Amazon, the Brand Buster(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Amazon, the Brand Buster
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/business/amazon-the-brand-buster.html
122 comments
I mean... Isn't this exactly what is desired? "Bezos looked at things that violated the law, and then didn't do them". That's exactly why the laws exist - to deter anticompetitive behavior, not to punish success.
> Isn't this exactly what is desired?
Well - its not so much about that, but more about what Bezos et al were looking at.
The Yale law article is critical of a change in thinking that may have enabled the outcomes of amazon's behaviors : "Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s"
(edit typos)
Well - its not so much about that, but more about what Bezos et al were looking at.
The Yale law article is critical of a change in thinking that may have enabled the outcomes of amazon's behaviors : "Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s"
(edit typos)
This makes me want to buy some Amazon stock. :)
This attitude makes me want to prosecute shareholders :)
It is as if Bezos charted the company’s growth by first drawing a map of antitrust laws, and then devising routes to smoothly bypass them
What if that statement was correct? Bezos comes from D.E. Shaw, and it's known that the old sphinx takes the long view.
What if that statement was correct? Bezos comes from D.E. Shaw, and it's known that the old sphinx takes the long view.
That's quote is certainly alluring - My initial reaction was similar.
On further thought, based on my experience working with general managers/executives, I suspect they were following their noses more than making any elaborate plans.
A big advantage they had (and continue to have), was being embedded in a data rich software/online context AND the organizational drive to use it to their advantage.
On further thought, based on my experience working with general managers/executives, I suspect they were following their noses more than making any elaborate plans.
A big advantage they had (and continue to have), was being embedded in a data rich software/online context AND the organizational drive to use it to their advantage.
As someone who almost always buys generic brand from wherever I shop I'm pretty aloof to these complaints. Target, Walmart, and Costco all have in house brands.
The Amazon brand "Goodthreads" Oxfords I wear to the office are very impressively well made for the price. Compared to the Target "Goodfellow & Co" ones at the same price there's a higher level of quality and finish. They're better than the Banana Republic ones I had at half the cost.
The Amazon brand "Goodthreads" Oxfords I wear to the office are very impressively well made for the price. Compared to the Target "Goodfellow & Co" ones at the same price there's a higher level of quality and finish. They're better than the Banana Republic ones I had at half the cost.
I always do that with toilet paper, soap, etc. If Amazon kills brands, that is a great thing.
If you need to wear expensive clothing to show how rich you are, donate 10k to the top ranked give well charity, buy a five dollar t-shirt and I will sew your reciept on it. Much more efficent than throwing more money on Raulph Lauren.
If you need to wear expensive clothing to show how rich you are, donate 10k to the top ranked give well charity, buy a five dollar t-shirt and I will sew your reciept on it. Much more efficent than throwing more money on Raulph Lauren.
I wear expensive clothing (without any visible branding) because I'm paying a company that pays fair wages to their workers and are working on reducing environmental footprint. Now that company isn't on Amazon, and I don't have a problem with Amazon selling their own brands, but if they end up making it more difficult for smaller companies to thrive, I consider it a negative.
Branding isn't exclusively used by retail companies to signal wealth.
If Amazon unfairly kills brands, aren't they getting rid of competition which would then allow them to raise prices, in the end hurting the consumer?
I'm a little surprised so many people still buy large numbers of alkaline batteries. NiMH rechargeables are readily available, have a fairly low cost to get started with a battery/charger bundle, save a significant amount of money over time and have vastly better performance in higher-drain devices like cameras and flashlights.
It's hard for the pricing to work out unless you know you'll use them for a while. A 48-pack of Amazon AAs is $13.29 [1]. A 16-pack of Amazon rechargable AAs is $24.99 [2]. Ignoring the cost of a charger, the rechargables won't pay for themselves unless you go through 4 recharge cycles. If you add the $14.99 charger [3] for your first order, then you need 5 cycles on all of the batteries (80 cycles total) for it to be worth it.
1. https://amzn.com/B00MNV8E0C
2. https://amzn.com/B007B9NV8Q
3. https://amzn.com/B00TOVTZ7K
1. https://amzn.com/B00MNV8E0C
2. https://amzn.com/B007B9NV8Q
3. https://amzn.com/B00TOVTZ7K
I would be surprised if most people don't still have a use for AA and AAA batteries in a decade. A relatively light user should manage a charge cycle every couple of years, and NiMH batteries have a useful life longer than 10 years.
I think that something you're forgetting is that, though, as you mention, self-discharge has come a long way (as has charger technology, which I'm not sure has been mentioned), that doesn't mean every single product on the market actually benefits from these advances.
A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.
Oh, and where are we on the capacity front?
A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.
Oh, and where are we on the capacity front?
Capacity for LSD AA is about 2000 mAh; capacity for higher self-discharge is about 2500 mAh.
That is lower under extremely light loads than the best alkalines, but crosses over at a bit over 12 hours constant runtime since load has a relatively small effect on NiMH capacity, but a huge effect on alkaline capacity.
> A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.
Alkalines can leak corrosive electrolyte and destroy devices. This is a fairly well-known issue, but it doesn't seem like "always use rechargeable batteries so you don't ruin your stuff" is a widespread meme among the average consumer. I wonder why that is.
That is lower under extremely light loads than the best alkalines, but crosses over at a bit over 12 hours constant runtime since load has a relatively small effect on NiMH capacity, but a huge effect on alkaline capacity.
> A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.
Alkalines can leak corrosive electrolyte and destroy devices. This is a fairly well-known issue, but it doesn't seem like "always use rechargeable batteries so you don't ruin your stuff" is a widespread meme among the average consumer. I wonder why that is.
> Capacity for LSD
It's probably safe to say that the average consumer can't be bothered with anything that isn't LSD. The fact that another option even still exists hurts the overall branding, if you will, of the product category.
> That is lower under extremely light loads than the best alkalines, but crosses over at a bit over 12 hours constant runtime since load has a relatively small effect on NiMH capacity, but a huge effect on alkaline capacity.
Then we've reached parity, assuming identical size and at least close-enough weight. Is size identical (or smaller for NiMH)? Last I handled some, weight seemed comparable.
Now that we have, take a look at when that happened. More importantly, take a look at when that happened at an affordable price point. Compare that to when NiMH first started gaining popularity and what the (price-competitive) capacities (and self-discharge rates) were then, keeping in mind that's what formed consumer perception.
Total elapsed time of product existence may not be the best metric for perception change, but it'll at least give you a starting point.
> Alkalines can leak corrosive electrolyte and destroy devices. This is a fairly well-known issue, but it doesn't seem like "always use rechargeable batteries so you don't ruin your stuff" is a widespread meme among the average consumer. I wonder why that is.
