Tag Archives: Amazon

Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock / Pink Floyd

Virtually every day a targeted feature or software change is announced in an attempt to damage the monopoly next door

Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. Except, sometimes, when monopolies take hold. This week CEO’s of the largest tech firms will be grilled (or at least questioned) on just how each of them got so big, and why they should not be broken up or regulated, in order to improve competition in the online marketplace that is now the world’s lifeblood.

The mistake of history that allowed Google, Amazon and Facebook to emerge from the dot-com era of zero profit companies as winner-take-all trillion dollar behemoths is finally being questioned by the masses, which has led to government investigation and inquiry.

Click to See “Goliath
and to help Lynxotic
and Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Apple was not founded during the 90s, actually produces products and does not rely on the monetization of user data as it’s main revenue generator; it does not sell below cost in a loss-leader system designed to cripple any competition and has a completely different business ethos, all of which separates the three mentioned above into a different category for this writer.

Nevertheless, in a world where giants from an earlier time are dwarfed by the sheer size and power of these 4 (Microsoft and Tesla are excluded from this article since each has its own backstory and are best looked at separately), a situation has arisen where only one giant has the power to even touch, let alone threaten, another giant.

There are many ways that these giants have always fought one another, yet as they staked out territories and empires, there seemed to be, at times, a tacit agreement that the domain of one would not be violated by another, like an unspoken mafia code or territorial claim.

Those lines between the giants are getting blurry as a silent siege is building and those previously “untouchable” areas of commerce are being targeted.

The fight may be about dollars in the end, but it is the essential control of data and user behavior that leads to all power, and therefore value and income. And each giant has staked a claim to a method or means to control and influence the behavior of billions of eyeballs and souls. Any change in that status quo is a big deal for these entrenched companies, and potentially good news for small businesses and consumers who are, without a doubt, little more than victims of the current insanely evil system.

Those lines between the giants are getting blurry as a silent siege is building and those previously “untouchable” areas of commerce are being targeted.

– D.L.

Here are a few of the new fronts where this hidden and secret battle is being fought:

Google Shopping, following Walmart, is trying to lure 3rd party sellers and sales away from Amazon

Already under fire for rigging search results to favor itself, Google is doubling down, in a sense, via drastically lowering fees for 3rd party sellers to use Google Shopping to get direct sales from Shopify or other non-Amazon sources.

Since Amazon’s fees can approach 30% for some lower cost items (such as books) this will be a powerful incentive for sellers to shift focus away from Amazon’s predatory fee structure and to a platform that potentially could bring in sales with less cost to the seller (and therefore a better end value to the buyer).

Click to See deals on Apple Products and to help Lynxotic.

Google is offering zero commission listing and, in a big announcement, also currently charging zero, in the US, for the “buy on google” checkout system. This is in the process of expanding and rolling out, and, potentially, by the fall and holiday season, could provide an interesting shift in how small business can operate online.

Walmart started allowing 3rd party sellers onto its online store several years ago but, recently, kicked that process into overdrive with a new system that allows all Shopify accounts the choice to sell on Walmart.com via a direct link between the two.

Bookshop.org, with whom Lynxotic is affiliated via our sister site Cherrybooks.org, is also a company that is attempting to break the stranglehold Amazon has had on online book sales. Surprisingly successful already, with its B Corp non-profit-like structure and alliances with independent bookstores sale have exploded. Affiliate advertising from huge media companies such as the New York Times have climbed on board and the largest book distributor in the US is a partner for fulfillment. Bookshop.Org has been able to put a tiny dent in the largest, most powerful competitor imaginable, showing, perhaps, that there are cracks emerging in the corrupt business models of these giants and they are not 100% invulnerable after all.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/iPadOS14Safari-AppleNews2.mov
Live iPad OS 14 exampleS & Excerpt from Apple’s WWDC 2020 Presentation

Apple’s iOS 14 and iPad OS 14 (along with mac 11 OS Big Sur) will begin to break Google’s search monopoly with direct links in Safari and Spotlight

For companies wanting to bring traffic and customers to their web sites for many years there has been only one very big game available, so-called SEO. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization which refers in the words “search” and “engine” to one that controls over 90% of search traffic: Google (91.75% as of June 2020).

So it could be called GEO or just GO for Google Optimization. And this is a massive industry in and of itself.

Click to See “Steve Jobs
and to help Lynxotic
and Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Increasingly, however, this monopoly is also being challenged. Not only in Europe where massive fines against the search giant have been levied, but in the growing options for sites to be found in ways other than qualifying for a first page placement (paid for or otherwise) in Googles search results.

Soon, for the billion + apple device users worldwide, there will be a new way to find news sources and other web sites. Both search in Safari and Spotlight, which is the device level search system on iPhone, iPad and Mac computers, will soon have results that link directly to the source, bypassing google in the process.

This is a small statement but will have a huge effect in the real world. The reason is simple but mind-blowing: a search result choice not controlled by google, available on one billion plus devices, has the potential to begin to break the monopoly, and Google’s ability (and how much) to charge for the privilege of being found through its search results.

How the Apple search results are generated and what companies would be featured in those direct results is as yet unknown and may never be released (like Google’s proprietary algorithm). The emergence of ASO (Apple Search Optimization) notwithstanding, just the fact that there is a new player presenting new opportunities for news outlets and eCommerce companies to be found by Apple device owners, is very interesting news indeed.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/Safari-Privacy-BigSur.mov
EXCERPTs FROM APPLE PRESENTATION FOR privacy settings FROM WWDC 2020

Apple will expose the worst of predatory surveillance by Facebook, Amazon and Google with new privacy features

Announced at WWDC 2020, the new operating systems are coming with serious features that track, and block as desired, all manner of data intrusions. These are not only identified, but shown and tracked and analyzed with a kind of professional dashboard, showing just how invasive and persistent these invisible spies are.

…the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.

– D.L.

Tracking the trackers is a clear and aggressive privacy stance, taken by the one company among the big four, that does not have a huge stake in you being the victim of online surveillance and tracking.

Not to say that Apple is blameless. Many are complaining about its fee structure for software sold by third parties via the app stores. While this issue is certainly a valid one, the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.

Above: Photo / Bansky


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

New Tech and Business Stories: Bill Maher on Bezos, The Big 3’s Evil Empire and Tesla’s Big Breakthrough

Have you seen the monologue from Bill Maher on Amazon and Bezos? If not you better take a look. Can’t say if Bill is a barometer of the pulse of the public at large, but this time he seems to be spot-on. There could be a sea-change coming, even as we all reflect on the massive changes wrought this year, not only by the pandemic itself, but by the collateral damage and collateral advantage, in some cases, that came with it like a tsunami after an earthquake.

Perhaps change can be good. Tesla and Elon Musk are trying, at least, and the upcoming announcements regarding battery tech breakthroughs are like a ray of sustainable sunshine in a world of clouds and rain. Quibi appears to be struggling out of the gate (surprising no one!) but with billions in their war chest it’s likely too soon to count them out entirely. After you check out the Bill Maher video below, you might want a little deeper background on the landscape that led to Amazon’s insane dominance, so check out the extended, anonymously sourced reporting by our News Staff.

We are All Search Hostages until the Internet is Free of the Big Three:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies. Click to see complete story.


Tesla and Elon Musk to Announce EV Breakthrough in June, details leaked to Reuters:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Tesla has proven already that a well designed and engineered EV has many superior qualities compared to an equivalent ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle. Teslas have shown that they can last up to one million miles with far less maintenance. Click to see complete story.


Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

A recent “study” has been cited by a gaggle of digital media outlets. Featuring headlines such as “Jeff Bezos Could Be the World’s First Trillionaire, and the Overwhelming Response Is ‘Thanks I Hate It’ (Vice.com) and“Jeff Bezos could become world’s first trillionaire, and many people aren’t happy about it” (USA Today) and trending on twitter via the hashtag #bezostrillionaire and #RIPCapitalism. Click here to see complete story.


Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start :

Photo Collage / Quibi

Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman launched Quibi on April 6th. The latest project from the two well-experienced entertainment moguls, Quibi is a streaming service designed for the smallest of screens— namely, smartphones and other mobile devices. The subscription based platform’s initiative is to provide short bursts of entertainment for people on the go, keeping content between seven and ten minutes long apiece. Click to see complete story.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

We are All Search Hostages until the Internet is Free of the Big Three: How they Block Your Life

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

This is a tiny snippet from an upcoming exposé of the inner workings of the nightmare produced by Facebook, Google and Amazon

Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies.

If the internet is, or at lest was, a dead end for any company trying to profit, how could these few have profited so obscenely in such a short time?

Most of the answers to that question attempted for the last two decades have been blatant hero worship and “to the victors go the spoils” nonsense with hardly any media attention paid (at least until around 2016) to the deeper, and darker, story that explains this regrettable paradox.

While the truth, particularly when it comes to tech and the internet, is often maddeningly complex, hiding behind a veil of complexity is a standard technique for anyone wants to keep their billion dollar golden geese a secret, shell companies, offshore banking, derivatives and “CDOs” and the like all benefit from being opaque and complex.

And while the absolute details would take mountains of pages to explain, mainly to explain away all the contradictions, the base issues are at the same time, in many ways, insanely simple.

Fraud, Ponzi schemes, illegal monopolistic behavior, all the usual suspects are not only present but rampant and rancid like a planet sized pile of moldy cheese.

And those are the larger threads, the ones that fit into a framework of past anti-trust cases and prior greed fueled crime sprees.

The devil as they say, is always in the details. Here are a few, some general and others much more specific, that point to how we could have gotten to this absurd destination.

