Don't think you can summarize my arguments and repeat them back to me as you have never shown a fraction of the smarts to do that.

Instead you stuff strawmen and make up arguements like a child and argue against yourself.

Nothing you say above deals with any of the arguments I have made.

My arguments have nothing to do with 'creating anything new'.

You won't address my arguments and the ones being made by others as you have no answer. You KNOW you are wrong and that is why you make up different arguments you think can beat.

IF Coca had a singular monopolistic platform for selling SODAs which basically any new soda launching had to use, and if Coke could use that platform to gain all the data on the competitors products and more importantly the trending searches that indicate future sales and profitability and then Coke knocked off the best with competitor products they could not match in price, I WOULD have the same problem with Coke as I do Amazon.

Replace Coke with XYZ as it does NOT matter the company or product. What matters is XYZ uses the data generated from the other products sales, and other tactics against them.

Now its time for you to completely misunderstand again what i say here and write your next BS response to nothing like a simpleton.

For the record Itshot, I do think you post in bad faith.

And that is because I cannot believe you are as dumb as you pretend to be in your posts and instead think instead you choose this act. You cannot seem to follow an argument or to make a valid point. You spam the boards with nonsense replying to ghosts of stuff nobody ever said.

It's pretty simple, Amazon, and every other company uses market research on new products in order to capitalize on that new products success themselves, by marketing a similar, competing product, Amazon, in this case, promote their product, at the expensive of the other product, you find that to be unethical, but it's the basis of competition.

It's not a straw man, you seem too dense to grasp competition, or like always, you disagree and pretend I'm ignoring your argument. I've attempted in multiple different ways to show you that what you are describing is competitive behavior, not anti-competitive behavior. It's the entrepreneur responsibility to market their product, not Amazon. That core premise is indisputable. The idea that you can't create a product, and not be successful without Amazon interference, is bogus. It' pretty clear, if you can't market your product outside Amazon, and/or competing products, your product has a marketing problem no amount of regulation is going to solve. Amazon is a competitor. Your product has an issue if it can't survive competition, that's not Amazon's fault. It's means your product is indistinguishable, and offers no value proposition for the consumer to choose it. They don't have to sell/market their product only on Amazon.

That's nice, I think you are stubborn moron, but I don't think you are part of the toxiccult.

and FYI Cuepee, your argument is the same one made in the 90's about Walmart.


To this day, in many cases, Walmart is still the price leader in many things, yeah, some went out of business, but they were operating inefficiently, compared to Walmart.

Who benefits from protecting that inefficient store owner? The store owner. Who loses? Consumers. By having to pay a price that's not the lowest possible, increasing their cost of living. It's not the store owners fault they can't match the scale of Amazon, WalMart, but they can't match the scale, nonetheless. If you prevent scale from occurring, you will get black markets that offer scale.

Wages?

Have to compete, and offer a value proposition.

Yes, your masters the Kochs set it up that way so it looks legit.
At this point only fools and liars still buy their BS though.

Two google clicks is all it took me to trace it to GMU.

Again, it's your source that was biased. That actually makes it about you Simple Simon.

Occam's razor would indicate he probably is.

And yet the Digital Age and the age of Big Data is new and different which you are too stupid to understand.

Things are evolving in business and only a few players like Amazon and Facebook and a handful of others can truly wield big data as a weapon.

IT is that DIFFERENCE, you nitwit, I am focused on.

Yes you keep stuffing strawman. Over and over you act as if its competition I am against when I have said no such thing and am not. But your inability to comprehend an argument beyond 'd'uh competition' makes you stuff strawmen and argue against them.

I will say one more time, and expect you to stupidly not understand it. Amazon and a handful of others are utilizing Big Data in ways never before available to any but the US and other big gov'ts.

They are utilizing this proprietary tool in competing with regular companies who have no such access. And while that can be fine in some areas, in other areas I believe it crosses a line. i have given my arguments as to how and where.

(this is where you misunderstand it and again just repeat 'duh competition' because you can comprehend an argument that goes beyond just that)

Strawman.