I can think of two reasons. The first is that a "fairly well-known issue" isn't a well enough known issue. Suppression of bad press (or word-of-mouth) is likely the impetus behind large battery brands replacing even fairly expensive ruined electronics when customers complain to them.
Secondly, the relative frequency of the two is vastly different. One ruined flashlight (or even Garmin or whatever) every few years (though I think it's really more like decade-plus) sticks in the memory much less distinctly than having ones TV remote stop working every week or having that same flashlight never work (because one only uses it occasionally, maybe not even monthly).
There's no mystery here.
It's probably safe to say that the average consumer can't be bothered with anything that isn't LSD. The fact that another option even still exists hurts the overall branding, if you will, of the product category.
> That is lower under extremely light loads than the best alkalines, but crosses over at a bit over 12 hours constant runtime since load has a relatively small effect on NiMH capacity, but a huge effect on alkaline capacity.
Then we've reached parity, assuming identical size and at least close-enough weight. Is size identical (or smaller for NiMH)? Last I handled some, weight seemed comparable.
Now that we have, take a look at when that happened. More importantly, take a look at when that happened at an affordable price point. Compare that to when NiMH first started gaining popularity and what the (price-competitive) capacities (and self-discharge rates) were then, keeping in mind that's what formed consumer perception.
Total elapsed time of product existence may not be the best metric for perception change, but it'll at least give you a starting point.
> Alkalines can leak corrosive electrolyte and destroy devices. This is a fairly well-known issue, but it doesn't seem like "always use rechargeable batteries so you don't ruin your stuff" is a widespread meme among the average consumer. I wonder why that is.
I can think of two reasons. The first is that a "fairly well-known issue" isn't a well enough known issue. Suppression of bad press (or word-of-mouth) is likely the impetus behind large battery brands replacing even fairly expensive ruined electronics when customers complain to them.
Secondly, the relative frequency of the two is vastly different. One ruined flashlight (or even Garmin or whatever) every few years (though I think it's really more like decade-plus) sticks in the memory much less distinctly than having ones TV remote stop working every week or having that same flashlight never work (because one only uses it occasionally, maybe not even monthly).
There's no mystery here.
> The fact that another option even still exists hurts the overall branding
That's probably true. Unfortunately, that larger mAh number is always going to tempt people. Some heavy users do go for the higher capacity with a full understanding of the disadvantages, but that's not the majority of the market.
> Then we've reached parity, assuming identical size and at least close-enough weight.
Eneloops came out in 2005. Their capacity hasn't changed, though the service life of later versions is longer and the self-discharge is even lower. The 1000 charge cycles and 75% charge after a year of the original was entirely acceptable for consumer applications. I don't see a size difference between a 4th-generation Eneloop AAA and a random Duracell alkaline, but I don't have calipers to measure precisely. NiMH batteries are heavier than alkalines, but I suspect this is insignificant in most consumer applications. Disposable lithium batteries that can substitute 1:1 for alkalines are lighter than either, with higher capacity.
That's probably true. Unfortunately, that larger mAh number is always going to tempt people. Some heavy users do go for the higher capacity with a full understanding of the disadvantages, but that's not the majority of the market.
> Then we've reached parity, assuming identical size and at least close-enough weight.
Eneloops came out in 2005. Their capacity hasn't changed, though the service life of later versions is longer and the self-discharge is even lower. The 1000 charge cycles and 75% charge after a year of the original was entirely acceptable for consumer applications. I don't see a size difference between a 4th-generation Eneloop AAA and a random Duracell alkaline, but I don't have calipers to measure precisely. NiMH batteries are heavier than alkalines, but I suspect this is insignificant in most consumer applications. Disposable lithium batteries that can substitute 1:1 for alkalines are lighter than either, with higher capacity.
> Some heavy users do go for the higher capacity with a full understanding of the disadvantages, but that's not the majority of the market.
And there's part of your answer as to why a consumer might try rechargables and still reject them, even today: self-discharge too high.
> Eneloops came out in 2005.
So 13 years ago, whereas NiMH was 1989, or a 16 year spread. Wait at least another 3 years. Actually, wait until only LSD is readily available. Then wait the number of years until how long it will have been from then since 1989.
> I don't see a size difference between a 4th-generation Eneloop AAA and a random Duracell alkaline, but I don't have calipers to measure precisely.
The specs are probably available, but the more important question isn't whether your particular Eneloops are small enough, but if the vast majority (and AmazonBasics and if there's any other popular enough brand) are.
Tiny variations in size can not just prevent the battery from going in in the first place, but, worse, keep it from coming back out.
And there's part of your answer as to why a consumer might try rechargables and still reject them, even today: self-discharge too high.
> Eneloops came out in 2005.
So 13 years ago, whereas NiMH was 1989, or a 16 year spread. Wait at least another 3 years. Actually, wait until only LSD is readily available. Then wait the number of years until how long it will have been from then since 1989.
> I don't see a size difference between a 4th-generation Eneloop AAA and a random Duracell alkaline, but I don't have calipers to measure precisely.
The specs are probably available, but the more important question isn't whether your particular Eneloops are small enough, but if the vast majority (and AmazonBasics and if there's any other popular enough brand) are.
Tiny variations in size can not just prevent the battery from going in in the first place, but, worse, keep it from coming back out.
Most of the devices that I use batteries for are not high drain, not even my flashlights (because LEDs). I would prefer always having a stack of batteries to having to buy more (because they are always in use) and remember which are charged.
My camera, laptop, smartphone, kindle, etc all have their own rechargable battery, so what is left is mostly my Ikea tradlos, kitchen scale and car keys (plus associated stuff that i forget and which therefore can be assumed not to need all that much recharging) which all runs on the super small batteries (2032? 3220? something like that), that I haven't seen as a rechargeable model.
No doubt this will change with kids, but until I have them they won't matter.
My camera, laptop, smartphone, kindle, etc all have their own rechargable battery, so what is left is mostly my Ikea tradlos, kitchen scale and car keys (plus associated stuff that i forget and which therefore can be assumed not to need all that much recharging) which all runs on the super small batteries (2032? 3220? something like that), that I haven't seen as a rechargeable model.
No doubt this will change with kids, but until I have them they won't matter.
LED flashlights can be extremely high-drain depending on the ratio of output to size, but "high-drain" with regard to battery performance may be lower than you think. If 12 hours of constant operation will drain the batteries, low-self-discharge NiMH like white Eneloops or AmazonBasics will outlast any brand of alkaline.
Higher self-discharge (loss of charge when not in use) offers more capacity, and only extremely low-drain devices will last marginally longer with alkaline.
There are Li-ion button cells such as 2032, but their voltage range is higher than the disposables and their capacity is quite low. Their applications are fairly niche.
Higher self-discharge (loss of charge when not in use) offers more capacity, and only extremely low-drain devices will last marginally longer with alkaline.