Google and the “hiding engine” from hell

Click to see “Goliath
and help Lynxotic
and all independent
bookstores

While it is lovely that Google “allows” us to find out Lucille Ball’s birthday with a single click – or the capital of Afghanistan just as easily, what if you are looking for something a little less obvious? What if the information you need is worth something? What if you need fair, honest advice or even wisdom?

You’re out of luck. Since the entire basis for this business to to charge you (or somebody, regardless) for information that is, in reality, publicly available (the internet is public after all and the information on it does not belong to google), the primary function of Google’s vaunted trillion dollar algorithm is to hide any information of value from you until they have extracted a price.

Since they are known as a “search engine” this is counterintuitive but it will make more sense as we delve into the other two “winners” of the dot-com era. Each of these three companies share this one thing in common. They are all build to exclude, hide and criminally manipulate essentially public information for the benefit of a private enterprise. k?

Facebook and the lure of “exclusive membership”

As has been well documented, to the extent of having been memorialized in a feature length hollywood film, the fast start in membership that Facebook achieved was based on two “triggers” related to exclusivity and “hiding” of information. The first was, during the initial launch at harvard and for a period of time at various other colleges and universities, a requirement for membership was “proof” that you were a student in the form of an “edu” suffixed email. This added popularity to the site as those joining felt they had not only potential access to others where they went to school, but also would not be associating with non-students, or in the extreme initial example, not socializing with non-harvard people.


Click to see “World Without Mind
and help Lynxotic and
all independent bookstores

While this seems innocuous enough and a great marketing ploy, indeed it was heralded as genius by hundreds of sycophantic scribes, the next bit is where the system that exists to this day became an engine for corporate greed at the expense of virtually the entire world population.

Once you join Facebook, you are “allowed” to have contact only with “friends” that authorize you to do so. But the recommendations for “friending” those people, other than from your own laborious manual searching, are controlled by Facebooks algorithms.

This is a familiar tune. The real purpose of this structure was not to give you exclusivity or for you to benefit from the “wisdom” of the algorithm, but to block private and, in particular, business entities from coming in contact with you without first paying Facebook. In other words, using its log-in membership system and proprietary software labyrinth as a private, separate internet sphere, it was able to build the largest network of phantom tool booths the world has ever seen and now collects hundreds of billions simply because “the public” has opted-in and has no idea what an open alternative would look like or the damage that has been done by this harmless seeming “social platform”.

The real potential of networked human communications, a.k.a. the internet, is almost totally lost to history, with the surviving structure entirely based on the systems that these three giants have constructed with a view to nothing more than private, personal enrichment.

While this opinion may seem harsh, looking at the inner workings of the software and who financially benefits vs. who loses (a.k.a. everybody else) will, in time expose one of the greatest swindles ever perpetrated on the public, in this case the entire world population, or at least the population of internet users across the globe.

Amazon and the alleged layers of deceit and corruption beyond all imaginings

It is fairly common these days to hear criticism of Amazon and “worlds richest man” Bezos, which is understandable since the operation is so massive and, like any huge concern, likely to step on a few toes here and there, regardless.

Naturally there is also plenty of hero worship, particularly the insane love of “Bezonomics” and a cult of personality toward the founder and CEO for, well, stepping on the most faces of any human, other than perhaps Genghis Kahn.

Again, the real devil is in the details. It is easy to defend any criticism of the company by pointing out the “good” that it has done or continues to do and to create a “straw man” argument that the company should somehow get “credit” for those things and that they somehow offset any valid critique.

That is like saying someone who succeeded in getting elected president by bribing millions of voters should therefore be allowed to wage war or imprison anyone he likes since he has earned “credit” by doing right by those who were bribed.

There a little story, told to us by an anonymous source, who’s stories have all checked out before, that illustrates the system at work when you step onto the private property of Amazon’s web site.

Click to see “Life After Google
and help Lynxotic
and all independent bookstores

Again search is at the center of the story, as is the requirement to log in and agree to terms and conditions. This is tantamount to agreeing that you are leaving the public sphere and are agreeing to abide by the rules and be subject to the whims of the private entity on whose “sole property” you are now “standing” / shopping.

In that private world Amazon, and by extension Bezos, not only play god, they are god.

To illustrate this fact let’s say you have a 7 year-old child that loves a certain children’s character and you want to buy a book that has “pop-up” cut-outs to entertain and delight. And this exact item can be found via “search”.

Naturally, you type in the name of the book or character and perhaps add “pop-up”. What shows up in the “search” results is exactly what you are looking for. It’s the precise item and it looks exactly as you had hoped. Then you look at the price. $50. Hmmm that’s a little high you think. With a little further research you find out that the “MSRP” for this item, a.k.a. the list price is $30 which seems a bit odd.

You keep trying to search and click any link on the site that will lead you to the same item at a more reasonable price – but that is only available “used” and you will not purchase a used item for your child!

In the end you rationalize, it must be a very rare item to have such a high price, and since the Amazon search results “must be scientific” there are apparently no lower priced copies available. So you buy it.

This scenario was repeated hundreds if not thousands of times for this one product over a period of several months. And likely was repeated millions of times over a period of years across thousand, if not millions of items. So what?

The search is rigged, that’s what. How do I know? The person that related this story was the seller, in 2014, of over 1000 copies of the item at $50. He did not create this fraud, merely piggybacked on what Amazon itself had set up. Only they have control of the search results.

What’s the big deal you say, after all there were no cheaper units available so it is just “surge pricing”; supply and demand, right?

Wrong. There was, after all, another listing of the same item, expertly hidden by Amazon, where only a hacker or software expert could find it. On that listing, for those that Amazon chose not to swindle, was the exact same item for the standard, heavily discounted, price of $16 or nearly 50% off the list or MSRP. You see, the result is, regardless of who is selling the item, Amazon earns triple (triple the fees) when the price is higher, as in this example.

This is not an isolated “mistake”. Many who have experience working inside the Amazon system have seen literally thousands of similar examples all tied to this “malfunctioning” search engine.

What’s more a calculation of the possible financial benefits during the time in question amounted to nearly the entire reported net profit of the entire company. It was common knowledge that the company was reporting little or no net profit during many years, even as it remained a darling of stockholders.

And if any one would bring such a specific case to Amazon’s attention? Naturally they would blame the seller, software issues, the moon and the stars, anything but admit that they use every inch of their private real estate for one purpose and one purpose only, to maximize the amount of money that ends us in their accounts.

And many who are reading this still don’t get it. “Why not?” It’s capitalism after all! To the victor go the spoils! Hail Ceasar! Heil Hitler. It’s your internet. Not theirs.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Google about to face Long Overdue Antitrust Charges from Department of Justice

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Europe Leads the Way and U.S. Justice About to Arrive

It is safe to say that Google is a hegemonic force in the digital world. The site practically has a monopoly on internet searches and it holds nearly a third of the money tied up in online advertising. Because of the United States’ lax laws regarding cyber security, Google’s dominance has largely gone unchecked over the years. That is, until now.

Click to see “Life after Google” and
help Lynxotic and all independent
bookstores

According to the New York Times, the U.S. Justice Department is currently planning to hit Google with a long overdue antitrust suit. The Department hopes to get the charges out by the beginning of the summer, and although details are still under wraps, it’s likely that they will aim to hold Google and parent company Alphabet Inc. accountable for its monopolistic control of the internet.

Of course, Google does not actually “own” the internet—nobody does. Nevertheless, Google has sliced itself a disproportionately large piece of the pie. In its nebulous origins, the worldwide web was hardly created with intentions, but it started out as a place of anonymity and level playing-fields for all users. Unfortunately, in the age of ubiquitous social media, online anonymity is a thing of the past, and technological juggernauts like Google have severely skewed that long lost level playing-field ideal.

Now, more than ever, big tech must be held to account

Not only does Google’s tyranny stray from the internet’s egalitarian genesis, but it also strays from the rule of law. 1890’s Sherman Antitrust Act banned monopolies in the United States as well as trusts that hurt trade. The federal government enforced the act in 1948 to break up Hollywood’s overbearing studio system in U.S. v Paramount. It recently made an appearance in the 1990s, when the Justice Department sued Microsoft, leading to a 2001 settlement with the company.

Click to see “Goliath” and help
Lynxotic and all independent bookstores

Government entities have tried to get Google on antitrust operations before. In 2013, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the website for antitrust violations, but dropped the case after nineteen months. Quite frankly, Google possesses near-untouchable power, and as aforementioned, our federal laws regarding the internet are quite loose. Thus, even though Google clearly holds too much influence for any one company, it remains a difficult beast to pin down.

If the Justice Department does manage to win against Google this time around, it could be the start of a much needed crackdown on algorithmic dictatorship. Not just Google, but Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple have all faced criticism for their exploitation of user data and capitalism. Many believe that it is time for these companies’ unregulated dogmas to end.

Accountability is key, even for seemingly nonthreatening businesses that exist in the digital ether. The Justice Department expects that attorney generals from many states will join the them in this crackdown on Google, paving the way for a more technologically equitable future.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Based on a 5 year extrapolation of the past into the future. Nope.

A recent “study” has been cited by a gaggle of digital media outlets. Featuring headlines such as “Jeff Bezos Could Be the World’s First Trillionaire, and the Overwhelming Response Is ‘Thanks I Hate It’ (Vice.com) and“Jeff Bezos could become world’s first trillionaire, and many people aren’t happy about it” (USA Today) and trending on twitter via the hashtag #bezostrillionaire and #RIPCapitalism.

The source of this nonsense projection appears to be a web site called “comparisun”, who are likely getting a lot of traffic from this, so congratulations.

Naturally, $150 billion of basically ill-gotten gains (more on that below) is enough to engender plenty of outrage, as it well should. The joke in this case is that this man’s net worth is almost as likely to be near zero in 5 years as to be a trillion dollars.