Tool of the idiot. Congrats.

See my prior post as nothing you say in this one addresses my points.

Ya, he definitely as dumb as he appears or he is a master troll.

You call people stupid, but you really have a poor understanding of macroeconomics, and microeconomics for that matter.

Once again, if you offer a product, with a competitive value proposition, that appeals to consumers, people will buy the product, and will attract competitors, big and small, who will use market research. If you offer a store that presents a competitive value proposition, people will shop at that store, value proposition does not mean just price, as I showed you with the Verizon versus Sprint example.

You claim the cola example was a straw man, but it's evidence that other colas/softdrinks can compete with the company that's been doing it for over a hundred years, and uses big data. New drinks are popping up all the time that competes directly with the big players who utilize big data. It also shows Coca-Cola can compete with people making similar products. Gatorade started getting traction when Pepsi bought them, guess what happend? Powerade was created by Coca Cola, and host of other sports drinks by other people. Why do you think Coca Cola created powerade? It was based on data. The Walmart example extrapolates this to stores, instead of products. It's why Kroger can compete with WalMart. You are explicitly saying you don't want competition to occur because people have competitive advantages. The widget maker needs a competitive advantage. I think it's bonkers you think the government should give them one, instead of the widget maker competing and creating a value proposition that appeals to consumers, i.e. innovate.

It's not different, though. It's just more efficient, and it's a competitive advantage, for sure, but if you make a superior product with a value proposition that appeals to consumers, you will beat big data, and the big boys, check out Monster Energy, Red Bull. Big data can't overcome a good value proposition that appeals to consumers. This is where my piracy example comes in. Pirating media is free for the consumer, and media companies have to compete with that offering. Media companies still earn profits. How can that be if you can get it all for free?

You are calling me stupid, but you literally have no clue about economics even when someone is holding your hand and essentially drawing you pictures. You look like a moron.

My rebuttal is, and always was, big data can't overcome a compelling value proposition. The folks who can't offer that proposition gets beat. My examples demonstrating this, is not a straw man, idiot. You have not contended with that all. You cited nothing that contradicts that core economic reality.

Here:

Guess these economist are stupid as well, or involved in some giant conspiracy.

If that's the case and since that process has been going on for quite awhile, why hasn't the DoJ done anything about it?

The idea supermarkets/retailers of the past did not do exactly what Amazon is doing today is absurd. Supermarkets knew exactly what they were selling, and who they were selling to, just as well as Amazon knows what it's selling, and who they are selling to. Advertisers and product salespeople have been targeting demographics for decades. Apparently, becasue Amazon is so efficient at it (they are not more efficient than any other store, but that's a digression), it's now a problem. The only problem he's been able to point to is the widget producer going out of business due to the competitions ability to leverage data, which is somehow rationalized as anti-competitive, while completely ignoring other steps the widget maker could take to compete.


That's the great irony. Private label competition helps poor people. It's so weird these guys make these bullshit arguments, and when people point it out, they call them stupid, yet economist have been refuting that bullshit for decades.

I'm a master troll/stupid/bad faith for stating what many economist have said for decades....like, WTF is wrong you people? #toxiccult

And once again he argues for government ownership of the means of production.

Once again he thinks the only value in capitalism is low price to consumer.

See thread title ?

He's a Koch flunky.

Did you read where he said he didn't know where his source came from ? lulz.

This is not reality, you idiot. It is your thesis. Your guess.

You seem to not understand what big data. Coke does NOT have access to the big data that Amazon and Facebook and only a handful of others do. You seem to think Coke being able to buy a competitor report equals Big Data, it DOES NOT.

Big Data in TODAYS market is a NEW element that did not exist prior to these Tech Giants. Only big gov'ts, like the US gov't had anything comparable.

This is literally what one section of many of Amazon's clean server rooms looks like.



I remember reading that Microsoft passed 1 Million Servers in their server warehouse about 5 years ago and they are not the biggest.