There are Li-ion button cells such as 2032, but their voltage range is higher than the disposables and their capacity is quite low. Their applications are fairly niche.
I'm more surprised on the front that I essentially own nothing now that uses regular batteries. Even my TV remote is recharged by plugging in a USB cable.
Probably a non-user-serviceable Li-ion. I dislike that trend, especially when there are Li-ions in standard cylindrical form factors that could be just as easily changed as AA or AAA.
Possible counterpoint: getting a Li-ion 14500 confused with a AA and putting it in an incompatible device is bad.
Possible counterpoint: getting a Li-ion 14500 confused with a AA and putting it in an incompatible device is bad.
I've tried using rechargeables a few times and it never works out over the long-term. They get thrown away by people who don't realize they are rechargeable, you end up with one less than you need, you forget to charge them, it's just a pain compared to having a supply of disposable batteries that have a good shelf life and are always ready to use
I used to have the same opinion, but modern NiMH batteries have far longer shelf live than they used to, and the price is low enough that you can afford to keep some spares in an 8 battery charger ready to use. I do have a set of alkaline batteries, but I haven't used them in 3 years.
> you forget to charge them
Just keep a couple extra charged and ready around the house that you can swap in if necessary.
Just keep a couple extra charged and ready around the house that you can swap in if necessary.
Many devices can't deal with the lower voltage (1.2V vs 1.5V). About half of my AA/AAA devices don't work at all.
Those devices must have very short runtimes on alkalines. Even a 0.2A load on an alkaline AA puts it under 1.2V for most of its discharge capacity[0]. That's not an especially high load; it's the amount that will drain it in 11 hours of use, but if the device quits at 1.2V, it will only run for 4.5 hours.
It would not surprise me to learn that the designers of a consumer electronic device did a bad job, but I'd describe not working with 1.2V batteries when a device is intended for AA or AAA to be a pretty major design flaw.
[0] https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Amazon%20basic%20...
It would not surprise me to learn that the designers of a consumer electronic device did a bad job, but I'd describe not working with 1.2V batteries when a device is intended for AA or AAA to be a pretty major design flaw.
[0] https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Amazon%20basic%20...
> it will only run for 4.5 hours
That seems plenty long for something like a TV remote, if "run" includes the amount of time that buttons are depressed.
> It would not surprise me
This is inconsistent with your original comment that claims "a little surprise".
Consumer behavior responds to actual products, not someone's standard of engineering design.
That seems plenty long for something like a TV remote, if "run" includes the amount of time that buttons are depressed.
> It would not surprise me
This is inconsistent with your original comment that claims "a little surprise".
Consumer behavior responds to actual products, not someone's standard of engineering design.
I was surprised by the consumer behavior until I learned that it's motivated by a common design flaw. I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists, but I did not anticipate it specifically. Clear and consistent now?
TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it. A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.
None of which matters if the device won't actually run on NiMH.
TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it. A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.
None of which matters if the device won't actually run on NiMH.
> I was surprised by the consumer behavior until I learned
I guess the history is relatively tough to research these without having lived through it, since that's before the popularization of the web.
An interesting more modern use case is Apple's wireless keyboards when they used AAs. I'd suggest you check that out.
> I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists
I'd strongly suggest you consider the complexity, cost, and efficiency tradeoffs involved in RF (and other analog) silicon design, especially in miniaturized consumer products, before characterizing certain decisions as flaws.
Sometimes, worse is better.
> TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it.
That's my point. What they notice is how often they have to change (or recharge) the batteries. Historically, with rechargeables, that's been way too often.
To be fair, anecdotally, I've noticed this with some cheaper/off-brand alkalines, as well.
> A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.
I think "often" is, at best, an exaggeration. Do you have published numbers to back that up?
My impression based on personal experience is that during the normal, useful life, it is vanishingly rare. I've only ever had leakage damage occur from fully-discharged (usually through self-discharge after over a year of disuse), and that was replaced by the battery manufacter, one of the advantages of paying more for brand-name.
I guess the history is relatively tough to research these without having lived through it, since that's before the popularization of the web.
An interesting more modern use case is Apple's wireless keyboards when they used AAs. I'd suggest you check that out.
> I am not surprised that such a design flaw exists
I'd strongly suggest you consider the complexity, cost, and efficiency tradeoffs involved in RF (and other analog) silicon design, especially in miniaturized consumer products, before characterizing certain decisions as flaws.
Sometimes, worse is better.
> TV remotes are pretty low-drain, to the point that most people probably wouldn't notice their battery runtime unless asked to observe it.
That's my point. What they notice is how often they have to change (or recharge) the batteries. Historically, with rechargeables, that's been way too often.
To be fair, anecdotally, I've noticed this with some cheaper/off-brand alkalines, as well.
> A more compelling argument for NiMH in devices like that would be that alkalines often leak electrolyte that can corrode and damage a device wile NiMH is nearly immune to that kind of problem.
I think "often" is, at best, an exaggeration. Do you have published numbers to back that up?
My impression based on personal experience is that during the normal, useful life, it is vanishingly rare. I've only ever had leakage damage occur from fully-discharged (usually through self-discharge after over a year of disuse), and that was replaced by the battery manufacter, one of the advantages of paying more for brand-name.
> I'd strongly suggest you consider the complexity, cost, and efficiency tradeoffs... before characterizing certain decisions as flaws.
I will almost always characterize a tradeoff that renders a device incompatible with rechargeable batteries that are commonly used in the appropriate form factor, or that causes the device to turn off before the majority of the energy in the battery has been used to be a flaw. I'll stipulate that it's probably usually a business decision rather than an engineering failure.
Incompatibility with rechargeable batteries is a hard no-buy from me as a consumer for almost any portable electronics.
> Do you have published numbers to back that up?*
I don't. I suspect people who have numbers about this (battery makers) really don't want to disclose them. My perception that alkalines leak often comes from moderating /r/flashlight. I've also seen it in person quite a few times, mostly with devices belonging to friends or family that aren't used often.
I will almost always characterize a tradeoff that renders a device incompatible with rechargeable batteries that are commonly used in the appropriate form factor, or that causes the device to turn off before the majority of the energy in the battery has been used to be a flaw. I'll stipulate that it's probably usually a business decision rather than an engineering failure.
Incompatibility with rechargeable batteries is a hard no-buy from me as a consumer for almost any portable electronics.
> Do you have published numbers to back that up?*
I don't. I suspect people who have numbers about this (battery makers) really don't want to disclose them. My perception that alkalines leak often comes from moderating /r/flashlight. I've also seen it in person quite a few times, mostly with devices belonging to friends or family that aren't used often.