Read more: A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully

Why’s that you ask? The answers are endless and all true, but here are a random few. Jeff Bezos wealth is mainly based on Amazon’s share price. That is likely to continue to be the case. That price is currently at all time highs due to many factors but one factor that will not likely continue is the buying that “investors” are engaging in based on the idea the our future economy will consist of Amazon, Netflix and some medical companies that will profit off the coronavirus pandemic.

Hmmm. How’s that likely to work out? Netflix has around 6,700 employees and are unlikely to hire the 20 million that just lost their jobs. Amazon has nearly a million workers but the vast majority are in terrible low paid jobs without bathroom breaks (allegedly).

Does that sound like an economy where stocks, even Amazon’s are likely to rise in price for 5 years straight? Nope. No jobs, no income, no prime .

The reality of the inner workings of his empire will one day be known. Midas touch terminated.

Digging deeper into the business model of the predatory monster from Seattle, there are also some difficult issues that will have to be faced. For example, it is a little known fact that nearly 60% of the income generated by the eCommerce site is based on fees charged to “marketplace sellers”. These sellers are so efficiently exploited that they are known to “source” new products from dumpsters in order to earn enough (after fees) to eat. To supplement what they eat out of those dumpsters, apparently. Don’t just read our article on this, try the Wall Street Journal article titled: “You Might Be Buying Trash on Amazon—Literally”.

And after the pleasure of that kind of “partnership” they are rewarded with zero job security and will be blamed for any and every problem, regardless if it is a small issue with a customer (all refunds and return postage are charged directly to the seller and is triggered at will by the host) or a P.R. problem (marketplace sellers are perfect scapegoats and weeding out the “bad apples” is the perfect cover, driving scrutiny away from the real issues).

The hatred for this system and the virtual impossibility to prosper has been growing steadily for years (ask Nike, Birkenstock or thousands of small companies driven out of business on a whim or tiny infraction by the behemoth) and will only grow. And then there’s the Gov. Both democrats and republicans have major issues with Bezos and his one man circus. Antitrust investigations are ongoing and not only in the US.

Read more: Dark Towers tells Deutsche Bank Story of Trump, post Bankruptcy yet Swimming in Loans

There are so many land mines waiting in the road ahead that that stock price has virtually no chance of rising, regardless of how many more competitors of the “grim reaper” are six feet under. Ironically, it is the lack of real competition, online or at the now soon-to-be-extinct shopping mall, that will focus even more of us on why this show needs to end, and soon, not expand at the obscene rate of the previous 5 years.

In a future dreamworld Bezos could have a trillion. In a better world he would be the one unemployed.


Find books on Robber BaronsSustainable EnergyEsoteric Spirituality and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully: Big tech Behemoth Plays Coronavirus Card

Not long ago it was a pledge of billions for the climate crisis, now $4 billion for “safety”. Where are the audited accounts?

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Funny thing about promises made by politicians and owners of public companies. Although truth will eventually come out due to public access to accounting, these are often so far in the future that virtually anything can be promised today with no need for a specific plan or transparent numbers to back them up.

On May 3rd, in a dramatic “you may want to sit down” moment Jeff Bezos announced that the company he runs, and is the principal shareholder of, would take all of the $4 billion in expected 2nd quarter operating profit and “invest” it in “COVID-related” costs:

“Under normal circumstances, in this coming Q2, we’d expect to make some $4 billion or more in operating profit. But these aren’t normal circumstances. Instead, we expect to spend the entirety of that $4 billion, and perhaps a bit more, on COVID-related expenses getting products to customers and keeping employees safe.”

Now those who follow Amazon news might remember that in February the online retail giant’s owner pledged $10 billion as a “donation” toward battling climate change, under the moniker “Bezos Earth Fund”.

Read more: “Deadliest Enemy” for Deep Background on Pandemics and the Danger of a Second Wave

Even as these ego boosting promises are helping with the image of this company, often otherwise described as “the grim reaper” in the press for its murderous behavior toward any potential competition, a cursory look beneath the surface quickly yields another story. The announcement on Friday suspiciously coincided with fallout from a WSJ article alleging that false information was given in testimony relating to Amazon’s well known extreme competitive behavior against its own so-called marketplace sellers. On the same day as the “generous” promise came to light the WSJ published a follow up piece indicating that Bezos has been “asked” to testify before Congress and to clarify what appears to be an attempted cover-up of the well known practice.

A long history of incredibly consistent behavior points to something lurking beneath the headlines

While we are digging into the weeds here it’s important to note that both the promised, not yet existent, $4 billion and the “pledge” to set up the “Bezos Earth Fund” are not binding in any way, but simply vague promises. It will be months and likely years before any solid information could come out as to just what the various monies will be spent on, if at all.

For example, Amazon has made it well known that it intends to take its “Grim Reaper” show to the health care industry in an attempt to cause the same kind of carnage that it achieved in the book retail and publishing industries, not to mention Diapers and countless other product categories. Who’s to stop this push into a new area to conquer from being funded by this “generous promise” of $4 billion even while stating that all of Q2 profit will be used for “protecting employees as this crisis continues”. Who will prevent that from happening? Yes, you have it right, no one.

Read more: ’Blowout’ by Rachel Maddow: Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia and the Richest, Most Destructive Industry on Earth

Meanwhile, even as these lovely pledges and promises get the digital ink equivalent of a small ocean, the usual slash, burn and pillage continues in plain sight. Many of those same digital outlets crowing about the generosity of the great emperor of Amazon’s promise, just had their business models turned to something more suited to a cremation urn than the daily news shelf. Amazon Affiliate payments to media outlets, a mainstay keeping many news organizations afloat (barely) were suddenly slashed up to 80% this week. So, in other words, a huge constituency that created the success of the giant firm is once again being rewarded by almost certain financial collapse. Big surprise.

There are two that “win”: one is Amazon, second a bribed customer and all others are lured into a death trap

This warrants a deeper look into the process and train of thought that can be deduced from the recent facts, actions and events. Amazon’s income has exploded since the coronavirus crisis began; hence the anticipated $4 billion operating profit projection.

See DJI video promo

Warehouse workers ? A million allegedly working in almost sweatshop (or worse) conditions for slave wages. Do they benefit financially from this obscene windfall? Yes, they get, possibly, free masks. Perhaps a tiny pay raise for certain “teams”.

How about the marketplace sellers (you know the ones that Congress and the WSJ appear to believe have been systematically defrauded and cheated for decades) that generate nearly 60% of the gross income of the retail site? They will be rewarded with increased scrutiny, higher fees, higher costs and the usual brutal death camp treatment. Lower fees for the best among them? Never.

Ultimately, this charade is business as usual and par for the course from a company that did not get the nickname “Grim Reaper” for nothing. $14 billion for altruistic causes that represent selfless generosity towards others? That’s as likely as a Camel jumping through the eye of a needle.

full statement released by Amazon / Bezos:

From online shopping to AWS to Prime Video and Fire TV, the current crisis is demonstrating the adaptability and durability of Amazon’s business as never before, but it’s also the hardest time we’ve ever faced,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “We are inspired by all the essential workers we see doing their jobs—nurses and doctors, grocery store cashiers, police officers, and our own extraordinary frontline employees. The service we provide has never been more critical, and the people doing the frontline work—our employees and all the contractors throughout our supply chain—are counting on us to keep them safe as they do that work. We’re not going to let them down. Providing for customers and protecting employees as this crisis continues for more months is going to take skill, humility, invention, and money.

If you’re a shareowner in Amazon, you may want to take a seat, because we’re not thinking small. Under normal circumstances, in this coming Q2, we’d expect to make some $4 billion or more in operating profit. But these aren’t normal circumstances. Instead, we expect to spend the entirety of that $4 billion, and perhaps a bit more, on COVID-related expenses getting products to customers and keeping employees safe.

Read more: Dark Towers tells Deutsche Bank Story of Trump, post Bankruptcy yet Swimming in Loans

This includes investments in personal protective equipment, enhanced cleaning of our facilities, less efficient process paths that better allow for effective social distancing, higher wages for hourly teams, and hundreds of millions to develop our own COVID-19 testing capabilities. There is a lot of uncertainty in the world right now, and the best investment we can make is in the safety and well-being of our hundreds of thousands of employees. I’m confident that our long-term oriented shareowners will understand and embrace our approach, and that in fact they would expect no less.

Find books on BusinessSustainable EnergyScreenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Big Tech headed for a Storm of Changes once the Novel Coronavirus Fades from Center Stage

Anti-trust Actions and Consumer Frustration Building for Years Coming to a Head in Post-Pandemic World

A groundswell of dissatisfaction bordering on outrage, particularly in Europe, built to a peak by the end of 2019. Lawsuits, investigations, protests and more lay siege on the biggest of the big tech giants. Google, Facebook and Amazon were at the forefront of much of the turmoil.

Judgements, convictions and fines levied against google included a whopping $1.7 billion fine in the European Union for violating antitrust regulations involving unfair advertising practices. The E.U. had already convicted the giant search company twice for similar violations in its business practices. The total fines as of the Match 2019 judgement totaled 9.3 billion imposed by the E.U. alone. While this may be pocket change to a trillion dollar company with a virtual monopoly in search in many parts of the world, it also indicates and impacts a rising awareness of the disturbing anti-competitive behavior of the tech giant.

Click to buy “The Four” 
and at the same time help Lynxotic 
and all independent local bookstores.
 
Also on Amazon

Both Facebook and Amazon have been similarly targeted for various anti-trust violations and non-competitive behaviors and were fined accordingly. Although in some ways less targeted for traditional anti-trust violations to date, Amazon, has been increasingly scrutinized and investigated for its methods of market domination. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was quoted in a televised speech stating that “Amazon destroyed the retail industry”. Amazon’s complex structure and claim to “only” account for 5% of retail sales (and 50% of online retail) make traditional monopolistic behavior claims more difficult to prove. Antitrust experts have called the massive online company a monopsony instead, which can mean having a majority power over suppliers rather than consumers. A similar set of issues and concerns was the focus of famous antitrust battles against the A&P Grocery chain during the Great Depression with a judgement against the giant finally rendered in 1946.