So you can SPECULATE that this does not make a difference in competition, but that is all you are doing. They literally have data down to the individual now. Facebook can utilize data down to the person attached to their name, phone number and other contact details.

Coke, Walmart and others have no such capacity.

And I am not complaining that they have that data. I am saying it is wrong and anti-competitive for Amazon to use a Client Customers own data against them to put them out of business.

You are company XYZ and Amazon MarketPlace is the main market now to get your widget out. You list on Amazon and have some success. You are growing. Amazon knows down to the city, customer age, and far more data on who is buying your product. They know what times they shop, where they browse, what words they search and so much more.

Amazon decides to launch a competitive widget and uses YOUR data to target your customers. They ensure when searched their widget appears at the top of the list. They can choose to obscure yours or make it harder to find in search.

That is the difference that makes this a unique competitive advantage that did not exist in this way prior.

Can you stop calling people names like "idiots?" You are the one that can't seem to comprehend free market economics.

So we have many possible solutions to this alleged "problem":

* XYZ company differentiates their product to the extent that it can be protected via copyright/TM/patent and/or cannot be easily duplicated (i.e., commoditized).

* XYZ finds a different platform to sell their product(s).

* XYZ creates their own platform to sell their product(s).

* Consumers retaliate against Amazon's "unfair" practices by boycotting Amazon and purchasing products in other markets.

Notice that each and every one of these potential solutions are voluntary... just as XYZ's choice to list their product(s) on Amazon, Amazon's choice to list XYZ's product(s), the consumers' choices to use Amazon to purchase products, and the consumers' choices to purchase (or not purchase) specific products all were.

Ok lets clear some things up here.

Your article is not authored by 'economists'. The author is a Anti-Trust litigation lawyer who defends companies when they are accused by the gov't of anti-trust offenses.

I won't waste a lot of time telling you why it makes a lot of sense for him to author as many of these types of papers as possible so when a company is being sued by the GOv't and looking for an 'expert lawyer' in the field to defend them, they go to him.

And even his article does not say what you think it does. It addresses more the impact of Big Data V Big Data. That there are now competitors in Big Data and thus not a Monopoly.

What he is not addressing is the one on one effect of an Amazon utilizing Big Data to THEMSELVES compete against a traditional company that does not have that access. That is a unique differentiator you keep ignoring.

Facebook, Microsoft, Google and other Big Data housers are NOT competing against the clients who need to use their platforms (that we know of) and that seems to be solely Amazon who is doing that.

I can post endless articles like the below so you will lose the citation war if you want to take it that way.

How Amazon Used Big Data to Rule E-Commerce

How Amazon Is Leveraging Big Data

When Data Creates Competitive Advantage

Itshot lets boil this down a bit.

I have never said things like Product Loyalty do not matter and other competitive factors. They are a part of what makes a sale for SOME items but not all in those product areas (especially Food) it can over come other factors such as Data.

There are more areas than not, I would argue, where brand loyalty plays almost no part in a purchase, and instead price, speed of delivery, etc will drive the decision most times.

But do you acknowledge that Big Data (which is not the same as just data) has, since the rise of Amazon, MS, Google, FB and a few others began to CHANGE the very nature of competition in many ways, some of which we do not yet have enough history with to fully understand?

I get the feeling you do not really understand what Big Data (as opposed to just Data) is, and maybe i am wrong, and that is leading you to the errors you keep making.

Do you even view the role of Big Data in Sales as significant?

I can tell you that I doubt you would find a large successful company that got that way without utilizing (small) data or the regular data that was available pre Big Data. They would almost certainly cite as the #1 or 2 best competitive advantage behind or in some cases, in front of, brand loyalty.

- This is a new and emerging area they do not fully understand the impact of yet.
- They have been considering it and looking into it since Big Data emerged. The idea of uncoupling the Big Data Warehousers from the Sales or other competitive arms is in discussion.
- Crony Capitalism is a thing. Thus this thread.



ok you are just a troll or again too stupid.