> a tradeoff that renders a device incompatible with rechargeable batteries that are commonly used in the appropriate form factor
I still think you're ignoring history as well as exaggerating "commonly". Even alkaline wasn't the first primary cell chemistry type. You impliy that it's trivial to add rechargeables to the existing engineering for multiple chemistries with actually similar voltage profiles, without showing how.
> a business decision rather than an engineering failure
A distinction without a difference. The engineers are there to support the business, not a future armchair critic's ideal of excellence.
> I suspect people who have numbers about this (battery makers) really don't want to disclose them.
Certainly the manufactuers don't want to disclose numbers for consumer products. However, if it were as often as you suggest, I would expect there to be numbers, after all these decades, from someone like Consumer Reports.
Also, there's a reasonable chance that industrial versions have published numbers.
> My perception that alkalines leak often comes from moderating /r/flashlight.
Is that a forum where commenters tend to report such experiences with full data (numerator and denominator, including when the numerator is zero), or are they more likely only to complain at failure?
Are they representative of the average consumer's usage patterns?
> I've also seen it in person quite a few times, mostly with devices belonging to friends or family that aren't used often.
As I mentioned, this is consistent with my own personal experience. However, because this is subject to (a weird backwards version of) Survivorship Bias, I come to the opposite conclusion.
Put another way, it's likely that some huge proportion, if not all, of alkaline batteries will leak (perhaps even catastrophically) if left sitting around long enough. The key here is "long enough". Since the vast majority of users actually remove and discard way before that point, it's too rare in practice.
I still think you're ignoring history as well as exaggerating "commonly". Even alkaline wasn't the first primary cell chemistry type. You impliy that it's trivial to add rechargeables to the existing engineering for multiple chemistries with actually similar voltage profiles, without showing how.
> a business decision rather than an engineering failure
A distinction without a difference. The engineers are there to support the business, not a future armchair critic's ideal of excellence.
> I suspect people who have numbers about this (battery makers) really don't want to disclose them.
Certainly the manufactuers don't want to disclose numbers for consumer products. However, if it were as often as you suggest, I would expect there to be numbers, after all these decades, from someone like Consumer Reports.
Also, there's a reasonable chance that industrial versions have published numbers.
> My perception that alkalines leak often comes from moderating /r/flashlight.
Is that a forum where commenters tend to report such experiences with full data (numerator and denominator, including when the numerator is zero), or are they more likely only to complain at failure?
Are they representative of the average consumer's usage patterns?
> I've also seen it in person quite a few times, mostly with devices belonging to friends or family that aren't used often.
As I mentioned, this is consistent with my own personal experience. However, because this is subject to (a weird backwards version of) Survivorship Bias, I come to the opposite conclusion.
Put another way, it's likely that some huge proportion, if not all, of alkaline batteries will leak (perhaps even catastrophically) if left sitting around long enough. The key here is "long enough". Since the vast majority of users actually remove and discard way before that point, it's too rare in practice.
> You impliy that it's trivial to add rechargeables to the existing engineering for multiple chemistries with actually similar voltage profiles, without showing how.
Even if NiMH did not exist, not being able to operate with batteries below 1.2V wastes the majority of the capacity of an alkaline. I think that's a valid criticism of almost anything in consumer electronics. It requires a very good excuse before it should be considered acceptable.
Furthermore, anything relatively recent should be able to use NiMH as a matter of compatibility with batteries a significant minority of consumers have, and for environmental responsibility.
> Is that a forum where commenters tend to report such experiences with full data
Of course not. I suspect data like that about consumer products is not available to the public at all, though there are some scientific studies on alkaline battery leakage as a phenomenon (the first one I found was paywalled).
> Are they representative of the average consumer's usage patterns?
Probably. Regulars almost never use alkaline batteries, so when people post about that, it's usually their first post. They're not collectors, hobbyists or heavy users, but people who encountered a problem and thought "I bet there's a subreddit for that". (We have 35K subscribers)
Even if NiMH did not exist, not being able to operate with batteries below 1.2V wastes the majority of the capacity of an alkaline. I think that's a valid criticism of almost anything in consumer electronics. It requires a very good excuse before it should be considered acceptable.
Furthermore, anything relatively recent should be able to use NiMH as a matter of compatibility with batteries a significant minority of consumers have, and for environmental responsibility.
> Is that a forum where commenters tend to report such experiences with full data
Of course not. I suspect data like that about consumer products is not available to the public at all, though there are some scientific studies on alkaline battery leakage as a phenomenon (the first one I found was paywalled).
> Are they representative of the average consumer's usage patterns?
Probably. Regulars almost never use alkaline batteries, so when people post about that, it's usually their first post. They're not collectors, hobbyists or heavy users, but people who encountered a problem and thought "I bet there's a subreddit for that". (We have 35K subscribers)
> Even if NiMH did not exist, not being able to operate with batteries below 1.2V wastes the majority of the capacity of an alkaline. I think that's a valid criticism of almost anything in consumer electronics. It requires a very good excuse before it should be considered acceptable.
Please unpack this a bit to make sure it's not a strawman.
1.2V is just a nominal voltage, just like 1.5V nominal. Fully-charged open-cell voltages are above 1.25V and 1.6V, IIRC, though that is, of course, irrelevant. What matters is voltage under load, at all possible loads for all consumer devices.
Even if nickel chemistries have flatter discharge curves, they still slope downward, and that voltage can drop below 1.2V.
Their voltage also doesn't bounce back when load is reduced. Engineers deal with real-world usage, not contrived benchmarks where a cell is taken from full charge to flat at constant current.
What consumers are actually saying is that real-world rechargables don't work in certain real-world devices, while alkalines do. They make no claims about specific voltages. That's on you, so it's up to you to show that a particular voltage cut-off is the problem and that the same device ends up using only half the alkaline's capacity. Otherwise, you put up a strawman to knock down.
Please unpack this a bit to make sure it's not a strawman.
1.2V is just a nominal voltage, just like 1.5V nominal. Fully-charged open-cell voltages are above 1.25V and 1.6V, IIRC, though that is, of course, irrelevant. What matters is voltage under load, at all possible loads for all consumer devices.
Even if nickel chemistries have flatter discharge curves, they still slope downward, and that voltage can drop below 1.2V.
Their voltage also doesn't bounce back when load is reduced. Engineers deal with real-world usage, not contrived benchmarks where a cell is taken from full charge to flat at constant current.
What consumers are actually saying is that real-world rechargables don't work in certain real-world devices, while alkalines do. They make no claims about specific voltages. That's on you, so it's up to you to show that a particular voltage cut-off is the problem and that the same device ends up using only half the alkaline's capacity. Otherwise, you put up a strawman to knock down.
Many rechargeables are also slightly larger than typical alkalines. This can cause them to be difficult to remove from devices where they're inserted end-on, such as flashlights and Xbox 360 controllers.
beeing the "tech-guy" i have a bunch of alkalines in my backpack and at home because people often come to me to if their batteries dies and they need a new one quick.