Also recently, the Wall Street Journal published a disturbing story detailing how sellers on Amazon were able to sell products sourced from dumpsters, clean them up and pass off as new. This was a tip-of-the-iceberg moment opening up inquiries into the state of the “3rd party marketplace” which represents more than 50% of Amazon’s revenue.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University

After the Pandemic Troubles Likely to Remain for Tech Behemoths

Now, as of the date of this writing the confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. total over five hundred thousand cases with over one hundred thousand deaths worldwide. The U.S. death toll, at over 2.3k , has surpassed every other country, including China (although the numbers coming out of China may not be reliable). The number of cases and the death toll has not yet peaked, according to experts, and Lock-downs across the country are likely to continue for weeks, even months longer.

Click to buy “World Without Mind” 
and at the same time help Lynxotic 
and all independent local bookstores.
 
Also on Amazon

Although this situation effectively postpones government investigations and county actions against the giants, public anger and frustration, particularly with Amazon appears to be on the rise. Low paid warehouse workers for Amazon have staged walk outs and protests, delivery times have lengthened dramatically, the newly launched Amazon branded delivery system was cancelled and overall chaos appears on the rise.

None of these or any other side-effects of the pandemic and the lock-downs, such an an increase in streaming and online use in general is likely to be a positive public relations win for any of these massive companies. The trend of the last several years is likely to not only continue but intensify as the world slowly emerges from a state of quarantine shock and gradually tries to find a path to a new business as usual.

Meanwhile, enough time has elapsed that not only articles but books about the Big-Tech backlash and the problems that have been clearly identified in the business models of these companies have been published. Many are zeroing in on the negative impact of these enormous companies on society, the job market and small businesses in particular as they snowball into larger and more dominating versions of themselves .

We have featured a few on this page but they are being published literally as I write this article, and we will continue to catalog and update the subject on our sister site Cherrybooks.


Read more: World Reading Marathon Underway- Streaming and Binge-watching still huge but Books are Next

Find books on Big TechSustainable Energy, Esoteric Spirituality and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Disney, Universal and Pixar Films available to Stream in advance of original VOD release date

https://movietrailers.apple.com/movies/universal/the-invisible-man/the-invisible-man-trailer-2_h1080p.mov
Official Teaser Trailer for “The Invisible MAn

Streaming was Growing and Expanding before the Pandemic and now it’s in Overdrive

The last time that a pandemic gripped the planet, the film industry was in its mere infancy. Nickelodeon theaters played silent motion pictures for middle class audiences and studios were hardly the global conglomerates that they are today. Thus, the contemporary COVID-19 outbreak poses an unprecedented threat to the entertainment sphere, as theaters for the first time in history, are being forced to close their doors for the greater good.

This novel situation is causing studios to be creative in how they will persevere without theatrical releases. A number of movies have already been postponed such as MGM’s “No Time To Die,” Paramount’s “A Quiet Place Part II,” Disney’s “Black Widow,” Universal’s “F9” and many, many more.

Likewise, the coronavirus has also brought production to a halt, as work on several shows and movies are being put on pause. Among them are Warner Brothers’ “Fantastic Beasts 3” and “Matrix 4,” Disney’s live-action “The Little Mermaid,” and Amazon’s “The Lord Of The Rings” series.

Consequentially, there has been a lot of pressure for studios to release movies directly to Video-On-Demand or other home video markets. So far, the companies have been reluctant to do so, due in no small part to the theaters not wanting to sacrifice their piece of the profits. One notable exception, however, has been DreamWorks’ “Trolls World Tour,” which Universal has slated to be released directly to VOD, on the date the theatrical run would have begun.

For the most part, though, studios have responded to the situation by shortening the lapse between theatrical runs and home video releases. Disney, for example, expedited the release of “Frozen II” on Disney+ as a treat/marketing ploy for subscribers practicing safe social distancing. Meanwhile, Disney also announced that it will add the latest Pixar film, “Onward” to its streaming service in early April. “Onward” came out mere weeks ago on March 6th, just before theaters starting closing down and postponing releases became the new norm for 2020.

Additional studios have followed suit and started putting their movies (that would otherwise remain in theaters) straight to VOD. On top of “Trolls World Tour,” Universal recently made “The Invisible Man” and “The Hunt” available on home video markets. Likewise, movies that were on the tail ends of their theatrical runs such as Warner Brothers’ “Birds Of Prey” and Paramount’s “Sonic The Hedgehog” have also sped their way to the VOD market ahead of schedule.

This trend has been so popular in the past couple weeks that Amazon even started a new section of its Prime video streaming service titled “Prime Video Cinema.” The section is dedicated entirely to these new releases taken straight from theaters. Albeit, many of these direct-to-home-video releases are costlier than your average rental—running around $20 to emulate a movie-ticket price.

Other “Early Access” titles that have been added to Amazon’s pay-per-view slate include: “Emma“, “Bloodshot” and “The Way Back“.

Uncertain times for Theaters raises Specter of a Streaming-only Future

Some are still hoping that studios will forgo the theatrical process altogether and start releasing new movies straight to home video in these unconventional times. Particularly, many have solicited the Walt Disney Company to put out its newly-postponed live-action “Mulan” on Disney+. The company, however, has not complied, probably for the same reason that Universal was okay with releasing “Trolls World Tour” on VOD on Amazon and Apple’s iTunes on Friday April 10th, but not “F9.”

Namely, “Mulan” and “F9” are more-or-less guaranteed blockbusters. They will make more money in theaters, presumably, once the lock-down is over, than they ever could on streaming or On-Demand platforms. Therefore, the studios are willing to wait until things blow over to get the biggest bang for their bucks in the cinema.

Theaters already face enough strife in the modern age of ubiquitous streaming, and the current virus is certainly not helping them gain any leverage. While the entertainment industry’s setbacks might seem trivial in comparison to everything going on the world right now, movies and movie theaters in particular operate on the backs of many hardworking, vulnerable people from managers, to ushers, to ticket takers, to projectionists, and more.

While the studios themselves may have enough money and power to remain afloat through these unconventional times, lets hope that they do not lose sight of their foundational workers as they search for alternative solutions.

Links to watch Films mentioned in this article (amazon): “Frozen II”, “Onward”, “The Invisible Man”, “The Hunt”, “Birds Of Prey” , “Bloodshot“, “The Way Back“, “Emma“, “Trolls World Tour


Find books on Filmmaking, Screenwriting, Climate Change, Sustainable Energy and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

$10 Billion Climate Change Pseudo-Pledge by Amazon CEO Bezos Raises Suspicions

Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Skepticism is Natural when the World’s Richest Person announces Fund without Details as to how it will be Administered

Jeff Bezos—the founder and CEO of Amazon— recently announced via Instagram that he will be donating $10 billion to the fight against climate change. The informal monetary pledge, which Bezos made on February 17th, will be titled the Bezos Earth Fund. It will economically support scientists, activists, and NGOs to help protect the planet in these environmentally trying times.

When the $10 billion is eventually donated, it will be the largest philanthropic contribution ever made towards combatting climate change. Worth over $130 billion, Bezos is the richest man in the world, and this donation will be about 8% of his entire net worth. Even for a man of Bezos’ stature, this certainly appears to be a generous act.

Nevertheless, the hefty donation has not gone without criticism and speculation. Bezos and Amazon have become controversial names in recent years for a number of reasons – conventionally being on the wrong side of climate change is but one of them.

Amazon has a troubling track record of supporting the fossil fuel industry. The company has troves of money and investments tied up with big gas and oil companies, some of the biggest profiteers off of the Earth’s ecological destruction. Recently, Amazon even sponsored an event for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think-tank promoting climate denial.

On an even darker note, Amazon has traditionally tried to silence employees who attend climate action rallies. Lately, these environmentally passionate employees have formed the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice to stand in solidarity and raise awareness about Amazon’s misdemeanors against the planet. Now, these employees risk termination for outing some of Amazon’s statistical secrets.

Click to buy “No One is Too Small to Make a Difference” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores

Only recently has Amazon revealed its numbers relating to carbon emissions and energy consumption. As the world’s largest retailer, the company naturally uses immense resources to transport products all around the planet. In 2018, Amazon reportedly released 44.4 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere—the equivalent of a small nation.

These revelations about Amazon’s detrimental affects on the Earth have led to the company pledging some late changes. The corporation now aims to use 100% renewable energy by 2030 and carry out at least half of its shipments with zero net emissions. It also plans to invest more in wind and solar and wants carbon neutrality by 2040.

The Timing does Make this Pledge Look like A PR Stunt. How About Results, Soon?

Bezos’ $10 billion announcement just might be the bottleneck of all these reformations to put Amazon back on the right side of environmental history. Then again, if one reads closely, the Fund does not mention Amazon at all, and thus the company’s practices may continue business-as-usual despite whatever Bezos is doing to clear his personal name.

Furthermore, some are still scratching their heads about the conditions surrounding Bezos’ donation. After all, the only thing the CEO has done so far is announce the Earth Fund. He is bound to nothing and hasn’t outlined any concrete details.

Distribution of the fund will be a crucial element of the Fund’s impact. As aforementioned, the money will go to scientists, activists, and NGOs, but Bezos did not specify whether or not political donations are in the cards. Although funding non-profits and research can go a long way, many would argue that governmental reformation is the premiere way to create positive, tangible change.

