Platform A has a 40% fee and requires price elsewhere to be the same. Manufacturer X sells their own product on their own website, at +40% their price.
This is bad for buyers and competition. Platform A is already big and important enough that you can’t skip it, and can drive up and control pricing generally.
If the requirement were not there, if platform A does not offer enough plus service for the 40% margin, other platforms would keep the prices at a reasonable level. People could buy from the manufacturer at their original price.
A marketplace important enough that you can’t skip it being able to dictate market conditions is how it manifests itself further as the primary player and controlling instance.
Amazon is one of the largest online retailers in the world. If they force prices on suppliers to get a better deal than anyone else, that’s between extortion and price fixing.
For the same thing sold on their marketplace, yes. Literally you are voluntarily agreeing to use a private marketplace, you should agree to all their rules or just stop using that marketplace.
Amazon isn’t a public service. They aren’t a Farmer’s market run by the city. They aren’t a sidewalk. If you would like a public version of Amazon that doesn’t have those restrictions and would be cheaper for literally everyone, advocate for that. But until a public alternative exists then yes, Amazon can and should impose whatever rules it wants. Alternatives will appear if it becomes too restrictive and the platform will die.
That’s insanity. Under those terms, most suppliers would be at the whims of platform owners.
Microsoft asking Valve for a 50% cut? Sure. Google delisting a website because the owner criticized their CEO? Absolutely. Amazon telling you to sell at a loss or not sell at all? Why not.
That’s insanity. Under those terms, most suppliers would be at the whims of platform owners.
Congrats, you found one of the many problems with the concept of capitalism.
Microsoft asking Valve for a 50% cut? Sure. Google delisting a website because the owner criticized their CEO? Absolutely. Amazon telling you to sell at a loss or not sell at all? Why not.
Yes. That is how all that works. Because they are all private companies and it is voluntary to use their services.
If you think those services should be neutral, congrats, you’re advocating for communism. I think communism is pretty cool and there should be a state-run online marketplace that is entirely non-profit. But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea. Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea.
I disagree. There are plenty of success stories of companies being forced by governments to act in the best interest of consumers, from adopting USB-C to removing lead from gasoline.
Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
I’m really not. You want a neutral marketplace that just provides a service without a profit motive. That’s what it comes down to. Because any service that requires a profit will naturally protect that profit, and that includes excluding suppliers that are actively sabotaging it.
Absolutely, stop using Amazon. Except what’s the alternative? They’ve wedged themselves in that space, and bought out any other competitor. So either they get forced to compete with themselves (by breaking the company apart) or they adhere to anti-monopoly laws where they’re not allowed to influence other prices as part of their agreement.
Except what’s the alternative? They’ve wedged themselves in that space, and bought out any other competitor.
Aliexpress, walmart.com, ebay.com, wayfair.com, any manufacturer’s website. Or the actual global leader in the space, Alibaba which dwarfs Amazon’s entire marketplace with over twice the users and easily a thousand times the suppliers.
So either they get forced to compete with themselves (by breaking the company apart) or they adhere to anti-monopoly laws where they’re not allowed to influence other prices as part of their agreement.
Or, if people think private companies should be neutral, like a public service… PEOPLE SHOULD FUCKING ADVOCATE AND ORDER THEIR GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE.
It is infinitely easier and better to get the government to do things for you than it is to force a private company to do things for you.
Your own website as the manufacturer doesn’t have the reach of these other platforms. (in an age of SEO and AI searches it really doesn’t have to be that way).
The strongest argument here is in favor of Aliexpress. Which isn’t without issues and heavily lobbied by amazon to have even more issues in the US.
And in my opinion it should be illegal. What do you think?
Genuinely why? Why do you think you have the right to any specific marketplace?
Do you want them to have a monopoly? Because that’s how they are gonna get a monopoly.
Platform A has a 40% fee and requires price elsewhere to be the same. Manufacturer X sells their own product on their own website, at +40% their price.
This is bad for buyers and competition. Platform A is already big and important enough that you can’t skip it, and can drive up and control pricing generally.
If the requirement were not there, if platform A does not offer enough plus service for the 40% margin, other platforms would keep the prices at a reasonable level. People could buy from the manufacturer at their original price.
A marketplace important enough that you can’t skip it being able to dictate market conditions is how it manifests itself further as the primary player and controlling instance.
Do you really think that Amazon should be allowed to set prices outside their marketplace? That’s wild.
You are allowed to not market yourself at amazon, i dont see the issue really
Amazon is one of the largest online retailers in the world. If they force prices on suppliers to get a better deal than anyone else, that’s between extortion and price fixing.
Sounds like not shopping or selling at amazon is the actual solution to the problem. I havent bought a single item of them in my life, so why do you?
So as long as you don’t shop at Amazon, it’s fine if they do illegal shit.
Got it.
Is that a ‘yes’ on you being a customer at amazon?
For the same thing sold on their marketplace, yes. Literally you are voluntarily agreeing to use a private marketplace, you should agree to all their rules or just stop using that marketplace.
Amazon isn’t a public service. They aren’t a Farmer’s market run by the city. They aren’t a sidewalk. If you would like a public version of Amazon that doesn’t have those restrictions and would be cheaper for literally everyone, advocate for that. But until a public alternative exists then yes, Amazon can and should impose whatever rules it wants. Alternatives will appear if it becomes too restrictive and the platform will die.
That’s insanity. Under those terms, most suppliers would be at the whims of platform owners.
Microsoft asking Valve for a 50% cut? Sure. Google delisting a website because the owner criticized their CEO? Absolutely. Amazon telling you to sell at a loss or not sell at all? Why not.
Congrats, you found one of the many problems with the concept of capitalism.
Yes. That is how all that works. Because they are all private companies and it is voluntary to use their services.
If you think those services should be neutral, congrats, you’re advocating for communism. I think communism is pretty cool and there should be a state-run online marketplace that is entirely non-profit. But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea. Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
I disagree. There are plenty of success stories of companies being forced by governments to act in the best interest of consumers, from adopting USB-C to removing lead from gasoline.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
I’m really not. You want a neutral marketplace that just provides a service without a profit motive. That’s what it comes down to. Because any service that requires a profit will naturally protect that profit, and that includes excluding suppliers that are actively sabotaging it.
No, I want marketplaces to operate in good faith and following the law. Don’t think that’s so much to ask.
Absolutely, stop using Amazon. Except what’s the alternative? They’ve wedged themselves in that space, and bought out any other competitor. So either they get forced to compete with themselves (by breaking the company apart) or they adhere to anti-monopoly laws where they’re not allowed to influence other prices as part of their agreement.
Aliexpress, walmart.com, ebay.com, wayfair.com, any manufacturer’s website. Or the actual global leader in the space, Alibaba which dwarfs Amazon’s entire marketplace with over twice the users and easily a thousand times the suppliers.
Or, if people think private companies should be neutral, like a public service… PEOPLE SHOULD FUCKING ADVOCATE AND ORDER THEIR GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE.
It is infinitely easier and better to get the government to do things for you than it is to force a private company to do things for you.
Afaik Walmart does the same.
EBay is a different service as is Wayfair.
Your own website as the manufacturer doesn’t have the reach of these other platforms. (in an age of SEO and AI searches it really doesn’t have to be that way).
The strongest argument here is in favor of Aliexpress. Which isn’t without issues and heavily lobbied by amazon to have even more issues in the US.