Other than that, it's mostly missinformation that's still around about rechargable batteries.
[deleted]
I believe there’s a faster drop-off rate to dead on rechargeables, so they aren’t ideal for things like smoke alarms or even smart-locks.
That's true. I would recommend a regular charging schedule for such devices rather than waiting for them to complain about the batteries being low. A regular replacement schedule for smoke detector batteries is already a common recommendation from fire departments and insurance companies.
Rechargeable batteries remove the loss aversion associated with ensuring the batteries in a device are fresh, as there's essentially no extra cost to recharging a battery that may still have significant energy in it. Modern NiMH does not develop a permanent memory effect, and rarely even develops a temporary one.
Rechargeable batteries remove the loss aversion associated with ensuring the batteries in a device are fresh, as there's essentially no extra cost to recharging a battery that may still have significant energy in it. Modern NiMH does not develop a permanent memory effect, and rarely even develops a temporary one.
Amazon picks successful high margin items and knocks them off.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazonbasics-house-bra...
https://www.amazon.com/Rain-Design-mStand-Laptop-Patented/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-DSN-01750-SL-Laptop-Stan...
Interestingly though, the amazonbasics version doesn't hit the first page for laptop stands while the Rain version still does.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazonbasics-house-bra...
https://www.amazon.com/Rain-Design-mStand-Laptop-Patented/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-DSN-01750-SL-Laptop-Stan...
Interestingly though, the amazonbasics version doesn't hit the first page for laptop stands while the Rain version still does.
> Interestingly though, the amazonbasics version doesn't hit the first page for laptop stands while the Rain version still does.
I'm curious, does this mean that Amazon doesn't prioritize their own products in the search algorithm? I've felt that in the past Amazon is usually ahead of the game on legal issues - like when they started collecting state sales taxes across the board, years before the Supreme Court ruling. Sooner or later, we're going to see court precedent and laws regulating search algorithms for anticompetitive behavior to supplement the more broad antitrust laws so maybe Amazon is keeping out of it to avoid any problems later. As an Amazon shopper, I've gotten used to the Amazon Basics icon and I'm sure that alone has marketing advantages over the Rain product entry.
I'm curious, does this mean that Amazon doesn't prioritize their own products in the search algorithm? I've felt that in the past Amazon is usually ahead of the game on legal issues - like when they started collecting state sales taxes across the board, years before the Supreme Court ruling. Sooner or later, we're going to see court precedent and laws regulating search algorithms for anticompetitive behavior to supplement the more broad antitrust laws so maybe Amazon is keeping out of it to avoid any problems later. As an Amazon shopper, I've gotten used to the Amazon Basics icon and I'm sure that alone has marketing advantages over the Rain product entry.
They absolutely favor their own brands, often having an entire line called "our brands" with prominent placement.
Notably absent in the anti-trust speculation is how the AmazonBasics brand does or doesn't get treated differently from other brands with respect to counterfeits (and other undesirable non-Amazon seller behavior, such as used items as new).
AFAIK, Amazon prohibits third-party merchants from selling AmazonBasics, which would mean that the inventory-mingling problem, which has been discussed on other threads, wouldn't exist.
That seems like pretty clear consumer harm.
AFAIK, Amazon prohibits third-party merchants from selling AmazonBasics, which would mean that the inventory-mingling problem, which has been discussed on other threads, wouldn't exist.
That seems like pretty clear consumer harm.
Commingled inventory is an option for FBA sellers. You can disable it easily from your FBA account; I think at this point the "problem" is only for beginning sellers who aren't aware that it's on by default
As sibling comments pointed out, the main problem is for the manufacturer/brand and for the buyer.
An unscrupulous seller (of, for example, couterfeits) would benefit significantly and so would not disable the option.
That Amazon themselves don't disable this option (for "shipped and sold by Amazon.com"), except, effectively, for their own brand, is the suspect anti-competitive practice.
An unscrupulous seller (of, for example, couterfeits) would benefit significantly and so would not disable the option.
That Amazon themselves don't disable this option (for "shipped and sold by Amazon.com"), except, effectively, for their own brand, is the suspect anti-competitive practice.
Amazon also has something called Brand Registry. Essentially, if you can prove you own a brand, you can prevent other sellers from selling the same item. That's how most larger brands protect their listings.
If that works, then why hasn't Apple done it and ended the scrounge of fake chargers?
EDIT: Or Anker for that matter. Anker is a better example because their main business is chargers/batteries, so the should care a lot about branding and making sure there are no fake chargers under their name.
EDIT: Or Anker for that matter. Anker is a better example because their main business is chargers/batteries, so the should care a lot about branding and making sure there are no fake chargers under their name.
Amazon's brand registry enables a verified brand to take control of a listing page (edit photos/text/title).
That's pretty much it – no power to limit other sellers.
That's pretty much it – no power to limit other sellers.
This is false, speaking from direct experience. Brand registry does NOT let you gate the brand.
Until it's an option for buyers, I'm going to be quite reluctant to buy from Amazon.
Why? Commingled inventory means that some common, standardized items don't need a seller-specific barcode on them, and are just added to a "pool" of that identical product. It's better for consumers because you're getting the closest one of the item you ordered, faster - and at the (lower) price from the seller you selected.
Aside from a couple high profile cases of sellers getting in trouble for inventory they never sent in being associated with them, it's a great benefit to consumers.
Aside from a couple high profile cases of sellers getting in trouble for inventory they never sent in being associated with them, it's a great benefit to consumers.
It most definitely is not "a couple" of cases, it appears to be a thoroughly rampant problem that has destroyed any trust I have in buying items from Amazon. I personally received about 5 counterfeit/bootleg items before giving up on buying from Amazon entirely.
The US GAO recently did an investigation (admittedly not specific to Amazon, but it included them) and 20 of 47 items they purchased were counterfeit!
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689713.pdf
The US GAO recently did an investigation (admittedly not specific to Amazon, but it included them) and 20 of 47 items they purchased were counterfeit!
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689713.pdf
It is not good for consumers. You buy from a particular seller because you know based on reviews that their item is not counterfeit and then amazon sends you the item from someone else and it is.
Receiving a counterfeit item must happen so very rarely, considering the (millions?) huge volume of these sales per day, and Amazon is obviously swift to fix the issue (much to the chagrin of sellers swept up by the zero tolerance rule) that I really doubt most consumers would ever receive a counterfeit item in this way. It seems more likely that consumers would buy the "cheaper" option from an FBA seller (perhaps unknowingly) and receive a knock off.
