Except the issue isn't whether there are "dozens of other ways of buying things online, people just choose not to" but whether Amazon's market share is so large as to prohibit anyone from being able to compete with it.
Amazon sells ads on its marketplace. It also sells ads that integrate within its marketplace listings in a fashion that can be difficult to discern. It offers a fulfillment service that is integrated with its marketplace. It offers an integrated third party marketplace. These, are of course, facts. Whereas my initial response to was just the hypothetical point that you misunderstand how anti-trust law is applied. I don't think this has been much of a conversation seeing as how you are just being purposefully obtuse. It's clear you are making no efforts to come at this with good faith and I'm not going to bother any further otherwise.
You can use outrage if you want, but the fact remains that Amazon has nothing even approaching a monopoly, not in the legal sense and not in any layperson sense.
You’re kind of proving my point for me, that there’s no actual argument here, just general negative sentiment.
None of those facts do that, as Walmart offers everything you listed.
I just happen to live in AR and know a number of people who work on the relevant teams that do each of these things at Walmart, and given Walmart.com's growth in the last year, Amazon is far from the only company able to provide these services profitably.
Is Amazon a competitor? Yes. Do they have a monopoly? Heck no.
Oh wow, you conveniently know the exact people doing those exact things at Walmart but instead first made up that I expressed a negative sentiment. Yeah, okay.
Huh, what does that have to do with whether or not Amazon has a monopoly? I think at this point it’s clear they do not, you just didn’t have the info about the industry you were commenting on.
No, because the fact that competitors exist doesn't mean that there are not anti-trust concerns, not sure why I keep having to repeat this to you but oh well.
