Hacker News Reader

Comment by James_Henry | Hacker News Reader

What exactly about "big" is it that makes you say this? Is it the amount of money they can throw around? Is it the ability to integrate these bought companies in with the rest of their companies? Is it that there aren't enough people at the top of the company?

View on HN

They capture markets by loss leading, killing competition, at the same time hamstringing their suppliers/sellers with demands that are unreasonable. Only to either raise prices later or default to selling counterfeit goods, or change agreements but the market has been decimated so there is largely only a single place to source or sell goods. Then they take their war chest and do it to another industry. American medical is both extremely profitable and also extremely not profitable depending on where you sit. I do not see Amazon being a good faith participant in this field given their other business lines.

i mean i support you saying that about almost any company to promote more precise discussion but amazon literally employs like 1.5 million people and dominates both internet commerce and cloud computing, there are easier targets to argue that they aren’t “big”

The second largest employee count in the world, behind only Walmart: https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-number-o...

I think you misunderstand. They are asking why big is bad, not arguing that Amazon isn't big

And I'm wondering what aspect of their bigness is causing the badness. Is it profits? revenues? Is it the number of employees? Is it percent of the market share in the business that they are active in? Or is it some measure of their political power?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com