
Is Amazon getting too big? - artsandsci
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html
======
BinaryIdiot
This article has a _ton_ of filler in it. The first several pages have a tiny,
tiny mention of a Yale journal posting titled "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" [1]
with the rest of the first half being about the writer, various schools she's
gone to, etc. Maybe I'm just too impatient but it doesn't get even close to
discussing its premise until half way through the article at best.

The rest of it is discussing that, according to current anti trust laws,
Amazon isn't too big but when it makes acquisitions it hugely affects stock
market among other things. So there may need to be new laws or thinking about
dealing with large, online companies like Amazon.

It's interesting but I feel like they could have gotten the same message
across in just a few paragraphs and a link to the Yale journal but I digress.
I've been wondering about this same topic though so it is interesting.

[1] [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-
paradox](http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox)

~~~
bognition
I'd highly recommend an op-ed the original author published in the ny times.
[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-
whole-f...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-foods-
jeff-bezos.html)

It's short and to the point.

~~~
jshap70
here's the non-mobile link:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-
food...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-foods-jeff-
bezos.html?_r=0)

------
mrisoli
Isn't the answer to this question if you swap Amazon for any of the big 5 a
sound 'yes'?

Amazon owns the commercial aspects of many people and continues to grow in
that regard with the Whole Foods acquisition.

Facebook owns all social data and knows what you are sharing with your
friends.

Google owns all search data and knows what you're looking for.

Ironically, Microsoft and Apple feel a little bit smaller in this scenario,
but Microsoft still owns enterprise infrastructure and knows what your company
wants. Apple controls all your devices and knows what you're doing with them.

Sometimes I think Uber could make this group a 'Big 6' and own all your
commute data and infrastructure.

~~~
notyourwork
> Apple controls all your devices and knows what you're doing with them.

Except there are a massive amount of android devices and windows PCs in the
world. Apple controls a small portion of devices in my opinion. I think they
are the smallest whale in the ocean these days.

~~~
mrisoli
That's what I meant when they were ironically the smallest players in this
club by this measure, both Microsoft and Apple are big players with products
and services which are not so intrusive as Google/Facebook/Amazon.

Just consider what would be if Apple had the same market share on
devices/PCs/smartphones that Facebook has on social media, it gets scary.

~~~
frik
> both Microsoft and Apple are big players with products and services which
> are not so intrusive as Google/Facebook/Amazon

Haha, funny. That was true with Balmer, Microsoft's current CEO transformed
the company to consumers worst nightmare, they are worse than the three you
labeled as intrusive - with them you can opt-out, and it's just a website or
phone OS, but with Win10, Office365/2016 you and your lawyer, your doctor,
your bank clerk cannot opt-out and leak your private data.

------
quadrangle
> even former antitrust officials acknowledge that their approval of Google’s
> purchase of YouTube and ITA Software and Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram
> and WhatsApp look naive in hindsight

Just imagine what it would be like if YouTube were independent all this time
(or those others). Either we really _could_ maintain more independent presence
on these different platforms better than we do now _or_ Google and Facebook
would have figured out how to out-compete and squash them and we'd see the
same result as today (except "Google Video" instead of "YouTube" as a name
etc).

This is about POWER. That should be the test. Does a merge give excessive
POWER. The answer is YES far more often than the Chicago-school jerks want to
believe.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Yes, I think the problem here is that in antitrust decisions citizens are
being abstracted into consumers but there are lots of ways we are affected by
these decisions which may not, or which may only indirectly relate to our
consumption.

------
MediumD
Kind of interesting that this article is coming from the WP, given their
acquisition by Bezos.

 _Note_ : Didn't read due to Pay Wall

~~~
jawns
This is what HN readers and Paul Graham enthusiasts might call a reverse
submarine or an insider submarine.

A traditional submarine is when a PR firm supplies journalists with stories
that are true, but just happens to favor their clients.

It tries to give biased information a patina of unbiased objectivity (to the
extent that the newspaper is considered to be less biased than a press
release).

This reverse submarine -- a critique of Amazon published by Jeff Bezos' paper
-- tries to give what appears to be a biased news source a patina of unbiased
objectivity by running what appears to be a piece that's critical of the thing
it's thought to be biased toward.

Bezos can now say, "Hey, look at this Post piece that's critical of Amazon.
Clearly, I'm not pulling the strings or censoring articles that make my
company look bad."

But bear in mind that we don't know what's under the surface. We know what
articles critical of Amazon he has let through, but we don't know what
articles critical of Amazon he hasn't let through.

~~~
Pyxl101
This article is in the "Perspectives" section of WaPo, which means the
"Opinion" section, in case you are not aware.

> Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by
> individuals regarding their own experiences

~~~
jawns
I think you might be missing the point.

