WickedCobra03
Member
Since about a year or 2 ago, I kind of started viewing Amazon in that same light. I have actually subconsciously started to reduce my shopping there to only a few items so far this year at this point.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
TNR: Amazon's Monopoly Must Be Broken Up; "It's Cannibalizing The Economy"
- Thread starter benjipwns
- Start date
- Status
Ace Harding
Member
Ok article, but Amazon is not a monopoly. A monopoly of what? Online retail? No it's not, and I don't even know that that is possible. Everyone else has just failed to compete as well.
Amazon's downfall is/will be overextending itself.
I actually use Amazon less than I used to, and I hear that a lot from people I know. I stopped buying baby stuff there because it's cheaper in nearby physical retail stores. Their selection in things other than books and other media is often wanting. I have stopped ordering the thing that's close to (but not quite) what I want from Amazon just to get free shipping. Clothes? No way. Shoes? Zappos. Dry goods? They often don't have what I want and when they do it's more expensive than my grocery store. Electronics? Best Buy price matches.
Amazon's downfall is/will be overextending itself.
I actually use Amazon less than I used to, and I hear that a lot from people I know. I stopped buying baby stuff there because it's cheaper in nearby physical retail stores. Their selection in things other than books and other media is often wanting. I have stopped ordering the thing that's close to (but not quite) what I want from Amazon just to get free shipping. Clothes? No way. Shoes? Zappos. Dry goods? They often don't have what I want and when they do it's more expensive than my grocery store. Electronics? Best Buy price matches.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
So you didn't even read the article then? These posts are so worthless. They're seems this weird mindset in the world today that there is a single absolute for everything. Because there are worse monopolies doesn't mean that amazon isn't harmful or that we shouldn't investigate the amount of damage it does. Instead you get these posts with a condescending tone that people need to learn priorities. Unless I missed a part of the article where they state amazon is the worse thing in the world, this viewpoint doesn't help anything and instead goes a step further by trying to discourage and put down those who are trying to investigate it.
The entire article is faulty because the premise is bad: Amazon isn't even close to monopoly. Of US retailers, it's only number 9. Behind Walmart, Costco, Korger, Target, Home Depot, etc.
Eventually, I expect that it will become number one, but even then, so what? Things changes; challengers will emerge. Microsoft was thought to be an unstoppable giant around the turn of the millennium; 14 years later, it's largely irrelevant outside of the business world.
I also question the belief that monopolies are inherently bad. Some are, no doubt, but not all of them. Google is clearly a monopoly, for example, but provides an invaluable service for free that has enriched the lives of literally billions of people. The same can be said for Facebook.
Eventually, I expect that it will become number one, but even then, so what? Things changes; challengers will emerge. Microsoft was thought to be an unstoppable giant around the turn of the millennium; 14 years later, it's largely irrelevant outside of the business world.
I also question the belief that monopolies are inherently bad. Some are, no doubt, but not all of them. Google is clearly a monopoly, for example, but provides an invaluable service for free that has enriched the lives of literally billions of people. The same can be said for Facebook.
Wiktor
Member
The problem is that those ISP monopolies are objectively bad for consumers. Amazon is objectively good for customers. And for authors too. The only damage Amazon does is making publishers profits a bit lower then could be and stripping them out of book releasing monopoly rights. Those publishers still make big money and a lot of it they make because of Amazon.
Bassicaly this whole call to action against Amazon by publishers ammounts to nothing beyond "help us make even more money".
EatinOlives
Member
Because Amazon isn't by any definition a "monopoly", and since the article mentions that "Because Amazon is exhibiting monopolistic behavior, it must be broken up", we enter a discussion about monopolies in general, a discussion where Amazon isn't really applicable.
I don't know where this idea is coming from that the article is a bastion of endless knowledge and insight, and that nobody is reading it. I read it, it's mostly meandering and while it raises multiple valid points, it also spends most of its time using textbook fear mongering and simplistic call-to-arms based on what OTHER people said. The odious quote from PayPal is a great example. It's a horrid quote and exemplifies the worst of a company in a position of power but has nothing to do with Amazon. The article's points about regulating Amazon's anti-competitive behavior are, again, all valid, but they're lost in a cloud of fear mongering and meaningless "omg monopoly!!" finger pointing. Valid points, poor conclusions.
You know you don't get to use the word "objectively" like a handwave that nulls all rebuttals, right?
Wafflecakes
Member
Which of Amazons competitors is as strong as Target/K-Mart/etc?
Amazon is FAR more of a monopoly than Wal-Mart is.
Wiktor
Member
More choice, lower prices, more conivenience, increasing competition..those are objectively good for consumers.
Wiktor
Member
They're also far less of a monopoly than Steam is though. The difference is what Walmart is universally loathed, Steam is loved by most and opinions on Amazon seem to be pretty split.
That said, when the argument for goverment control over Amazon boils down to "help those poor multibillion publishers make more money" it's kind of hard to be supportive of it.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
It sounds like Amazon will take the place of Walmart in the popular imagination as the big bad corp sooner than later.