The pacing of the distribution is also just as important. It is not clear how Bezos will go about giving away the $10 billion over the next few years, whether he will spend it down over time or hold in in an endowment. Many hope for the former as the world cannot wait much longer for the support it needs in combatting the climate crisis.

Then, there are a slew of lingering questions regarding the ownership, organization, and legality of this philanthropic contribution. Will it be connected to Bezos’ corporate enterprise? If so, what might be the underlying tax incentives of this “charitable” act? Who will be responsible for overseeing all of this and making sure that the money is distributed ethically?

It would be unfair to call a Bezos’ donation a hallow gesture. $10 billion is enough money to truly make a difference. However, it is imperative that the finer details be executed and analyzed with the upmost care. Given Amazon’s ongoing place in the world and its oftentimes nefarious position in the fight against climate change, people are right to look at the $10 billion with a quizzical eye, and not take it as a free pass to offset or pardon Bezos of his previous and current actions.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Book Miracle: Gutsy Upstart Aims to Resuscitate Amazon’s Original Targets of Destruction

Photo / Monique Ly

Amazon represents a New Normal but Not Everybody is Happy with That

From a consumer perspective it’s hard to argue with buying things at a very low price, often, in the case of books, below wholesale and with ridiculously fast free shipping. But who is paying for this? Mainly, it’s complicated, but it has traditionally been people and companies that sold books before the existence of Amazon, later known as the grim reaper, destroyed their businesses and livelihoods.

Recently, deep inside the Amazon system the rot is starting to show. Just as a camel is unlikely to pass through the eye of a needle, you don’t get to be a trillion dollar eCommerce retail giant without some internal corruption. A lot of internal corruption. Who knows? …as a customer, you might even encounter expired lemon curd or a used diaper along the way.

Compare this to Apple, a company that charges a premium for the best products and service. And for the caché of being part of a greater whole that stands for something other than “the cheapest no matter what”. Not without soiled hands perhaps, but on the other end of the spectrum from winning by selling at impossible prices. Instead it is a company known for building a brand that stands for quality, luxury and innovation above all.

Somewhere, on the good-guy side yet between these diametrically opposed behemoths now stands a new, tiny, alternative for the book world: Bookshop.Org

A Formula that just might Work, as People Gradually Realize that a Monopsony is Just as bad as a Monopoly

The ORG is important as it signals the true fact that this is a company with a purpose beyond profit and that it is a cooperative venture in nature. The site is founded as a bet that true Booklovers can be persuaded forego a few dollars of artificial price reduction to support a better entity, and still get a premium product and experience.

Bookshop.org is registered as a B-Corp and therefore pledged to place social good ahead of profit. Since profits are predivirted to help independent booksellers, authors and others that choose to affiliate, profits are limited inherently in the business model.

The idea that the thought content of the books themselves can bind together producer, seller and reader, along with the sharing of an affinity towards authors and ideas, is something that has been all but lost, after the decimation of bookstores of all kinds in the wake of the Amazon explosion.

This is also true of other product categories, say, consumer electronics, but books and bookstores were the first target for extermination, thus the experience of sharing a like-minded love of books with a store that will provide them is now, truly, an all but extinct concept.

Created to help those independent book sellers across the country that have survived in spite of the “success” of the below-cost dumping strategy employed by the “Death Star”, Bookshop.org is an alliance that includes the American Booksellers Association as well as the largest book distributer in the US, assuring a vast current selection and an established fulfillment network.

Communicating the value of opting out of the status quo will fall on the booksellers and new partners that join the Bookshop in its quest. By the way, you too can contribute and become an affiliate member at no cost, for example if you are and Author or an Influencer, or if your blog can send potential book buyers to the site.

Finally, For Booklovers who Love Booklovers a site that Loves Indie Booksellers

John Warner of the Chicago Tribune has likened the endeavor to the Starwars Rebel Alliance fighting against Amazon’s Death Star, and the analogy is certainly apt. However, this is more about the option to inhabit a world where there is a book buying choice beyond the obvious and ubiquitous.

Where, in an Amazon world, is it possible to choose an experience that is, in a sense, also an investment in dignity and diversity, and who better to make such an unique choice than the well-read Booklover?

Ammunition on the supplier side is a commission, more like a stipend really, of approximately double the amount a seller receives if they send buyers to Amazon (known as an affiliate commission and attached to virtually all offers across the web), with the extra bit paid for by not being an only for-profit entity. That’s high concept if ever there was.

For a detailed breakdown of the site’s concept and financial structure you can go directly to Bookshop or read Joan Verdon’s excellent article in Forbes.

So, while the richest man on planet earth pays hundreds of million$ to PHDs to come up with new ways to destroy existing competitors – even those that pose no threat whatsoever, you can side-step all that noise and chose to be Hans Solo, reluctant but ultimately heroic, and support the people who love books more than just money.

If you see Lynxotic book reviews, from now on, they will likely have a link to an offer to buy from our Bookshop.org independent bookstore partner cherrybooks who, yes, will reap a small but meaningful reward for joining the cause.

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac

Amazon Employees for Climate Justice Defy Corporate Policy Calling Out Company on Carbon Emissions

Photo Collage – Aussie Brushfire / Jeff Bezos

Speaking out at great Risk against the Behemoth

In the beginning of 2020, e-commerce tech conglomerate Amazon issued a new policy aimed at preventing its employees from speaking publicly without company approval. Now, the company is threatening to reprimand or even terminate employees who attend climate action rallies or speak out about Amazon’s carbon emissions.

The Amazon workers, however, are not reacting passively to these threats. Instead, they are banding together to form the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ) to show solidarity and pressure the higher-ups to change their energy-related business practices.

The AECJ was only recently formed, but has already extended invitations to thousands of Amazon employees. In an email disseminated by the organization, Amazon workers were asked a number of questions about the company’s ethics. In particular, the note asks employees how they feel about Amazon’s sustainability practices—the issue at the center of the AECJ’s agenda.

Controversies Continue to Build at the eCommerce Giant

In recent years, Amazon has been in hot water on a number of political issues. Climate change is just one of them. CEO Jeff Bezos has been highly criticized for his business dealings with major oil and gas companies, buying into and financially supporting a number of fossil-fuel burning juggernauts. Although Bezos has expressed plans for Amazon to go carbon neutral by 2040 and has hinted at halting donations towards climate-denying politicians, all outlooks are shrouded in noncommittal uncertainty and effectively dodge the question of Amazon’s ongoing relationships with the fossil fuel industry.

Amazon employees appear to have finally had enough of this. Last September, hundreds of Amazon workers participated in a climate action walkout, where they pressured the company to reassess its carbon output. Around the same time, Amazon invested in 100,000 electric vehicles—something that should be celebrated, but nevertheless remains a rather hollow gesture in light of the larger picture.

Governments and Giant Corporations must be Forced to lead the way, if Necessary

The fossil fuel industry, the benefits reaped by the human race notwithstanding, is the central cause of the climate crisis. Big oil and gas companies, backed by politicians and funded by elite organizations, are the major cause of carbon emissions in the world. Even if every individual does his or her part to live sustainably, climate change will continue to occur at a brutal pace unless there is a large-scale transformation in the energy sector. This is a change that no one person can really instigate, but an international institution such as Amazon could impact, in a positive or negative way.

Despite its name, the AECJ are working to change Amazon on more fronts than just environmental ones. Amazon has also been rightfully panned for its mistreatment of warehouse workers and its shady dealings with the government, providing data and technology to officials without user consent. The AECJ hopes to reform some of these issues as well and make Amazon a better place to work and a better institution in the world at large. So far, over 340 Amazon employees have signed with the AECJ, risking their jobs to try and create a brighter future from the bottom up.

Granted, Amazon is not alone in its high carbon emissions, data sharing, and workplace ruling unethicalities. Tech companies such as Google, Facebookand Microsoft have been accused of similar moral breaches. Similar to the society at large, though, these corporations are built upon foundations of lower-level workers. These employees are often diligent and passionate, and in many situations, they have a closer connection to common reality than those at the top of the corporate hierarchies. Even in the midst of oppression, these people can have voices, and when they band together for powerful and just causes, those voices have the potential to form a chorus that leads to significant change.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin Step Down, Displacing Accountability To Sundar Pichai

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google and respective President and CEO of its parent company Alphabet Inc, have officially announced plans to step down from their high-ranking management roles in the tech world. Page and Brin created the Google search engine in 1998 when they were PhD students at Stanford University. Since then, the two have expanded the company into a multi-purpose technological empire. 

Now, twenty-one years later, the forty-six year old entrepreneurs are resigning from their leading positions at Google. However, given the stress that Google is under, they are retiring at a suspiciously convenient time. And even though they are sacrificing their titles, they are simultaneously managing to maintain stakes in the Google brand.

Taking over for Page and Brin is Pichai Sundararajan—better known as Sundar Pichai, the former number-two at Google who has practically been acting as the face of the company for the past few years. As the two founders have found themselves more invested in Google’s experimental sectors recently—Brin focusing on GoogleX’s driverless cars and Google Glasses while Page has shifted his attention towards flying automobiles—most of the Google’s more widely-used properties have fallen under Pichai’s supervision.

Pichai has been with Google since 2004. He is responsible for convincing the company to start its own browser in 2008, which lead to the immensely successful Google Chrome. In 2013, he took over the Android Division, better integrating Google properties into the line of smartphones without sacrificing their affordability. He also spearheaded the development of Chrome OS, the operating system that fuels Google’s popular Chromebook laptops.

Indeed, Pichai is an obvious choice to replace Page and Brin as CEO of Google and Alphabet. The man has practically been running the company’s mainstream innovations for the past ten years, while its founders take the backseat to play out their billion dollar tech fantasies. 