The major logistical advantages outweigh the very low possibility of abuse. If you asked the average consumer if they would like to receive their item 2 days faster, but risk a 1 in 1000 chance that they get a bogus item they will need to exchange with Amazon at no cost, I think the former would win by a mile.
The major logistical advantages outweigh the very low possibility of abuse. If you asked the average consumer if they would like to receive their item 2 days faster, but risk a 1 in 1000 chance that they get a bogus item they will need to exchange with Amazon at no cost, I think the former would win by a mile.
You're wildly off base here.
The chances of getting a counterfeit item in some product categories is basically 100%. Go ahead, try to buy a real pair of Apple iPhone corded headphones on Amazon. That assignment is quite literally impossible.
The chances of getting a counterfeit item in some product categories is basically 100%. Go ahead, try to buy a real pair of Apple iPhone corded headphones on Amazon. That assignment is quite literally impossible.
Or buy https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B01M0GB8CC/ref=olp_tab_new?i... from datavision self fulfilled, they're the only seller on a ton of apple stuff and I assume they're authorized
https://www.amazon.com/Apple-MMEF2AM-AirPods-Wireless-Blueto...
Here, buy from Amazon direct and you'll get a real one.
Here, buy from Amazon direct and you'll get a real one.
Or it’s a counterfeit charger that fries their $2500 laptop.
Or burns down the house. (This may be worse with batteries than chargers, but both can be a fire hazard)
1 in 1000? isn't it like 4/10 for "genuine" Mac chargers?
As someone who just got counterfeit tea from Amazon and Amazon refused to post the review pointing out that it's fake, it's rampant across all products and all SKUs. You can't even usually return the items if they're in certain categories like "food". You just have to suck up that you lost money on Amazon again.
1) It’s not a low risk, it’s happened to me at least a few times
2) It’s not a risk that exists at competitors like Walmart and Target
3) For some categories like baby food, even a low risk of counterfeit product is unacceptable
2) It’s not a risk that exists at competitors like Walmart and Target
3) For some categories like baby food, even a low risk of counterfeit product is unacceptable
Sure, but it’s not an option for brands, which is the more relevant comparison here.
How would commingled inventory have anything to do with brands? Brands can already protect their listings from 3rd party seller issues using Brand Registry / Brand Gating
Possibly this option is too new or too poorly publicized to have had enough of an effect yet.
It certainly hasn't been well-publicized as to how it works in practice, especially for a large brand. Do they opt-in or opt-out the sellers? Do they have to choose just one of those two models?
For large brands, this brings up yet another antitrust concern. If they suppress the grey market (or even create too much friction for their authorized resellers), big brand manufacturers run the risk of running afoul of even the modern, more lenient antitrust law interpretation by pushing up consumer prices.
It certainly hasn't been well-publicized as to how it works in practice, especially for a large brand. Do they opt-in or opt-out the sellers? Do they have to choose just one of those two models?
For large brands, this brings up yet another antitrust concern. If they suppress the grey market (or even create too much friction for their authorized resellers), big brand manufacturers run the risk of running afoul of even the modern, more lenient antitrust law interpretation by pushing up consumer prices.
They don't actually honor it though. I know plenty of sellers who have gotten back inventory they didn't send in even though they do not choose commingling.
Non paywalled mirror
http://archive.is/sRijg
http://archive.is/sRijg
How much do consumers pay in Bezos tax for goods on Amazon? i.e, if the site simply let consumers buy from Chinese manufacturers (which, in the end, is what much of Amazon is) without the fee to the owners of the marketplace (i.e, "Bezos Tax), how much cheaper would it be?
Considering the downward pressure Amazon has had on prices, I would say the "Bezos Tax" is negative.
Identical bluetooth OBDII scanners: Aliexpress $2.98 shipped, Amazon $10.99 shipped
IME this is a fairly typical price ratio. Sometimes they are much closer though. Of course Amazon ships it in 2 days instead of weeks. The "Bezos tax" is largely paying for the very convenient logistics of US warehousing.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/ELM-327-V-2-1-BT-adapter-Wor...
https://www.amazon.com/Mestart-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-...
IME this is a fairly typical price ratio. Sometimes they are much closer though. Of course Amazon ships it in 2 days instead of weeks. The "Bezos tax" is largely paying for the very convenient logistics of US warehousing.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/ELM-327-V-2-1-BT-adapter-Wor...
https://www.amazon.com/Mestart-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-...
Those are not identical items. Look at the photos: the one sold on Amazon is much smaller.
Oh sorry, the Aliexpress listing includes quite a few variants and the one I was referring to apparently isn't selected by default. The one on the far left is the same as the Amazon listing.
But the point is, search for any popular product category on both sites and you will see largely the same items, with Amazon typically somewhere from 2-5x as expensive.
But the point is, search for any popular product category on both sites and you will see largely the same items, with Amazon typically somewhere from 2-5x as expensive.
[deleted]
Aliexpress takes around 30 to 60 days for shipping, what about Amazon in the US?
While you're at it, might as well pick up your vegetables straight from the farm, your clothes straight from the factory, and eat your food straight from the restaurant kitchen top?
It's value added service that brings convenience.
It's value added service that brings convenience.
First place for you to start to answer that question is to see how much it costs to sell on Amazon. https://services.amazon.com/selling/pricing.html
I would be more expensive: you would have to pay tax on the imports, you wouldn't get a warrenty and the stuff that is sold on ali-express is not the same as is being sold in the west. The chargers for one don't hold up to the safety specs so they are cheap, but not when they burn down your house.
I buy stuff from ali from time to time, but I would never buy anything expensive there.
I buy stuff from ali from time to time, but I would never buy anything expensive there.
Often I comparison shop between aliexpress.com and amazon.de. When the "brand" or equivalent quality product is on both, AliExpress is almost always cheaper, sometimes up to 50%. I would say on average 25% less and with free shipping even for small orders.
Yes, but the prices on aliexpress don't include European warranty, customs and VAT.
Sure but who needs those?
You may not need them, but often enough you will have to pay the duty and VAT before the customs release your package, thus erasing the price difference. As for the warranty, customers usually do need it.
Those who pave streets you walk on and fine you when you're speeding... So uh... How about Aliexpress?
I think this illustrates the unfair advantage pretty well: https://www.amazon.com/s/&field-keywords=batteries
On a somewhat related note:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/demand-for-batteries-is-shrinki...
I was able to read it via a google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=duracell+energizer+high+pric...
From the article:
Shoppers are paying more for disposable batteries even though the proliferation of toys and consumer electronics powered by built-in rechargeable batteries has reduced U.S. demand.
That is because the two biggest disposable-battery brands, Duracell and Energizer, control over three-quarters of the market. As both focus on profits, they are no longer offering deep discounts as they did when they were racing for market share.
