Monopoly Enshittified Amazon

7 hours ago

Amazon has shifted from being customer-centric to an ad-filled platform where search results are dominated by paid placements, often irrelevant.
Amazon's $31 billion 'ad' business is mostly payola, where sellers must outspend each other to appear in search results, driving up costs.
Amazon's monopoly over buyers (via Prime) gives it monopsony power over sellers, forcing unfavorable terms like most-favored-nation status and high fees.
These fees can total 45% of a product's price, forcing sellers to raise prices everywhere, not just on Amazon.
Amazon clones successful seller products and promotes its own brands, engaging in self-preferencing that harms independent sellers.
The enshittification of Amazon is a symptom of broader platform capitalism, where companies use control over markets to extract value from creators and sellers.
Proposed solutions include adversarial interoperability to allow competition and requiring a minimum of real search results over ads.
Historical antitrust neglect allowed this situation; structural separation and anti-monopoly measures are needed now.

Amazon allegedly pressured suppliers to raise prices on rival retailers' sites to protect its own profitability, using tactics like suppressing product listings and demanding compensation.
Examples include a table lamp jumping from $24.99 to $39 at Walmart, an air fryer rising from $84.99 to $149.99 on Newegg, and an ice cream maker tripling to $59.99 at Amazon.
Internal emails show Amazon employees flagged low competitor prices as threats and instructed suppliers to fix pricing or face consequences, often using code words like 'channel optimization'.

Amazon has been accused of using seller data to create competing products like Amazon Basics, despite denying the allegations.
Merchants who sell on Amazon risk exposing their operational data to the platform, which could use it for competitive advantage.
Anthropic's Claude Design tool raised conflict-of-interest concerns when its CPO resigned from Figma's board shortly before its launch.

Publishers historically sold physical media (paper, CDs) rather than content itself, pricing based on format rather than quality.
Consumers never truly paid for content; they paid for the medium, which is now evaporating with digital technology.
Selling content directly to consumers is historically marginal (e.g., stock tip newsletters) and unlikely to work broadly.

The theory that dating apps intentionally avoid matching people to keep them paying is not unique; it reflects a general incentive to make products worse for profit.
Similar patterns exist across industries, such as pizza restaurants using cheap ingredients, automakers cutting safety costs, and manufacturers reducing product durability.
Products are often bad because consumers prefer cheaper options, not just because producers are greedy; this is a normal market function.

Streaming initially promised convenience, no ads, and a single service for all content.
Major studios launched their own platforms, fragmenting content across multiple services.
Subscription costs add up, and ad-supported plans have returned as companies seek more revenue.

Amazon allegedly pressured suppliers to raise prices on rival retailers' sites to protect its own profitability, using tactics like suppressing product listings and demanding compensation.
Examples include a table lamp jumping from $24.99 to $39 at Walmart, an air fryer rising from $84.99 to $149.99 on Newegg, and an ice cream maker tripling to $59.99 at Amazon.
Internal emails show Amazon employees flagged low competitor prices as threats and instructed suppliers to fix pricing or face consequences, often using code words like 'channel optimization'.

Amazon has been accused of using seller data to create competing products like Amazon Basics, despite denying the allegations.
Merchants who sell on Amazon risk exposing their operational data to the platform, which could use it for competitive advantage.
Anthropic's Claude Design tool raised conflict-of-interest concerns when its CPO resigned from Figma's board shortly before its launch.

Publishers historically sold physical media (paper, CDs) rather than content itself, pricing based on format rather than quality.
Consumers never truly paid for content; they paid for the medium, which is now evaporating with digital technology.
Selling content directly to consumers is historically marginal (e.g., stock tip newsletters) and unlikely to work broadly.

The theory that dating apps intentionally avoid matching people to keep them paying is not unique; it reflects a general incentive to make products worse for profit.
Similar patterns exist across industries, such as pizza restaurants using cheap ingredients, automakers cutting safety costs, and manufacturers reducing product durability.
Products are often bad because consumers prefer cheaper options, not just because producers are greedy; this is a normal market function.

Streaming initially promised convenience, no ads, and a single service for all content.
Major studios launched their own platforms, fragmenting content across multiple services.
Subscription costs add up, and ad-supported plans have returned as companies seek more revenue.

Hasty Briefsbeta