Then again, Page and Brin are far from exiled from the Google community. Although they are no longer acting leaders, they will still keep their fourteen percent stakes in the company’s finances. As majority stockholders, they will also retain influence over Alphabet’s decisions. Thus, Page and Brin’s step down from power is hardly a step down at all, but rather an excuse to hold onto control while dodging personal accountability in trying times.

And trying times these are indeed for Google. Within the past year especially, Congress and other authorities have been cracking down on tech conglomerates such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and of course, Google. Like its fellow cyber juggernauts, Alphabet has been criticized for having a monopoly on data. Not only are users starting to think that Google wields too much power, but they also fear what it is doing with such power, as the worldwide company becomes oddly elusive when questioned about its privacy standards, information distribution, and business ethics.

Even Marc Zuckerberg had the slightest integrity to come before Congress and speak for Facebook during the Senate Committee hearing on big tech last year. Page and Brin, however, were nowhere to be found. Despite being requested at the hearing, they left a conspicuously empty seat in Washington DC with Google’s name on it.

Ever since cyber ethics and big tech have become hot topics in the media, the founders of Google have been moving further and further away from the spotlight. Their resignation from Alphabet as a whole signifies their ultimate fall into the shadows, where no one can accuse them of immorality or illegality on behalf of the company. The burden will now fall on Pichai.

In a way, little has changed. Pichai has more or less been answering for Page and Brin for a while, handling publicity and leading all of the launches that come from Google. Now, however, he holds the actual crown—even if Page and Brin are keeping the royal treasure. With any luck, though, maybe Pichai will improve Google, not just by creating more innovative software, but by bettering Alphabet’s approach to security, designing tech with human decency in mind, and actually owning up and responding to some of the company’s mistakes as they come.

It’s unlikely and perhaps foolishly optimistic, but it’s a silver lining that users can grasp onto given the (albeit somewhat empty) change in Google’s leadership.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Wall Street Journal Slams Amazon at Peak of Holiday Buying Season: “Are you Buying (Actual) Garbage?”

In a Feature article WSJ does an Investigative Report but Leaves out the Real Dirt

opinion

In an article with a date stamp of December 18, 2019 at 3:38 am, WSJ released a scathing report detailing how potentially millions of sellers are allegedly scamming the public by selling discarded and remaindered good through Amazon’s marketplace.

The aim of the investigative piece was to show that Amazon did not pre-qualify or filter its selling accounts in any way and that pretty much anyone can sell anything, at least for a while, until Amazon shuts them down.

In order to add drama to the account and to emphasize how disgusting this situation can be for the buyer, WSJ set up its own marketplace “storefront” and listed items, literally found in a dumpster, for sale on Amazon. The items included a discarded jar of Lemon Curd.

While the interaction with Amazon ( a nicety afforded the Wall Street Journal) was amusing, with Amazon repeating the phrase “Amazon’s high bar for product quality” repeated over and over, for the most part the article, while well researched, totally misses the point.

The Real Rot is not in the Garbage Being Sold but Amazon’s System that Is a Machine Designed to Destroy Legitmate Retail

As is well documented in the, now ancient, saga of how Amazon killed off all competitors in the Book selling business, it has always been a clear goal of Amazon to bankrupt its competitors by any (legal?) means. These extreme tactics have not been abandoned now that all products are target for sales monopolization.

Further, regarding selling products out of dumpsters, for many years Amazon’s system has not only encouraged such desperate methods on it’s marketplace it has made them virtually impossible to avoid. In the WSJ article the question of the motivation of the sellers and why they “prefer” to sell, literally, garbage is never addressed.

It is even implied that they are just “poor” and one seller is even quoted as saying that he started selling products out of dumpsters because “he didn’t have money to buy products”.

It was also mentioned that one of the sellers “couldn’t make money as a photographer” and so he decided to start selling trash from dumpsters.

This is so incredibly misleading that it is difficult to even begin to deconstruct.

The List of Omissions from the WSJ article is Mind-boggling

While it is great to see some of the common practices that make up over 50% of sales on the Amazon platform exposed, omitting the real issues, the built-in ugliness of the system itself, is inexcusable.

First of all, no human sells products out of the trash as a first resort. To imply that these are “poor” people and therefore somehow taking advantage of Amazon’s lack of oversight is utterly ridiculous. Somehow in a “serious” exposé WSJ manages to make Amazon look like the victim. You have got to be kidding.

The fact is that Amazon is based on a system of undercutting, through various tactics, legitimate commerce, especially competing eCommerce, by forcing prices, after fees, to a level well below traditional wholesale levels. This means that anyone, large company or small individual, must source products at an unrealistic “impossible” price level in order to be competitive. Hence the popularity of the dumpster.

Who is the Real Victim? We all are.

That bears repeating: It is not possible to make a single cent on the Amazon marketplace by buying an item legitimately through a wholesale distributor and then adding a retail mark-up as has been the system for centuries (except in cases of price-gouging and other anomalies).

To use a different method to put this into perspective, remember that jar of Lemon Curd from the dumpster? Here’s the rough general breakdown for a similar product based on a 10$ sale price on the Amazon Marketplace:

Price of item “shipped” (free shipping) = $10 (rounded off for illustration purposes)

Cost of shipping and handling = $4.50

Various Fees to Amazon = $4.50

Remaining amount retained by seller = $1.00

Since the cost of this product at wholesale is around $5 and the seller must also survive, the only acceptable price for the seller to acquire the jar is $0. Dumpsters do not charge. Therefore this is the default system for sellers that work 7 days a week to try to make even a modest income.

The absurdity of this is off the charts. Even if you debate the details +- .50 in each category, etc., this is nevertheless the system that gets your Lemon Curd to your porch. A more wasteful and backward system could not be devised if you tried. Thank “modern” finance and devious minds for this wonderful invention of commerce.

The Amazon system is based on these concepts:

A. Set marketplace fees at a level where the maximum allowable “profit” for the third-party seller, after fees, is effectively zero. Fees are added to everything. A “variable closing fee” for the sale itself, fees on storage, “pick and pull” fees, shipping fees, on and on and on. These apply, at varying but always astronomical levels, through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program and for sellers that ship and warehouse their own goods as well.

B. Encourage Chinese and other gray-market suppliers to maintain the system and “impossible” price level at below wholesale cost. Next, sell Amazon Branded products as an “alternative” and source these at the lowest possible cost to insure no legitimate seller can compete.

C. Cover all this with “no questions asked” returns (paid for primarily by the 3rd party sellers themselves) and by taking massive losses due to unrealistic shipping speeds. These ultra fast speeds serve as an attack against other companies such as Walmart, that can not be crushed by A. and B. above due to size and other market advantages.

The key objective of this strategy is to destroy legitimate retailers and brands at every level. Large brands like Nike, who recently ended a short-lived arrangement to allow its products to be sold on Amazon, are hurt by a relentless cheapening of the brand and a stampede of inferior knock offs and other damaging effects.

Smaller independent retailers are either bankrupted or forced to reduce costs of supply to well below standard wholesale prices. If you are thinking “fell off a truck” you are on the right track.

As a dramatization of the problem it can be said that to sell on Amazon, and realize any profit at all, your source must be either couinterfeit, aftermarket rejects, stolen or….. wait for it….. from a dumpster.

So, to be clear, the “dumpster divers” so lovingly described in the WSJ feature article are not just “poor” they are an inevitable result of a system, built on endless greed by the “richest man in the world” in order to have a virtual monopoly in US online sales (can’t survive without selling on Amazon is the mantra) and to insure future growth by literally destroying all legitimate competition.

Please let me know when this background “color” will be included in the next hard hitting investigative piece from the Journal.

Sunshine Behind the Clouds and the Future in your Hands

Finally, it is all of us, consumers that control the quality of the products and the purity of the supply chain that fulfills sales, online or otherwise. While it is ceratinly convenient to go online and visit either Google, Facebook or Amazon, competition online is, no less than in traditional commerce, essential to maintaining standards of quality and service.

For all Amazon’s “high standards” a deeper look at the system they have in place clearly shows that it is profit for amazon on every sale – and more importantly using income by gouging smaller marketplace sellers to attack larger competitors with unrealistic shipping cost structures, that is most important, not the quality of goods.

For now they will continue to “bribe” the public with a powerful cocktail of virtually instant delivery and “no questions asked” returns. But does that make you feel better about the dumpster sourced lemon curd you just ate? What about the poor seller than has been forced into dumpster diving to have a shot at the huge success of a $20,000 per year income, which Bezos gets in a microsecond. Maybe there are better places to buy your lemon curd.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Amazon Allegedly Allowing Chinese Sellers to Deceive Consumers and Paralyze US Vendors

Amazon finally Admits to Facilitating Safety Issues and Fakes in Online Product Listings

Chinese products listed on the e-commerce site have been known to present a multitude of issues for US sellers on the platform. Consumers are also put into potential risks whenever purchasing an item from overseas on Amazon’s site. Counterfeitsunsafe goods, and items that lack the necessary US FDA approval, despite including the logo, are among some of the problems that have frequently occurred. 

On the U.S. site, Amazon doesn’t require a seller’s locations to be disclosed, which makes it harder for Chinese sellers to be held accountable when fake and unsafe goods are identified after shipping.

When consumers attempted to sue Amazon in court proceedings in the past, Amazon’s argument was that they held no burden on product liability, claiming that the items in question were neither manufactured nor sold directly by the company and that they merely allowed those items to be listed for sale.

An extremely dangerous case happened when a customer purchased a hoverboard on Amazon from a third party seller and the board exploded and resulted in the buyer’s house catching on fire and burning down. In that 2016 court proceeding, Amazon won the case and was not held responsible.