Batteries on average cost 8.2% more than a year ago, while prices in the overall household-care segment rose only 1.8%, according to Nielsen. At a time when prices are stagnating on everything from toilet paper to diapers, such pricing power for a product that is increasingly obsolete has confounded shoppers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/demand-for-batteries-is-shrinki...
I was able to read it via a google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=duracell+energizer+high+pric...
From the article:
Shoppers are paying more for disposable batteries even though the proliferation of toys and consumer electronics powered by built-in rechargeable batteries has reduced U.S. demand.
That is because the two biggest disposable-battery brands, Duracell and Energizer, control over three-quarters of the market. As both focus on profits, they are no longer offering deep discounts as they did when they were racing for market share.
Batteries on average cost 8.2% more than a year ago, while prices in the overall household-care segment rose only 1.8%, according to Nielsen. At a time when prices are stagnating on everything from toilet paper to diapers, such pricing power for a product that is increasingly obsolete has confounded shoppers.
That's my intuition too. I mean, there is obviously the potential for a retailer like amazon to disrupt existing markets in an unfair way. But this market was really in need of some disruption. Are Amazon Basics batteries so successful because Amazon is leveraging its retail dominance or because the existing choices are overpriced?
I wasn't able to use the google search, but the link works on archive.is http://archive.is/As0p5
You're right. It's absolutely unfair that Energizer is ripping customers off to the tune of 30%.
Also wow this is terrible reporting. "Around 2009..." is it too much effort to find a real date?
Also wow this is terrible reporting. "Around 2009..." is it too much effort to find a real date?
The real ripoff is that none of the alkaline batteries have a mAh (or mWh) rating. They literally sell energetic cylinders without telling you how much energy's in them; how is this still a thing?
Giving alkaline batteries a mAh rating is difficult as it is highly variable depending on the environment and load characteristics. You can find data sheets for the major manufactures on their websites for example: http://data.energizer.com/pdfs/en91.pdf
This could be solved much like how automobile 'miles per gallon' figures are given, there is the 'urban' cycle for city driving and the figures for 'highway' driving and then there is the 'combined cycle'.
Everyone knows that in a month of Sundays you aren't going to get anything near that '54 mpg combined' figure shown on the sticker for that Prius but you will get more miles per gallon in that car rather than that GM dinosaur advertising '14 mpg combined'.
Everyone knows that in a month of Sundays you aren't going to get anything near that '54 mpg combined' figure shown on the sticker for that Prius but you will get more miles per gallon in that car rather than that GM dinosaur advertising '14 mpg combined'.
I don't get this argument. I just went to CVS and bought their white labeled lotion and some band aids, that were nearly identical in ingredients to the branded stuff sitting right next to it on the shelf.
My soap at home is similarly target's in house stuff. Half the things I buy from Costco are Kirkland.
Why do I do it? Because it's like half the price. Just like buying say AmazonBasics batteries vs Energizer.
My soap at home is similarly target's in house stuff. Half the things I buy from Costco are Kirkland.
Why do I do it? Because it's like half the price. Just like buying say AmazonBasics batteries vs Energizer.
I think the example given with Alexa voice purchases ("Buy batteries" only results in AmazomBasics batteries being purchased) is a pretty major difference that makes the in-store comparison not really a great analogy.
Every CVS I've been to always has the CVS brand pretty much right next to the major label brand - they're equally accessible. If I ask a store worker where the shampoo is, he'll point me to the shampoo aisle where the CVS and major label brands are side-by-side. Contrast that with Amazon, where (at least for me) searching for "batteries" returns AmazonBasics in the top non-sponsored position.
Every CVS I've been to always has the CVS brand pretty much right next to the major label brand - they're equally accessible. If I ask a store worker where the shampoo is, he'll point me to the shampoo aisle where the CVS and major label brands are side-by-side. Contrast that with Amazon, where (at least for me) searching for "batteries" returns AmazonBasics in the top non-sponsored position.
IN healthcare, when I order a prescription they default the knock off brands. I honestly dont have a problem with Alexa defaulting to the cheapest option with near equal quality
Does it always default to the cheapest, or always to theirs?
In healthcare the pharmaceutical shoppe gives you what your insurer defaults to - the cheapest. Neither the insurer nor the pharmaceutical shoppe are manufacturing the drug (neither the brand name nor the knock-off).
Amazon - the shoppe - is the one making the decision, and it’s decision is to default to the item that Amazon manufactures.
In one instance the payor is choosing a manufacturer and the shoppe is fulfilling the order - all manufacturers are on equal footing; in the other the shoppe is both choosing the manufacturer (itself) and fulfilling, while disadvantaging the other manufacturers, and making the decision without asking the payor.
I hope you see how these situations are in no way analogous, and only superficially related in that the customer ends up with a knock-off.
Amazon - the shoppe - is the one making the decision, and it’s decision is to default to the item that Amazon manufactures.
In one instance the payor is choosing a manufacturer and the shoppe is fulfilling the order - all manufacturers are on equal footing; in the other the shoppe is both choosing the manufacturer (itself) and fulfilling, while disadvantaging the other manufacturers, and making the decision without asking the payor.
I hope you see how these situations are in no way analogous, and only superficially related in that the customer ends up with a knock-off.
The argument isn't that Amazon is making things hard on consumers. It's that they are killing brands on a battlefield they control absolutely.
Think of it from the brand perspective. CVS pays you to stock their product on their shelves, so while they compete with you, they also send you money every month regardless.
On the other hand, you have to pay Amazon to include your products in their catalog. So while they compete with you, you pay them for the privilege. And everything you do to innovate, they steal.
Think of it from the brand perspective. CVS pays you to stock their product on their shelves, so while they compete with you, they also send you money every month regardless.
On the other hand, you have to pay Amazon to include your products in their catalog. So while they compete with you, you pay them for the privilege. And everything you do to innovate, they steal.
I find, across the board, Amazon often feels like their incentives don't align with those of a customer.
They're always trying to push Prime (and to a lesser extent their video and music service) which represents extra clicks to sale. It's a significant auto-renewing commitment, not a $5 casual impulse add-on-- repeatedly dangling it in front of me and hoping I misclick into it borders on a dark pattern. I'd love to see a big one-click "I am not interested do not bother me further" button.
Everything about their checkout funnel is contrary to modern best practices. Fields are oddly arranged compared with most other ecommerce sites, and once you reach a certain point, the normal navigation disappears. I guess this is designed to trap the user with no way out but purchase, but it makes it harder to compare items, especially when you're trying to find out on shipping (see below).
Shipping is a mess to deal with. "You need to spend $25 for free shipping, but these items don't count". "These items can ONLY be purchased with an order of other items that hit the free-shipping threshold." "These items can only be purchased with Prime." There's no easy "estimate shipping" button without going several pages into checkout. These sort of complexities probably are engineered to steer customers towards buying the items fulfilled by them to avoid the pitfalls.
