Hacker News Reader

Comment by thayne | Hacker News Reader

I can think of two reasons:

1. It hinders competition. You can't really provide a marketplace thay competes with Amazon by having lower prices (for example by taking a smaller cut from sellers), because sellers aren't allowed to list lower prices on your marketplace. Or alternatively, you can't compete by selling directly from you website, because you can't offer a lower price than on Amazon.

2. It means even if you buy directly from the seller, you have to pay a higher price because it is listed on Amazon. In effect people who bu directly are subsidizing a lower price for people who buy on Amazon. This applies to the credit card case as well.

View on HN

On the other hand, as a shopper, I like knowing that the price I see on Amazon is the lowest price I can find the item. I don’t want to have to check the price of every item on the manufacturers site to see if I can get it cheaper there.

Just imagine I want to by a widget, and there are many manufacturers. I can search on Amazon, and get all of the prices for all the manufacturers right in one place, and I know that each price I see is the cheapest. I don’t have to search for 10 different manufacturer websites and check each price. I can just sort by it, and then one click buy.

I understand the anticompetitive concerns, but there is also a big advantage for consumers to be able to have a single market that has the lowest prices available and easy ordering.

Sites like Pricerunner compare prices from many online shops.

You prefer Amazon to dictate the floor price of something for the purpose of convenience? If you prefer to use Amazon, fine, but your choice shouldn't get to dictate to everyone else that there's no better deal else where. Amazon isn't getting you a better deal here, it's making sure there's no better deal else where.

Yes there are many times big advantages to the individuals which aren’t allowed by law nor should it be.

I agree that it would be great as a consumer, but Amazon isn’t offering anyone an honest list of those widget prices.

If I am a widget manufacturer, selling on Amazon means I am no longer competing for your purchase with just my market peers. On some level, I am now competing against all listings in that category, including grey market resellers because Amazon doesn’t police for shit.

> I don’t want to have to check the price of every item on the manufacturers site to see if I can get it cheaper there.

No one is forcing you to comparison shop. You're trying to take freedom from others so you can financially justify being lazy.

> I understand the anticompetitive concerns, but there is also a big advantage for consumers to be able to have a single market that has the lowest prices available and easy ordering.

Not when that "lowest price available" is now inflated from what it would have been. Consumers lose because now they pay higher prices than they otherwise would have.

> I like knowing that the price I see on Amazon is the lowest price I can find the item.

Yeah, but it isn't. I suggest you at least check the price on eBay before you buy from Amazon, if not Froogle and Walmart.

Amazon's anti-competitive behavior here ONLY applies to a single seller, NOT to a manufacturer or a specific product. So while "Steve's Discount Stereo" can't sell that stereo for a lower price outside of Amazon, "Dave's Discount Stereo" certainly can.

does this apply when both dave's discount stereo and steve's discount stereo are subsidiaries of the "Dave Steve Stereo Corporation"?

Maybe they both outsource inventory and order processing to the parent company only having distinct sales and marketing.

Surely it encourages competition: Since the cost cannot just be passed onto consumers, the company making the decision over where to list has an incentive to actually consider other options?

Also, the only reason we want competition is because it should get lower prices for consumers. Competition isn't a good in and of itself, it's just a means to an end. So if more competition means higher prices for the same goods, then who needs it?

I don't quite get your second point: if the consumer is paying the same price, why do they care whether 100% goes to the supplier, or 99% or 0.01? If an item costs me 10USD, I don't care who get's that money, I just care that I don't get to keep it right

> Also, the only reason we want competition is because it should get lower prices for consumers.

That is not the only reason free market capitalists want competition. Competition should also promote a variety of choice, innovation, and dynamism in other services to consumers, not just low product prices.

This rule doesn’t just mean they can’t raise prices on Amazon, it means they can’t lower prices elsewhere.

If another marketplace takes a lower cut, allowing the seller to set a lower price while keeping margins, they can’t do so under this arrangement without taking a hit on Amazon sales.

The market should be encouraging finding the lowest-margin distribution path, not artificially propping up prices elsewhere to match Amazon’s margins.

> why do they care whether 100% goes to the supplier, or 99% or 0.01? If an item costs me 10USD, I don't care who get's that money, I just care that I don't get to keep it right

But you care if it costs you $10 instead of $9. My point is that Amazon's rules means the price is higher for everyone, in order to cover Amazon's fees. Without them, if you are willing to buy from somewhere less convenient than amazon, you can get a better price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com