However, for the first time ever, Amazon is finally admitting that such risks actually exist. The 2018 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) file stated “Under our seller programs, we may be unable to prevent sellers from collecting payments, fraudulently or otherwise, when buyers never receive the products they ordered or when the products received are materially different from the sellers’ descriptions. We also may be unable to prevent sellers in our stores or through other stores from selling unlawful, counterfeit, pirated, or stolen goods, selling goods in an unlawful or unethical manner, violating the proprietary rights of others, or otherwise violating our policies”  

Whether Amazon can be held liable in court for damages that result from this passivity appears to be another story.

Mysterious Third-Party Chinese Vendors Lack Accountability on Amazon’s Seller Platform

Chinese sellers within the Amazon marketplace could represent a significant portion of the third-party sellers. Although Amazon does not publicly disclose any data of sellers’ location on the Amazon.com US site, according to Market Place Pulse, approximately 38% of the top sellers are based in China and 44% of China sellers were calculated among the 5 marketplaces (France, Germany, Italy, UK and Spain). 

The majority of Chinese sellers, more than 79%, utilize Amazon Fulfillment (FBA) services that allow for customers to receive items quickly. This has resulted in US sellers struggling to compete in the market while also allowing customers to experience the same shipping experience regardless of the products’ origin.  

Legitimate US Companies Can’t Compete with Rampant Flock of Fraudulent Chinese Vendors

This insurgence of sellers from China are affecting US sellers that have sold products imported from overseas because they are not able to provide competitive prices against Chinese suppliers that are now selling the same products on the site. 

In an interview with the WSJ, a US based company that sells goose-feather duvets claims that they’ve struggled to compete with Chinese sellers that claim to sell the same quality goods but are counterfeits. This US company bought the Chinese “equivalent” and had the materials tested and found that they were duck feathers, instead of its proclaimed goose-feathers, and were being sold at a fraction of the price.

These deceptive listings not only hurt the customers that believe that they are purchasing one thing but actually receive another, but they are also killing a number of legitimate companies’ chances to make a living. The company brought the testing results to Amazon’s attention and the counterfeits were removed. However, the burden of responsibility in locating vendors that sell “fakes” should not be on the third party seller’s shoulders.

Consumers have also been deceived into thinking a product is great based on 5 star feedback when, in actuality, a string of companies have been proven to directly influence inauthentic reviews by bribing customers with gift cards in exchange for a high rating.  


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Nike Pulls the Plug on Amazon: The Two Year Pilot Program is Over

Nike Shoe Steps on Sad Amazon – Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Upsplash

Just Do It – Nike Dunks on, or Rather Dumps Amazon

In 2017 Nike participated in a pilot program to test out selling a small sampling of its products on the Amazon e-commerce site. Now, in late 2019, Nike made the decision to end that relationship, one that will have only lasted a little over two years. This parting will mean that Nike will no longer sell any of its merchandise directly through Amazon.com.

In a Yahoo Finance interview with the President, Heidi O’Neil, she explained, “We have ended our pilot with Amazon — it comes back to being incredibly committed to amazing experiences for our consumers, direct relationships and building unbreakable relationships. We want to move forward and make sure we continue to innovate on our own platform.”

Nike’s separation from Amazon comes at a time when Nike has also made internal changes to its leadership. Heidi O’Neil has been President of Nike Direct for one year (working within Nike in the marketing department for 20 years). Mark Parker current CEO will soon be stepping down and taking on the role of executive chair and be succeeded by John Donahoe at the start of the new year on January 13, 2020. Donahoe was the former CEO of eBay and current chairman of PayPal, his experience with e-commerce and online payment systems will surely serve Nike well. 

Sharing Customer Relations is not what Amazon was Built On

Nike’s shift away from Amazon serves the company’s larger mission to provide stronger customer relations. Using a direct-to-consumer (DTC) business approach, the aim is to sell more Nike products through its own website and stores – which is something not possible when partnering with Amazon. 

Since making a purchase through Amazon, all points of communication begin and end and are funneled through its platform. If any third-party vendor (even Nike) required additional information from a buyer or wanted to reach out to establish more of a relationship with customer – this involves, at best, a shared information system as the customer is deemed, by Amazon, to be its own, regardless of what brand they are purchasing. This stranglehold of customer data allows for Amazon to keep control in the purchasing process from start to finish. 

In addition, companies that sell on Amazon and have repeat business on the platform do not reap the customer relation benefits, instead Amazon asserts control of that customer relationship. 

Nike’s status as a well-established brand fortunately does not necessarily need to rely on Amazon’s fast shipping and low prices in order to its attract customers – instead the company can focus more on its desired goals to bring about “unbreakable relationships” with those that sport Nike footwear and branded gear.

After Nike’s exit from Amazon, things can only get better: For Nike

Nike counterfeits and unauthorized sellers have always been a concern for the company and was a major discussion point prior to entering into the pilot program with Amazon. Brands that do not sell directly on Amazon are often faced with resellers filling that gap. Grey market goods and resellers with fake or counterfeit products have been a major problem with Nike related products – even conducting a simple Amazon search for Nike products will yield many a reviews that point out the above issues.

“The move shows us that strong brands realize that traffic driven to their own site is self-sustaining, more profitable, and actually brand enhancing, while traffic and incremental revue from Amazon.com is less profitable but also less brand enhancing.”

– Randy Konik, Jefferies & Company ANalyst

Although Nike will cease listing on Amazon, the e-commerce site will still have third party sellers that hold Nike products available for purchase, which leaves the door open for problems relating to authenticity that customers will have to risk if they purchase on a site other than Nike.com.

The counterfeit issue within the Amazon marketplace has been such a rampant problem that another large name footwear brand, Birkenstock removed its products and no longer sell on Amazon as of 2016.

Nike, as one of the best known product lines to leave the online-selling platform is sure to affect Amazon’s future attempts of attracting other big name brands. 

Randy Konik a Jefferies analyst spoke about Nike’s departure: “The move shows us that strong brands realize that traffic driven to their own site is self-sustaining, more profitable, and actually brand enhancing, while traffic and incremental revue from Amazon.com is less profitable but also less brand enhancing.”


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

The iPhone 12 could see a Serious Sales Boom for Apple due to 5G and Starlink Internet

https://www.apple.com/105/media/us/iphone-11-pro/2019/3bd902e4-0752-4ac1-95f8-6225c32aec6d/films/product/iphone-11-pro-product-tpl-cc-us-2019_1920x1080h.mp4

Rumors Already Predicting big things for the iPhone 12: 5G plus Starlink will only Add to the Furor…

Seems like just yesterday that Apple Inc. released the iPhone 11 and 11 Pro. Consumers are still riding high on the hype and performance of these latest smartphone models. Nevertheless, Apple is already looking to the future and creating estimates for the iPhone 12 in 2020. According to Digitimes, Apple expects that the iPhone 12 will be one of the company’s most successful models.

While the 11 and 11 Pro are expected to have sold 80 million units by the end of 2019, Apple predicts that they will receive over 100 million orders for the 12 next year. 

Apple anticipates such high figures for the iPhone 12 in part due to oncoming innovations in 5G and satellite Internet. While the software and hardware details of the new phone remain shrouded in mystery for now, there is high confidence that the device will be built for the latest advances in Internet speed and 5G networking—a powerful upgrade that is bound to bring in many customers. 

Right now, the term “satellite Internet” may seem like something slow, old-fashioned, and used only by people living in remote locations where traditional broadband sources are unavailable. This may be the case at the moment, but new technology known as “Low Earth Orbit” micro-satellites could bring satellite Internet access with fiber optic speeds and beyond. Constellations of these micro-satellites could not only deliver the internet to more people around the world, they could potentially reinvent satellite Internet as a high-speed and perhaps even premiere way for virtually all people to get online.

Many tech companies have been trying to perfect micro-satellites and get the upper hand and dominate the skies. Leading the charge is Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which intends to cover the stratosphere with thousands of low-orbit satellites through its StarLink initiative. The company has already gotten approval by the FCC to launch several thousand micro-satellites into the sky, and they intend to keep launching more until they have a massive interconnected network of satellites orbiting the globe.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson & OneWeb, Google, and Facebook are all playing competitive catch up with SpaceX on the micro-satellite front. Jeff Bezos has been pursuing Project Kuiper, a satellite-oriented task which aims to provide worldwide broadband access via space. While certainly not as far along as StarLink, Kuiper plans to have hundreds of satellites in the sky in the near future.

Google has an alternative route to Low Earth Orbit micro-satellites, relying on weather balloons with antennas to stand in for cell towers and provide service to greater areas—an initiative that the company has coined “Loon.” Simultaneously, Facebook tried to make headway with its “FreeBasics” project, whereby the social network also wants to get more people active and connected on the web, and, of course, logged into its Social Network. 

5G Speeds will be the Big Upgrade but the extended Competition and Coverage of Satellites are Next

After purchasing Intel’s 5G modem unit earlier this year, and with 5G modems by Qualcom already widely expected to be in the iPhone 12, Apple is uniquely positioned to be at the forefront of this looming expansion of mobile data networks and satellite internet access points.

It’s important to remember that 5G and satellite internet both have the potential to be much faster than current broadband connections. However, the roll out timing is uncertain and the speed increases will depend on various systems and stages of network build as well as many other factors. For example, an ultra fast satellite system is being built by LeoSat which will be used by Enterprise level customers at up 5.2 Gigabits, close to double the speed of fiber, but this will be exclusively business users, at least initially.

It is the sheer breath of competition and the wide array of systems in the mix that insures that there will be more options, and more speed coming online by 2021. Not only for mobile phones but for mobile laptops and as wireless home and business routing systems also.

What all this means, in a nutshell, for Apple, is that more people will want to buy smartphones that are capable of accessing these newer, faster internet providers. If StarLink (or any of the other upcoming satellite services) can provide a greater fraction of the world with Internet access, more people will desire the latest devices to make full use that Internet. Likewise, these consumers will also want the device that is most compatible with 5G and micro-satellite technology.

