92 karma · joined October 8, 2019
One is much better capitalized than the other and enjoy many cost advantages. On product and price alone, many consumers would choose Amazon, all else being equal, including product placement. In short, since we haven't seen Amazon crushing equally well capitalized and competent white-label players like Anker, Amazon is only out competing inefficient firms.
Similarly, Walmart's "Grocery Store O's" are competing against P&G, which is a equally well capitalized firm. That is, the Cereal market is efficient and competitive, and winners win through distribution and market positioning. This is why P&G O's aren't getting destroyed.
The results you are witnessing - smaller firms getting taken out, is just a phenomenon of competition. I suspect as consolidation takes place, many large firms like Anker will be able to offer competitive product at competitive prices vs. Amazon Basics.
So in reality, if your product is on page 5, it is perhaps as good as not being on Amazon anyway for that particular query.
If you look at it this way, the space constraint isn't much different than brick and mortar.
In other words, if other well capitalized players had the same data, same ability to manufacture at the same scale, advertise etc... and Amazon's sole advantage is product placement, is it still problematic?
I think this is going a bit too far. "removing to get to the branded one" would be appropriate if you had to go to 2nd page of search results to see branded products, but most results on Amazon show competing products above the fold.
A better comparison would be reserving the best shelf space for Amazon Basics.
In each of these components Amazon Basics has an advantage over third parties whom are often mom and pop and are undercapitailized.
The points of contention are
1) If amazon competes fairly in Ad bidding so Basics products shows up first on the paid search results, is this anti-competitive?
I don't think so. They just have more capital. Any other well capitalized firm can do the same.
2) Is it fair for amazon to display their products more prominently?
I don't think so. How is this any different than Walmart refusing to carry a product? Or putting their private labels more prominently?
Can you truly argue just because a firm is large they are no longer allowed to offer the same product for cheaper simply because they have a strong foothold in distribution?
For one, no labor could be hired to perform many farm duties, and certainly not for the amount that farms pay foreign temp workers.
Similarly, Silicon Valley is also hugely dependent. Indeed, if firms could hire locally, they won't jump through the extra hoops to secure work visas - yet we see so many folks on work visas all across the tech industry.
Last, investor visas also inject a sizable amount of capital into the US capital markets and pulling the plug on that when many businesses can't access capital just doesn't make any sense. Most of these people do not even need to work anyway.
I am afraid this is going to accomplish precisely the opposite of what he set out to do.
I believe unless Airbnb host and Uber driver seek on going EI benefit, they shouldn’t need to pay.
For young drivers like me my premiums are through the roof.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the only cause, but it is none the less a large contributing factor that is observed world over.
Housing price inflation has become one of the fasted growing tax on the middle and lower class, are we seriously not going to do anything about this absurdity?
Can someone who is well versed in politics shed some light on if this is a trump specific phenonemon or had there been a sea change and the dems are now on board too ?
The last step for me to stop doing business with a bad actor is by giving up my privacy.