, etc.

I concede that in haste I wrote "to" instead of "at". Amazon offers preferential treatment to suppliers that don't charge less (to consumers) AT other retailers. And before you say it's up to the retailers what to ultimately charge the consumer, this is not true in today's economy, where sites like Amazon, Newegg, eBay and Walmart act as marketplaces enabling direct manufacturer to consumer sales.

Although I made the initial mistake, I'm pretty sure you just piled on with more bullshit. I'm rather confident Amazon has a good read on what its suppliers charge other vendors, just Wal-Mart and Target do in the B&M space, and that they do very much care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com