It was impossible, LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, for retailers of the past to do EXACTLY what Amazon is doing today as they did NOT have Big Data back then.

You cannot EXACTLY do what did not exist.

You simply do not understand what you are talking about and so you keep spewing nonsense but you are too dumb and stubborn to admit you do not know, what you do not know.


Big Data is not the same as the Data regular companies would buy from an Ad Agency or Research group prior.

For those who do not understand the difference between the old school data utilized in yesteryear and what todays Big Data is and how it can impact competitiveness, I will highlight with one example.


Old school data was something you bought in a report and you utilized in 'past' sense. It was knowledge collect about PAST practices that you hoped would still be relevant as you applied to your FUTURE strategy. You might learn that your key customer base was mostly in Big Cities and were Males. But if your product group was new and trending it would give you little insights as to what frontier markets it was breaking in to. You would always be chasing them or trying to out guess them.


imagine you start an upstart Airline targeting growth communities that are under served but which the Big Airline(s0 do move to once they see they are big enough. You entire model is around you making the right calls and getting in first and building a presence before the big guy(s) focus on them.

Now imagine your Competitor is Amazon Air. But not only do they own the largest competitor they own the Sole Booking Engine (Amazon/Expedia Air).

That engine in real time (LIVE and NOW) is collecting data not just on what routes are being bought, but they see prior to purchase what is trending, what is being searched, spikes in interest and in chat. They also have all of your companies data down to the 'times and days you get the most bookings, any promotions you run, etc'.


Amazon Air now targets everything you do with the goal of taking all your business for themselves.

As any route is showing any surge interest via searches or other, Amazon Air targets that increasing interest with Ad Blitz of their own sales on those routes, picking off much of the early bookers interest. Amazon knows exactly where and when these people are searching, in real time, and ensures their Ad's dominate there too.

Your company, using the old tactics is trying to jump in. But Amazon knows exactly what you will be advertising and where. And they control the placement of your Ads and how easily it will be found compared to their Ads. Amazon blitz your best times and locations with preferential space giving for their Ads. Amazons pricing is dynamic and so if you are winning any on price, the algorithm automatically adjusts the price, within a range until you are not.

This is only a fraction of what Big Data does and quite frankly as it is a new field we are only seeing a fraction. Inside Amazon and Google and FB, they are pushing these limits and learning ever more.

And I am not in any way against Big Data or see it is a negative. I simply think that if you are company that is a Big Data Warehouse, you should not ALSO be the MARKET PLACE, and then if you are Big Data Warehouse and Market Place you doubly certain should not also then add an arm that is a RETAILER competing against the companies paying you already to be in your Marketplace.

Competing against your Clients with their own Big Data you have access to in real time and they do not, is C-Change and something we never had prior to the advent of this very recent Big Data age.

As long as he continues to misrepresent my arguments and stuff strawman that I 'just don't like competition' that means he is either too dumb to know what he is reading or he is trolling and lying.

There really is no option C.

He needs to either be more honest or smarter.

Please feel free to quote anything I have said that shows I do not?


Great. For the small number of products where this is a possibility that can work.


Great. When XYZ is not in an area where Amazon (or another) has near Monopolistic market reach that would be a good option.

In the land of 'widget' retailing Brick and Mortar is dying and Amazon is a place most have to compete or they simply won't exist.


Great. How many Billions did Amazon sink and LOSE to build that market place. Not a great answer for every retailer to just go 'recreate your own marketplace'.

Consumers by in large do not care about anti-competitive practices and how they can harm a market place long term and cost everyone more. They tend to care about the price they are paying NOW.

Yes they are voluntary. They just are not effective at addressing the problem.

Honestly your solutions sound like the things a child would say would fix the problem who does not think through what they are saying.

Monopolistic power is a thing. It CAN BE and HAS BEEN very harmful, long term to the markets it dominates. You could spam in your 'solutions' in a template list as if they are an easy fix but they are not. Nothing you say above would have a real impact on a true monopolistic market place but you will say 'theoretically they could', and that is enough for you. In practice they do not though.