User Controls

How Amazon Nuked diapers.com (example of monopoly power in action)

  1. #1
    Quidsi's (parent company of Diapers.com) founders didn't want to sell their company, but Amazon's diaper price war was starting to hurt Quidsi. Growth was slowing, and Quidsi was having trouble raising additional capital to continue expanding. On September 14, the founders of Quidsi flew to Seattle to meet with Amazon and discuss a possible acquisition. As Quidsi's founders were sitting in a meeting with Amazon brass, Amazon hit Quidsi in the gut. It announced a new program called "Amazon Mom" that offered free Prime service and an additional 30-percent discount on diapers if users signed up to get them through Amazon's monthly "subscribe and save" program. This was a larger discount than Amazon offered on most other Subscribe and Save items.

    This put Quidsi in an untenable situation, as Stone writes: "That month, Diapers.com listed a case of Pampers at $45; Amazon priced it at $39, and Amazon Mom customers with Subscribe and Save could get a case for less than $30. At one point, Quidsi executives took what they knew about shipping rates, factored in Proctor and Gamble's wholesale prices, and calculated that Amazon was on track to lose $100 million over three months in the diapers category alone."
    https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/07/31/1742256/emails-detail-amazons-plan-to-crush-a-startup-rival-with-price-cuts

    The monopoly power specified in the title isn't Amazon, it's Amazon's suppliers of capital. They have been with the company since early on, and have supported the company even when it was making large losses with no real plan for making a profit.
  2. #2
    all you need to do is to look back in history.

    in aviation, there were more aeroplane manufacturers back in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

    in tobbacco, there were more ciggarette companies back in the 70s than there are today.

    in automobile, there were more car manufactures in the US and europe back in their heydays right after the war than there are today.

    even when it comes to beers and alcohols, they're controlled by a few companies.

    the pursuit of greater profits has caused companies to M&A into monopolies.

    bayers had just merged with monsanto, uber has been going around buyimg its competitors, telcos would have merged into a single giant megacorporation if it wasnt for the antitrust laws breaking them apart.

    in any and every industry, if companies are left to their own device without regulation monopoly ensues.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  3. #3
    Of course.

    And in most of the cases you mentioned the two or three market player just pretend to compete - for instance Airbus and Boeing go back and forth, but neither wants to see the other go out of business.

    Microsoft bailed Apple out back in the 90s.
    https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/

    High tech and heavy industry has very high capital requirements. A massive ecosystem of competitors simply isn't plausible in such circumstances.

    It's rationalisation, managerialism, and it's very well planned out.
  4. #4
    i think airbus and boeing would have merged a long time ago if it wasnt for politics and microsofts bailout of apple was an attempt to buy it or its silence.
  5. #5
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i think airbus and boeing would have merged a long time ago if it wasnt for politics and microsofts bailout of apple was an attempt to buy it or its silence.

    Wrong.
  6. #6
    Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting Wrong.

    how so ?
  7. #7
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    isn't it explicitly illegal under US law to drop prices below cost and subsidize the losses with a different industry or part of the business?
  8. #8
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny how so ?

    Boeing is directly tied to the US state, specifically through military contracts and Airbus is tied to the EU
  9. #9
    Originally posted by aldra isn't it explicitly illegal under US law to drop prices below cost and subsidize the losses with a different industry or part of the business?

    costing is an extremely tricky thing to do when you have a product made up of hundreds of parts manufactured in house and out in factories spread all over the world.

    Originally posted by aldra Boeing is directly tied to the US state, specifically through military contracts and Airbus is tied to the EU

    yea, like i said, boeing and airbus would have mearged if it wasnt due to politics.
  10. #10
    Speedy Parker Dark Matter
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny all you need to do is to look back in history.

    in aviation, there were more aeroplane manufacturers back in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

    in tobbacco, there were more ciggarette companies back in the 70s than there are today.

    in automobile, there were more car manufactures in the US and europe back in their heydays right after the war than there are today.

    even when it comes to beers and alcohols, they're controlled by a few companies.

    the pursuit of greater profits has caused companies to M&A into monopolies.

    bayers had just merged with monsanto, uber has been going around buyimg its competitors, telcos would have merged into a single giant megacorporation if it wasnt for the antitrust laws breaking them apart.

    in any and every industry, if companies are left to their own device without regulation monopoly ensues.

    https://niggasin.space/thread/56903
  11. #11
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker https://niggasin.space/thread/56903

    the issue is less to do with large companies having an easier time in the market and more to do with the interchangeability of economic and political power; how companies that are profitable enough are essentially able to buy favourable changes to regulation and market controls that lead to their unfair advantage
  12. #12
    Speedy Parker Dark Matter
    Originally posted by aldra the issue is less to do with large companies having an easier time in the market and more to do with the interchangeability of economic and political power; how companies that are profitable enough are essentially able to buy favourable changes to regulation and market controls that lead to their unfair advantage

    regulations = market controls
  13. #13
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker https://niggasin.space/thread/56903

    that thread doesnt deserve serious replies because :

    1 - your just obbe-ing amd doesnt have your own opinion, rational or otherwise.

    2 - youve proclaimed your intemtion to not share your knowledges.

    3 - its gay.

    edit

    4 - your gay.
  14. #14
    Originally posted by aldra the issue is less to do with large companies having an easier time in the market and more to do with the interchangeability of economic and political power; how companies that are profitable enough are essentially able to buy favourable changes to regulation and market controls that lead to their unfair advantage

    egg amd chixkens.
Jump to Top