I'm not saying that the piece itself is unbiased. Opinion pieces are not
supposed to be unbiased.

I'm saying that the fact that the piece was run gives Bezos the ability to say
that he does not exert editorial control over the paper, because if he did, he
wouldn't have let such a piece run at all.

~~~
throwaway5752
In your logic, is their any way Bezos can demonstrated the editorial
independence of the Washington Post?

~~~
adrianratnapala
There isn't and there doesn't need to be, because newspapers should be read as
evidence rather than as authority.

Like any publication, the WP is what it is. It has particular staff, history,
reputaiton etc, all of which make it strong in some ways but weak in others,
including bias. Bezos' ownership of the paper is yet one more layer on all
that.

There is, and never was, any alternative to reading stuff with your bullshit
detector turned on.

------
EwanG
In my opinion, yes. Back in the mid-90's I used to get a mug or something
similar from Amazon at the end of the year as a thank you for my business. But
then we fast forward to last week when I placed an order that was being
shipped by THEIR shipping arm, was somehow lost, and their customer service
still tried to tell me they couldn't help if the shipping company lost
something - even though THEY were the shipping company. Had to escalate to get
a refund, and this is the 4th order just this year that hasn't made it.
Granted the other three were other shipping companies - but FedEx claimed they
never actually got the package, which given this experience I'm inclined to
now give them the benefit of the doubt.

------
UweSchmidt
As good as Amazon is, and for all the work they've put in, maybe in 10 years
it's all commodity?

There's _products_ that have data attached to it, price, availability, product
information. Big deal?

Then there's logistics, also a commodity. Travelling salesman and Knapsack
problems are solved and thus the _product_ will arrive at your door the next
day. Big deal?

In the end, maybe Amazon is just a middle man, an inefficiency?

~~~
rb808
Amazon definitely has to stay on its game to stay #1.

When Wallmart opens up in town the local shops to under and you have no
choice.

When Amazon forces other businesses to close - you still have a lot of online
retailers to choose from. It isn't difficult to buy from Target or BuyNLarge
etc.

Which is why they try hard to hook you with Prime, Kindle, Fire etc. If Prime
was outlawed, Amazon would be in trouble in a few years I expect.

------
pilom
Regulators will have trouble finding anti-trust cases against amazon for the
same reason they'll have trouble finding against conglomerates like Berkshire
Hathaway. Both get their price setting ability from being conglomerates rather
than monopolies. Size benefits both because one business unit can support
other business units for less than their competitors pay and cross selling
becomes much easier, both of which allow them to price competitors out of the
market. If regulators could wrap their heads around the dangers of a
conglomerate like Berkshire Hathaway, they'd be able to see the dangers of
Amazon.

~~~
sunflowerfly
Amazon does have a monopoly in ebooks. I believe they are using that market
power in anti-competitive ways. This is against the Sherman act today.

~~~
stale2002
Amazon has been around for 20 years, and the only thing it has used it market
power for is to crash prices, which is good for consumers.

Amazon is directly responsible for ebooks being so cheap today. The publishers
and Apple wanted prices for ebooks to be high.

If Amazon's monopoly power results in low prices for me forever, then I say
bring it on.

The ONLY purpose of monopoly laws is as a consumer protection. And if prices
are permanently low, like they are in the ebook space, that is GOOD for
consumers, not bad.

In another 20 years, those "inevitable" price increases aren't going to come
either.

~~~
chx
> Amazon is directly responsible for ebooks being so cheap today.

Blimey, here I thought ebooks are ridiculously expensive, often costing more
than trade paperbacks, especially after a year or two.

~~~
sumedh
Amazon wants lower ebook prices while book publishers want higher prices.

------
janvdberg
The latest Planet Money podcast talks a bit about an interesting 'flaw' in the
system causing Amazon to grow and grow even more and eating every other
company.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/26/539552579/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/26/539552579/episode-629-buy-
low-sell-prime)

------
djhworld
One thing I have noticed is my prime membership has subtly shifted my shopping
habits further and further towards Amazon.

I've become impatient with other sites delivery fees and schedules, and don't
really bother doing much price comparison either. Last night I ordered
something off Amazon at 22:45 and it arrived this morning, that's a 10-11 hour
turnaround time, and most of that time I was asleep

It makes me a bit uncomfortable that the situation has come to this, I'm
inclined to cancel my auto renewal on Prime, just to try and level the playing
field a bit when it comes to comparing retailers.