I'd also wonder if their brands "accidentally" do well because of how bad their product categorization is. Nobody else is selling AmazonBasics products, so the single listing gets all the ratings and sales volume. Meanwhile, the name brand has 30 slightly different poorly arranged listings all overlapped.
They're always trying to push Prime (and to a lesser extent their video and music service) which represents extra clicks to sale. It's a significant auto-renewing commitment, not a $5 casual impulse add-on-- repeatedly dangling it in front of me and hoping I misclick into it borders on a dark pattern. I'd love to see a big one-click "I am not interested do not bother me further" button.
Everything about their checkout funnel is contrary to modern best practices. Fields are oddly arranged compared with most other ecommerce sites, and once you reach a certain point, the normal navigation disappears. I guess this is designed to trap the user with no way out but purchase, but it makes it harder to compare items, especially when you're trying to find out on shipping (see below).
Shipping is a mess to deal with. "You need to spend $25 for free shipping, but these items don't count". "These items can ONLY be purchased with an order of other items that hit the free-shipping threshold." "These items can only be purchased with Prime." There's no easy "estimate shipping" button without going several pages into checkout. These sort of complexities probably are engineered to steer customers towards buying the items fulfilled by them to avoid the pitfalls.
I'd also wonder if their brands "accidentally" do well because of how bad their product categorization is. Nobody else is selling AmazonBasics products, so the single listing gets all the ratings and sales volume. Meanwhile, the name brand has 30 slightly different poorly arranged listings all overlapped.
I'm an absolute luddite when it comes to shopping online, but I found Amazon to be one of the easiest. i throw lots of stuff in my cart, and then pull things away at the end based off shipping cost/time. I have had shopping carts open for years. I also like the wish list and buy again options.
When I order an air purifier, amazon reminds me I might need to buy extra filters, stuff like that. many times i have ordered stuff from websites, and key components that make what i ordered useful were not part of the order.
When I order an air purifier, amazon reminds me I might need to buy extra filters, stuff like that. many times i have ordered stuff from websites, and key components that make what i ordered useful were not part of the order.
> I find, across the board, Amazon often feels like their incentives don't align with those of a customer.
That's a strange interpretation. Their checkout flow is as little as 1 click and their incredible growth is from only caring about the customer and delivering value better than anyone else. Many people do almost all of their shopping on Amazon because it's fast, easy, and reliable, even if the prices aren't the best.
That's a strange interpretation. Their checkout flow is as little as 1 click and their incredible growth is from only caring about the customer and delivering value better than anyone else. Many people do almost all of their shopping on Amazon because it's fast, easy, and reliable, even if the prices aren't the best.
> CVS pays you to stock their product on their shelves
Most retail works exactly the opposite - the manufacturer pays the retailer significant fees for shelf space.
Most retail works exactly the opposite - the manufacturer pays the retailer significant fees for shelf space.
There is even a word for it "slotting fees"
Yes, but even accounting for those fees, retailers still pay brands to stock their products.
Meanwhile on Amazon, brands pay Amazon to feature their products. Then they pay Amazon to stock/fulfill their products (FBO). Then they pay Amazon to feature their products (promotions).
Amazon is in a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose position vis-a-vis brands.
Meanwhile on Amazon, brands pay Amazon to feature their products. Then they pay Amazon to stock/fulfill their products (FBO). Then they pay Amazon to feature their products (promotions).
Amazon is in a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose position vis-a-vis brands.
Right I see the argument, but I don't get why it's a valid argument. I just don't get why this is news. Every retailer I've shopped at in the last year does this.
A side note, the AmazonBasics rechargeable batteries are excellent. I believe they are rebranded (or something very similar to) Panasonic Eneloops.
I bought some AmazonBasics AAs when I discovered they're relabeled Eneloops at a steep discount. Years on, they still work great.
I think this article is a little misguided. Sure, commodity products such as Duracell or cheap clothing companies might be in trouble, but such companies were weak brands in the first place. Their main appeal was low cost, good enough, and Amazon is just doing the whole low cost, good enough thing better than anyone. But high end brands like Apple, Nike, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, are not going anywhere, that's for sure!
Not immediately, no.
10 years back, Duracell seemed a very strong brand. All it is going to take for LVMH, etc. to start getting replaced is a new generation of online shoppers seeing Amazon house brands right next to these and subconsciously associating them together as brands of equal value.
Not going to happen. High end conspicuous consumption products are well protected against Amazon. You can be a low end brand or a high end brand but you cannot be both.
The question is, if you wanted to start a cheaper, good-enough battery company, even cheaper than AmazonBasics, could you sell and compete on Amazon? Or would they still outposition you by hand holding customers directly to theirs?
I'm fairly sure it's the latter.
I'm fairly sure it's the latter.
I would disagree. White label alkaline batteries are notoriously inconsistent in terms of capacity.
AmazonBasics isn’t a white label, it’s a brand in of itself, with consistent quality.
AmazonBasics isn’t a white label, it’s a brand in of itself, with consistent quality.
[deleted]
New York Times with its typical anti-capitalist spin. Amazon Basics doesn't sell because its Amazon or they used ‘Data That No One Else Has', it is simply the same product at a cheaper price.
The same is true at Kirkland at Costco, Great Value at Walmart and Signature at Safeway/Albertsons. You can buy Signature batteries at Safeway. Brands clearly add a brand tax which is unjustified. They have larger distribution/scale than store brands, yet they charge more. Market forces are driving prices down and that is a good thing.
The same is true at Kirkland at Costco, Great Value at Walmart and Signature at Safeway/Albertsons. You can buy Signature batteries at Safeway. Brands clearly add a brand tax which is unjustified. They have larger distribution/scale than store brands, yet they charge more. Market forces are driving prices down and that is a good thing.
Amazon has full visibility over what is sold on their platform and can sell directly that directly without extensive market research.
Same with ads. They know what the search terms are and how to exactly target those ads.
Same with ads. They know what the search terms are and how to exactly target those ads.
In India there's a new government rule that "no one entity can contribute more than 25 percent to the sales of an e-commerce platform".
snip snip ( https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... )
"in some ways, the story of Amazon’s sustained and growing dominance is also the story of changes in our antitrust laws. Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer prices, alone, to be evidence of sound competition. By this measure, Amazon has excelled; it has evaded government scrutiny in part through fervently devoting its business strategy and rhetoric to reducing prices for consumers. Amazon’s closest encounter with antitrust authorities was when the Justice Department sued other companies for teaming up against Amazon.23 It is as if Bezos charted the company’s growth by first drawing a map of antitrust laws, and then devising routes to smoothly bypass them. With its missionary zeal for consumers, Amazon has marched toward monopoly by singing the tune of contemporary antitrust."