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
-
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.
-
-
Again, could be true, but this argument is still not tantamount to "Amazon is a bad service," and nor are the monopoly concerns allayed by points about how hard it was to Internet shop pre-Amazon, or how convenient it is in the middle of a pandemic (or any other point in time).
-
If Amazon is an exceptional service, it really does undercut the claim that it must break the law to succeed. Monopoly concerns are allayed both by Amazon not being a monopoly and by Amazon not causing the problems monopolies tend to cause.
- 3 more 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.