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 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."
-
Well, therein lies the rub. A popular narrative now is that no company could *possibly* dominate unless by anti-competitive practices, and that standard business practices suddenly fall into that basket as soon as a company cones out too far ahead.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.