Whenever I read the replies on my popular tweets about Amazon, I realize that people have largely forgotten just how godawful online retail/delivery used to be. Maybe it's not fair to give Amazon *all* the credit, but it did force everybody else to raise their game substantially
-
It's dangerous to get to a single failure point by removing all of the alternatives, too. This is the mechanic people are concerned about with Amazon. No monopoly arises via incompetence of the monopolist
It's very feasible to maintain a monopoly while being terrible at what you do if you're *not* terrible at fostering a regulatory environment in which it's functionally illegal to compete with you. That's a real danger. People patronizing businesses that perform great? Not so much
-
-
As it stands, Amazon looks like a monopoly *because* it stands head and shoulders above other online retailers. They're still out there, and if they could execute like Amazon we'd probably be seeing some very interesting biz battles
-
Agreed that Amazon got to #1 by being simply better. Now, though, some believe they are retaining #1 with the help of (not exclusively due to) anticompetitive practices. Whether or not it's true, that's the argument against Amazon. Not, "it's a bad/useless service."
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Absolutely, case in point is one I mentioned above: PG&E. However, monopolies *arise* only from extremely strong performing businesses. Monopolies are never borne from the #3 player.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.