~~~
kossae
This is the very interesting part. By offering such great shipping terms on
nearly everything (or close variants of), they're essentially setting the bar
higher for any e-commerce store which carries similar items. This means
businesses will need to both get with the times as well as find new moats and
defining features to set them apart.

------
bognition
Can anyone point to a good review of what Kahn's note argues?

I read most of the wapo article but it mainly talked about her and the
attention she got without really getting into the details of what she wrote
and why it matters.

~~~
bognition
Actually it turns out that she wrote an op-ed for the ny times:
[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-
whole-f...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-foods-
jeff-bezos.html)

------
azakai
> Why do Walmart, Google, Oracle and UPS all consider Amazon their biggest
> threat?

Is this true? For some of them (Walmart) I guess I wouldn't be surprised, but
I'm still curious where this information comes from. Is it guesswork on the
part of the author, or is it based on off the record discussions with the
leadership of those companies, or something else?

~~~
arbuge
Anecdotally, when I proposed to some Google product managers that Amazon was
their biggest competitor (if not threat) in my opinion, they looked at me as
though I was out of my mind. They really could not see much of a connection at
all. Perhaps because they worked in groups like Android etc. not the
advertising group, but it was still a suprising attitude to me.

~~~
nocoder
I think the parts of the business are a threat not the whole. I would think
Amazon can be a pretty big threat to Google in advertising and cloud and to
UPS in logistics and of course Walmart in retail.

~~~
arbuge
In cloud it's the other way round. Amazon is the incumbent by far and Google
is (one of) the threat(s).

------
verelo
Nope. But i also own around $100k in Amazon stock, so perhaps I'm just super
bias?

I live in Canada, i tried to buy a iRobot 960 [$849 + 13% HST = $959.37 CA on
Amazon] and ship it to my sister, she is building a house, and getting
married...i love my Roomba and thought it'd be a fun present. Sadly I cannot
do this, and since Amazon is just a book store in Australia there is really no
option for using Amazon here.

The 'competition', Harvey Norman, lists the same item at $1399 AU. For fun,
the exchange rate is $1.01 AUD for $1 CAD, pretty damn close. Import taxes I
assumed, but then I found a cheaper and lesser known electronics website in
Australia sells it for $1049 [taxes included]. Pretty close!

The moral to this story: Amazon will continue to be successful and grow as
long as traditional retail insists on ripping off it's customers. I look
forward to them prioritizing growth over profits for years to come, the entire
world remains!

~~~
pm
Everything in Australia is more expensive than it should be, unfortunately.
That's what we get for being the geographical arse end of the world.

~~~
Symbiote
It's also (AIUI) that Australian workers are paid a reasonably fair wage, even
if they're moving packages in a warehouse, delivering parcels or floor staff
in a shop.

Minimum wage in Australia is double that in the USA.

Here in Denmark, the minimum wage is even higher (2.5 times USA _plus_
pension) and the vacuum more expensive than in Australia.

~~~
verelo
I don't think that would even come close to explaining this difference. But as
an Australian, yeah it's a thing.

------
josaka
Relevant sequence of tweets by an antitrust legal scholar on the consumer
welfare vs. big-is-bad approaches to antitrust law:
[https://twitter.com/ProfWrightGMU/status/889603600804179972](https://twitter.com/ProfWrightGMU/status/889603600804179972)

~~~
blizkreeg
What's with his condescending hipsterantitrust hashtag?

------
brettproctor
Can someone ask the author to google 'myspace' and 'yahoo'? Maybe 'sun' as
well? """ Customers naturally gravitate to the platform with the largest
network of customers (think Facebook). Or their success depends on having the
most customer data (think Google). ... What this “post-Chicago” economics
shows is that in such industries, firms that jump into an early lead can gain
such an overwhelming advantage that new rivals find it nearly impossible to
enter the market, while even experienced ones find it difficult to stay in the
game. """

------
throwaway032104
I'm an alumni of one of the big accelerators. We have had long internal email
threads about Amazon strongarming smaller ecommerce startups with mandatory
stock warrants as a precondition to sell anywhere on amazon. For example,
amazon will force a startup to give amazon a warrant to buy 10% of the company
at a discount.

They have frequently tried to figure out what customers ultimately want and
SHUT OFF accounts of sellers on amazon ... and gone and listed those products
themselves.

Amazon is extremely famous for arm twisting anti-competitive and anti-startup
policies.