Walmart is Amazon's competitor.
Target is Amazon's competitor.
Home Depot is Amazon's competitor.
Bed, Bath & Beyond is Amazon's competitor.
Barnes & Noble is Amazon's competitor.
GameStop is Amazon's competitor.
Amazon has innumerable competitors -- any store is a competitor.
If you want to define it as "only online shopping" then sure, you can make a compelling case that Amazon is a near-monopoly. But why would you draw that definition? That seems quite arbitrary. Online shopping as a percentage of total retail is still pretty small -- just 8%.
Amazon is not big enough to be considered a monopoly by almost any definition. The closest thing it comes to is in books, where it has about 60% market share. That's a lot, but it's not overwhelming.
Amazon's competitors are Walmart/Target/ect... Walmart made ~473 billion dollars last year, amazon made 78 billion.
Amazon's eBook and eReader market percentages aren't that far from Apple's digital music, movies and tablet percentages. And yes, big music studios did get pissy with them too because iTunes essentially eliminated the real need for them and lowered prices. Ironically, Amazon is usually cheaper than Apple in those areas but Apple device lock-in actually makes it more monopolistic because consumers can't easily switch.
But even then, those monopolies are fleeting -- digital music downloads have begun to decline at a fairly rapid rate as people shift to digital streaming services (Spotify, etc). Why do you think Apple just bought Beats? (Hint: it wasn't just for the headphones.)
Unless it's a government-granted monopoly (ie, Comcast having exclusive rights to install cable lines in a given area, or spectrum rights given to telecoms) history suggests that it won't exist for too long.
It's a fair article, though a lt of people in this thread are hostile to it due to enjoying the amazon service. If this company can use its leverage to destroy suppliers and competitors then in the long term the consumer is worse off. A mandate that these services can't charge below cost or refuse to carry products without proof it loses them money would fix it. Make amazon the marketplace, and let people compete freely.
Wiktor
Member
So bassicaly take away the company from people who actually built it? Because that's the level of intervention we're talking about it. And all you do with this is say "nah, you were too good for consumers, let's end this please". And why would you single out this one company and burden it with such heavy restrictions while allowing the competitors to operate freely.
In reality its not fair article. Its mostly filled with conjectures and tired arguments that were proved wrong many times before.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Because the government stepped in, remember?
Maybe. Maybe not.
I'm inclined to say no, that Microsoft's own hubris led it to miss the mobile revolution. As evidence, I offer up Steve Ballmer's first reaction the iPhone.
Companies are just groups of people. Eventually, the ambitious people leave to work on more exciting projects or refuse to come work there in the first place. Status quo dominates, people focus on trying to preserve existing business models rather than create something new.
There are plenty of examples of once mighty companies falling to smaller rivals even with no government intervention at all. The US retail industry provides many perfect examples -- Walmart came out of nowhere to destroy both Sears and Kmart (two titans of their day). It looks like Amazon will eventually destroy Walmart. And then, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, someone will come along and knock Amazon from its perch.
Wiktor
Member
No, because other companies outcompeted it.
EatinOlives
Member
That's giving the government WAAAY too much credit. Microsoft themselves were their own worst enemies when it came to spaces they're not doing well in. I'd argue their sluggishness and unwilingness to adapt their arcane business model did far more damage to them in the long term than the governments' preventative anti-competitive regulations.
makingmusic476
Member
I see no point in destroying what Amazon has created.
I've long held the view that as firms in certain industries become so advanced that competition becomes redundant, inefficient, and pretty much needless, they should be nationalized and democratized.
Don't break them up. Just ensure they're serving the public good.
Edit: Though I think we're a couple of decades away from reaching that point with Amazon.
I've long held the view that as firms in certain industries become so advanced that competition becomes redundant, inefficient, and pretty much needless, they should be nationalized and democratized.
Don't break them up. Just ensure they're serving the public good.
Edit: Though I think we're a couple of decades away from reaching that point with Amazon.
Skimmed this thread but didn't see this posted:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/is-amazon-evil/381357/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/is-amazon-evil/381357/
Great retort.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
These posts have nothing to do with what I was complaining about. I was complaining him saying people had to learn priorities. Whether or not you believe amazon is a monopoly is a separate discussion.
Personally, I think the article misses one big point. The publishers themselves were a form of monopoly.
As an author, you couldn't just go to a publisher, say "I have a book" and expect to be published. You'd be rejected. Then you would go convince an agent to represent you (another middle man who takes a fee) and you might get your book looked at by a publisher. They might reject you again, or they might take you on, but you're not getting a great royalty rate.
Publishers should be free to sell at whatever wholesale rates they choose.
And stores, like Amazon, should be free to decide what retail price they are going to sell at.
If a wholesale price is too high to make it worth stocking, then Amazon (or any other store) should have the right to decline to carry it.
Self-publishing takes away a lot of the old barriers and allows anyone to publish. It also means that everyone has to compete on quality and not just what is deemed worthy by the publishers.
