My point was not that Amazon controls 80% of e-retail sales.
My point was they are 80% of the way along the journey to have eliminated significant competitors big enough to fight back. Yes, it’s a WAG number and a qualitative, not quantitative estimate. But they are pretty close to having no-one but Wal*Mart in a position to form a real functional alternative.
It’s big but it’s not 80% and it’s certainly not a monopoly.
Your link strengthens my case. If there a governing body to stop them then they won’t become a monopoly.
I disagree. And you’ve not offered any proof of this. Not pointing at you specifically, but I think a lot of JB hate is driving the WAGes and fear mongering. In this global economy we have now, especially regarding online services, if Amazon oversteps their boundaries other companies will take their place. Amazon is is the dominate platform right now, not because of browbeating their customers, they just offer a better, cheaper product. I have zero loyalty to them. If they raise their prices, I’ll shop elsewhere. So will everyone else, I presume. Amazon can’t stop me from shopping locally and they can’t stop me from buying from Japan (for example).
Governing body? Have you been asleep since November? This case is still in the courts. Its future depends entirely on the inclinations of the US Justice Department (directly under the direction of a fan of oligarchy) and judges who may or may not be rubber stamps for the present administration.
No need to be nasty. Last time I checked Trump wasn’t a Bezos fan. And it was you who posted the link. Whatever, I’m done.
My apologies. I did not intend to be nasty. If you want to hear a better argument for calling Amazon a monopoly than I can muster, you should seek out interviews with former FTC Chair Lina Khan.
for books I use Alibris
Most really are. I pointed out why. Even if you say- make a dollar more for a used book if sold direct, with Amazon you reach 300 million or so potential buyers. Rather than the 1000 or even ten 1000 you get form you own site. And yes, it is nice for the Indy bookseller to get a customer who comes from Amazon originally then starts buying direct- that is certainly a win- except that the customer would never have come there in the first place without Amazon.
Isnt a boycott supposed to have a purpose? People are mad at Bezos due how he is running the WaPo. Sure, I get that- then cancel your WaPo sub. Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon- you are not punishing Bezos by this boycott.
Bezos is a red herring. Amazon the monopoly is the problem.
Bezos spent something like $250 million to buy the Washington Post. I have no idea how much more money he’s put into it since then but I can’t imagine it’s more than that. So even if every single subscriber and advertiser cancels so that the newspaper shuts down the presses tomorrow, it’s hardly going to hurt him financially.
But it is not a monopoly.
Sure, But no boycott on Amazon will hurt him either.
And he supported many Dem candidates.
So you ignored the FTC lawsuit I linked to as well as the interview with Lina Khan.
Which was partially dismissed, and so far has not gone to trial. So it is a mere allegation, not a ruling that Amazon is indeed a Monopoly.
You don’t even know what part was dismissed or why. If the court thought suing Amazon for monopolistic practices was without merit, the whole case would have been dismissed.
Now that’s a stretch. All kinds of useless bullshit is litigated on a daily basis. It’s a very high bar for the court to throw things out. This may very well end up hurting Amazon but let’s wait until it plays out.
That is true. The case was no dismissed, just part of it. But again, just because a company is sued, that doesnt mean they are guilty. Only 65% are successful, but nearly all of those were settled.
Right. I expect some sort of settlement, but without Amazon agreeing it was a monopoly.
It is not a monopoly and it is not a problem. There are two issues here:
Answer to 1 is no, it hasn’t been shown to be. A lawsuit isn’t proof. Plus there are plenty of other places millions of people, myself included, can and do shop online.
Sure, they probably use some very aggressive marketing strategies, but Amazon got to where they are by providing a better service and product.
I see no good reason they would fix what isn’t broken.
Amazon workers have to pee in bottles & routinely illegally double park, blocking traffic & emergency vehicles as part of their business model. How much slower / more expensive (more delivery workers & vehicles) would it be if the did it legally?
I don’t understand what that has to do with them being a monopoly or not.
I’ve admitted several times I don’t like Bezos. They might be a shitty company, but they don’t force people to use their services and no one in this thread has provided any evidence that will change.
Hate them? Don’t use them. Simple.
Uh, wasn’t that what this thread was supposed to be about? Alternatives to Amazon?
Because your own previous post is false (below). Would you say the company manufacturing clothes, for less, in SE Asia is doing it properly because they’re using either children or slave laborers? I sure wouldn’t!
When workers don’t have time to take a bio break, or must disrupt the flow of traffic because they can’t take the time to find a safe/legal place to pull over to make that delivery; both of which would mean less deliveries per driver & therefore both more drivers & more vehicles their costs would go up it would negate both that better price & better (quicker) delivery. It’s not too difficult to be the cheapest when you’re cutting corners all over the place.