------
tracker1
I wish that Amazon would start labeling packages with a code that indicates
the "seller" so that they can better track, isolate and ban sellers of
counterfeit goods. It wouldn't add _that_ much to their overhead (what, < $.20
per item?), and would do a lot to improving the risk of class action, and
trademark suits ahead.

------
sergiotapia
asked the newspaper owned by Amazon owner.

------
samnwa
I think the question to ask is: does Amazon make things better for consumers?
The answer is an emphatic yes. Their practices squeeze every dollar out of the
price of goods and then put that money right back into something else you
want. Magical overnight shipping, digital books and videos, fresh and local
food delivery -- what more do you want?

------
shanbhag
Oh the irony.

------
stephengillie
/s/Amazon/Walmart/

/s/2019/2003/

------
gandutraveler
Bezos owns Washington Post :(

~~~
pg314
That is mentioned in the article.

------
isidoreSeville
Yeah

~~~
Piccollo
It was a rhetorical question.

------
odc
For you :-)

------
mcappleton
I'm all for competition. If amazon is the best, then more power to them.
However if they stifle competition, that's a problem.

From what I have read and my experience, they are stifling competition. For
example, I read a persons blog post who said amazon had a rule that you can't
sell your product on amazon and sell it for less on your own site. That's just
rotten. Also I have an ebook on amazon and in order to get exposure you have
to exclusively sell on amazon. I get why he does these things, but that's just
not right.

Amazon isn't a horrible corporation, but I think some of the things they do
are anticompetitive and should be changed.

So are they too big? No being big is fine and helps them be more efficient.
The real question in my mind is if they are using their size to compete
unfairly.

~~~
MichaelGG
They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third
parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we
temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell
those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their
shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV).

So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.

~~~
grecy
> _They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV_

This is such an interesting topic.

If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being
anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell
yours in my stand?

The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my
stuff, not yours.

What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft
products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM?

It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever
they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

~~~
kjksf
It's about intersection of "anti-competitive" and "big enough to alter market
dynamics".

In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to
sell GM would be anti-competitive.

If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be
anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft.

Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in
US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV
competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive.

Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to
sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by
Amazon, merely distributed by them.

To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd
parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is
pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of
their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively
affecting customers.

~~~
electric_sheep
Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen
move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they
discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming
work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire
Sticks.

~~~
tracker1
No kidding... I finally broke down and got an NVidia Shield TV so I could have
one device for just about everything, I also wanted a 4K capable device, but
that was secondary.

------
elorant
I find it surreal that the article is written in a medium owned by Amazon.

~~~
passivepinetree
It's not surreal, it's a good sign. Would you rather live in a world in which
the owner of a media company will never allow negative content to be published
about their other properties?

~~~
keebEz
Or they want to get ahead of the messaging...

------
myth_drannon
It's ironic that WP is owned by Bezos.

------
mdns33
Isn't Jeff bezos the owner of Washington post?

~~~
dsschnau
I thought the same thing, haha. How can WaPo possibly ever be objective on
this topic lol

~~~
pg314
The editorial board of the Washington Post is independent. Bezos doesn't exert
any editorial control. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be
interested to see it.

------
logfromblammo
I feel like Betteridge is failing me here, because I want to scream "yes!"

Then I read the article, and Amazon _is_ actually hiring notable antitrust
lawyers. So it would appear that even Amazon thinks it's getting too big, even
for the current regulatory atmosphere.

~~~
intopieces
> So it would appear that even Amazon thinks it's getting too big

Only guilty people hire lawyers? The intention of hiring counsel is to help
you navigate the law and the procedure. It doesn't say anything about what
Amazon "thinks."

~~~
orionblastar
It is more like Amazon hires the antitrust lawyers as some sort of insurance
in case an antitrust suit is filed against them. This is like getting a
vacination shot to advoid the flu in the business world.

Is Amazon too big? They are like a gentle giant offering services and products
cheaper than competition with a good return policy in case of defective stuff.
Amazon is sort of a better Walmart here but instead of going to a store front
you shop online and things you order get shipped to you. If Amazon is too big,
then so is Walmart and others.

------
SirensOfTitan
The big question is how you'd even split up a company like Amazon. The
Economist published a quality piece a little while back on how antitrust rules
need to change for the data economy:
[https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-
economy...](https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-
demands-new-approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource)

On another note:

> They are implicated in complaints that Facebook has aided the rise of “fake
> news” while draining readers and revenue from legitimate news media.

This feels tired as if Facebook and Google were using anticompetitive
practices to drain "legitimate news media" from revenue. Traditional media
outlets aren't victims: they still refuse to look at alternative models of
distribution, and have no one to blame but themselves.