Amazon is simply telling publishers to take their demand to set retail prices and take a hike.
In many ways, it is just like what happened in the music industry. Publishers are the "old guard" that determined what got published and what was popular, simply because they limited the flow and the barrier to entry was otherwise out of reach.
If you are an individual (or even a small company), self publishing and printing a book is easy. Distributing that (and getting stores to carry it) without a publisher used to be DAMN HARD. It was akin to being an indie music artist. Sure, you could press CDs, but good luck getting a major store to carry them if you didn't have a big label behind you.
Now, self-publishing and getting "shelf space" on one of the largest bookstores on the planet is within reach of anyone.
I'm also a writer, but I put the blame on the "pennies-per-word payment schemes" on the Internet blog content farms.
I disagree with you on publishers though. Publishers will always be around, but there is nothing wrong with have an easy way for independents to self-publish.
The argument you're using is the exact same argument that Nintendo used back in the NES days when it set prices for game carts and only allowed approved titles. The courts saw it differently, and stores were allowed to set their own prices.
I agree with this, the publishing model needs to evolve. The music industry tried to hold onto the old ways too long and, as a result, the transition was rough. Publishers who adapt and move forward with new ways to better serve authors will survive and flourish. Publishers who try to stubbornly keep to the old ways will please the "old guard" of authors, but will ultimately have a hard time of it as the market evolves.
Amazon is opening up the market by lowering the barrier to entry.
Does this mean there will be more chaff? Sure. There are a lot of crappy writers out there. But what is wrong with letting them self-publish and letting the market decide?
Just like with movies, what you or I might think is crap might be enjoyable entertainment fare to someone else. And the opposite may be true as well.
Good writers will be able to sell their books (physical or digital) at whatever price they want (wholesale if selling to stores, retail is self-publishing and selling direct to readers).
Poor writers will find that they won't get the sales they need and they will either need to improve their craft or, as you say, keep a primary job while writing as a hobby.
Unfortunately not. Apple also garnishes 30% of anything sold via an app. This causes issues like people flipping out when Amazon stopped in app payments from Comixology. Amazon would have to eat more or raise prices despite the fact that it's their store (and Apple makes sure it has price parity). This also means that Apple can open up their own comic store and match prices, meaning that Amazon would pay them if they win or Apple, because they don't take a 30% tax would have lower margins and win a war of attrition. They can do this because they own a large portion of the hardware market. Spotify and Pandora are actually getting caught up in this sort of fight and will probably collapse or be bought out by one of the big 4 tech companies in a couple years because they are money sinks.
The same thing happens with Google and the Android App store. It's a monopoly, Google has an all or nothing policy for OEMs where you can't have access to Google Apps (and this the majority of Android phone apps) unless they are front-and-center on the home screen and use Google search. This ensures that Samsung doesn't break up with them. They also have signed agreements with Chinese manufacturers that they will not manufacture non-Google certified devices which increases costs for those make their own Android devices. It's highly anti-competitive practice.
It's naive to think these will disappear because the government isn't involved. This is why it always surprises me when people ask what Amazon is doing in the hardware devices market. If you don't own the stack the big players make sure everything is working against you and you can only benefit if they do.
StickSoldier
Member
We'll all be plugged into Amazon one day.. It will be the Matrix of our universe. Happy days are ahead folks.
I actually met with Hugh Howey about two weeks ago, and he went into detail about that contract. It's a contract with a traditional publisher, but it's very different in how it treats its author when it comes to rights and royalty rates. If anything, big publishers will have to start competing by giving authors higher royalty rates on their ebooks because of Amazon and Kindle. It just seems that no publisher wants to create good contracts, for example, the Hydra Contract from Random House.
Specifically to the part of Random House and Penguin merging, there was always going to be a huge shift when Amazon joined the market. Amazon was successful, things change, and this article goes on about the worries of change. As other posters have shown, Amazon faces a ton of competition and calling it a monopoly is an attempt at making an interesting headline.
Microsoft did the same sort of stuff with PC OEMs in the 1990s. Ultimately it allowed them to create a Windows monopoly which was fantastically profitable for them and continues to be, but which nearly all major tech observers understand is increasingly falling by the wayside. It's not clear, for example, that they'll be able to keep charging for Windows. They already given some versions of it away.
Google allows Android OEMs to load third party app stores (Google Play does not, for all practical purposes exist in China) and even hosts them on Google Play. Apple maintains tight control over its product, but like all dominant consumer electronics companies, faces disruption at the low-end. Eventually, you'll be able to buy a phone that works just as well or better than an iPhone but costs 1/4 the price. What will happen then?
Companies rise and companies fall. Monopolies are established, only later to be destroyed by new monopolies. The rate of change varies, but just dig into the turnover rate of Fortune 500 companies. One-third of the companies in the 1970 Fortune 500 list didn't exist in 1983.
Torquill
Member
This is the factor that concerns me. Hiring monopolies.
- Status