Given Apple’s record, the company will probably release the iPhone 12 in September, 2020. 5G will already be in an ongoing build-out phase, with T-mobil launching on December 6, 2019 and Verizon, AT&T and Sprint already in the mix. StarLink will likely not be up and ready by that time—they are aiming for an initial roll out to start as early as mid 2020 and with continuous expansion to 2022 and beyond. However, the project will certainly be further along in becoming a worldwide sensation, with launches of multiple satellites happening every few months.

With 5G speed, and an Operating System fit for the latest forms access in its arsenal, and with the fastest chips and most powerful software and systems to accommodate the added bandwidth, the iPhone 12 has the potential to be a blockbuster of historic proportions, even by Apple’s high standards.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

How will 5G Technology and Ultra High Resolution Audio Quality affect Music Production?

Photo / Adobe Stock

Back to the Future: Digital Resolution to Rival best Analog of the Past?

With the oncoming advent of 5G technology and the increasing availability of 24-bit audio quality, consumers will soon be able to listen to music that sounds better and do so with greater ease. 5G will make streaming more efficient and the advantage 24-bit resolution over the MP3-standard 16-bit will make all kinds of music more sharp and whole sounding. For the first time in the digital age, there will be a significant evolution in how we hear music.

How these new technological innovations will change the music industry on the consumer end is more-or-less predictable. About a month ago, Amazon was the first major company to baseline high-resolution quality across its music streaming services. Amazon’s success, as well as that of other companies who employed this superior quality, proved that listeners notice the difference are willing to pay for better audio. Therefore, once 5G makes high-res music more accessible, it will raise expectations.

What people are currently overlooking regarding this innovation, however, is the question of how high-res and 5G will change music on the production end. When CDs were first introduced in the 1980s and everything had to be converted, many albums and tracks were remastered for the new medium. The same thing happened with the arrival of the iPod in 2001. Music became digitized. No longer were songs ingrained in the vinyl of a record, but rather stored in pixels on computers.

24-bit audio may not warrant equally radical changes, but it very well could affect how musicians and producers chose to make and mix new content. Consumers’ ears will soon grow accustom to this new quality, so when future tracks are released, they will have to be fit for this new standard.

Photo / Adobe Stock

As we inch ever closer to Biological Parity with our Senses, Pleasure can’t be Far Behind

On the simplest level, this introduction of higher-quality audio might just make our music sound a little bit more full. On the other end of the spectrum, however, these changes in tech could herald in entire new genres. Over the past two decades, as computers, phones, and MP3 players became the most popular platforms to listen to music on, there has been a noticeable correlated change in mainstream music. Hip-hop and rap have had renaissances in the twenty-first century, and EDM and dubstep are all but products of the digital age.

These latest 5G and 24-bit improvements in how we hear and appreciate music could bring about similar stylistic transformations. As quality increases, musical tastes can change, and innovation can come about as a result. Who will create this new kind of music and what it will sound like is impossible to foresee. Such is where artistic ingenuity comes into play. At its core, music remains one of the original essential art forms. No amount of technology can change that, but the artist can understandably embrace the technology to advance the craft and discover new horizons. 


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Attorneys General Initiate Antitrust Probe against Google: 30+ States will announce on September 9

Graphic / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

According to “a source knowledgeable about the probe” and quoted by Reuters and The Washington Post in stories today, more than 30 attorneys general will announce the investigation next week.

In response to the news Google issued the following statement:

“We continue to work constructively with regulators, including attorneys general, in answering questions about our business and the dynamic technology sector”

Google representative Jose Castaneda

The source also intimated that the probe would be focused “on the intersection of privacy and antitrust”, but did not give any further detail.

In July, the US Justice Department announced that it would begin a broad investigation into the possible anticompetitive practices of the largest technology companies. It has been considered likely that Google, Amazon, Facebook and possibly even Apple would be in the crosshairs.

The Federal Trade Commission, who are also responsible for the enforcement of antitrust violations, is looking into Amazon and Facebook and whether they have abused their dominance in online retail and social media, respectively.

Google, after having large fines levied against them in Europe in March for antitrust violations relating to online advertising, will now face the task of changing the outcome of similar accusations of misconduct in the US.

Amazon also has had difficulties coming out on top in European cases. Only yesterday in Paris, the Commercial Court handed down a verdict against the online giant, resulting in a 4 million euro fine and a demand that 7 key clauses in their agreement with “marketplace seller partners” be brought into compliance with French laws.

Meanwhile, Facebook is also under scrutiny as they are under investigation by the FTC for a potential breach of antitrust regulations. Similar to Google in the European case mentioned above, the probe into facebook involves its social media, digital advertising and mobile applications.

Graphic / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

In a separate matter, Facebook is also under scrutiny by the European Commission in questions relating to its new Crypto Currency “Libra”. A more general inquiry into its possibly anticompetitive behaviors within the EU in also underway.

Overall, it appears likely that these various probes are only the beginning, as all of the massive tech companies mentioned are already the target of governments and politicians, particularly in the US and Europe.

In a peculiar twist, both Republicans and Democrats in the US seem to agree on at least one thing, that these companies are too big and too powerful and should be investigated at minimum and potentially targeted in antitrust actions for illegal behaviors.

The Trump Administration, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Biden have come out in favor of breaking up big tech at the hands of the government, after serious violations of antitrust law have been established.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Amazon must pay 4 Million Euros in France for Unfair Practices: Verdict Could Pave Way for US Decisions

Most significant aspect is not the tiny fine, but the requirement that Amazon change it’s marketplace seller agreement on 7 of 11 practices that were deemed unfair

In a related development to our opinion piece published yesterday, the commercial court in Paris fined the giant US firm for clauses in it’s mandatory agreement for sellers that were found to be abusive and unfair.

In an exclusive story published (in French) by Next INpact the verdict was explained based on ongoing local coverage of the story.

In the article, which you can read in a google-generated translation provided below, it is noted that, similar to the US marketplace, in France approximately 60% of the income for Amazon’s online retail sales is generated by third-party sellers, using the Amazon Marketplace. Total sales are approximately 5 billion Euros per year.

Screen Shot of the Court Document (can be downloaded as PDF below

Of the 11 clauses that were scrutinized in the suit – 7 of them were deemed to be in violation of:

”Article L442-6 of the Commercial Code prohibits “to submit or attempt to subject a trading partner to obligations creating a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties”.

– Next Inpact reporting on the verdict in the commercial court of paris

Some examples of the offending clauses are summarized in the verdict, which will sound very familiar to US marketplace sellers:

“one of them allows Amazon to modify at any time, without notice, and in its absolute discretion the contract binding to sellers.

Result: either the seller resigns or he loses a significant share of turnover. A clause deemed “exorbitant of French law and contrary to all uses” concludes the decision.”

Nextinpact.com

“Another clause pinned, the one that allows Amazon to terminate a contract with immediate effect “for any reason and at any time by simple notification.

‘A contractual condition much too “general, discretionary and imprecise”, considers the court which notes the absence of notice and proportionality.”

“In the end, the court ruled that 7 of the 11 clauses pinned by Bercy were clearly unbalanced to the detriment of third-party sellers.“

nextinpact.com

With US anti-trust actions potentially moving forward at anytime, it is doubtful that this ruling, although representing little more than a “parking fine”, will be overlooked by prosecutors seeking to build a future case against the giant retailer.

As follows the full, rough, translation of the original article:

EXCLUSIVE.

The Paris Commercial Court sentenced Amazon to a fine of 4 million euros. The platform is also obliged to amend seven clauses under penalty. In question, the existence of a significant imbalance to the detriment of third-party sellers passing through this marketplace. Next INpact releases the judgment of 2 September 2019. In 2015 and 2016, the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumption and Fraud Control launched several surveys of marketplaces accessible in France. The goal? Gauge this sector and update any anti-competitive or restrictive practices.

Three companies stand out, all related to Amazon: Amazon Payments Europe, Amazon Service Europe and Amazon France Services, respectively APE, ASE and AFS. In December 2017, Bercy revealed his procedure initiated before the Commercial Court in July 2017. The administration recalled the ban on restrictive practices. Article L442-6 of the Commercial Code prohibits “to submit or attempt to subject a trading partner to obligations creating a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties”.

It claimed for this purpose in particular a civil fine of 9.5 million euros. The importance of this amount is easily explained. The company generates in France a turnover of over 5 billion annually.

And more than the majority of sales (60%) are made by third-party sellers, those using its marketplace. During its investigation, the DGCCRF identified several clauses that constitute a significant imbalance. They relate to contracts linking third party vendors with Amazon.

The jurisdiction of the French courts

Over the 49 pages, only APE, which deals with the part “payment”, could finally be put out of cause, not the other two companies. In this respect, Amazon France Service has been considered as a commercial partner of ASE, associated in the development of marketplaces.

ASE has also tried another circumvention: to oppose to the court the clause that attributes jurisdiction to the Luxembourg courts, while ensuring that two thirds of its sellers would be installed abroad.

The blow of the sword touched the water: the provisions in question being police laws, they are not subject to contractual conditions.

A significant imbalance

In the body of the decision, three points were sought: the existence of an economic bid, obviously unbalanced contract clauses and finally a possible rebalancing for the benefit of sellers in the benefits of using this platform.

The criterion of the tender was retained without difficulty, by the combination of several ingredients. Vendors face non-negotiable clauses. Amazon enjoys an economic power without equivalent.

The site is even essential for small third-party sellers, boosted by the network effect (or snowball).

“Amazon is obviously one of the” superstars “of the Internet, which this network phenomenon explains the exponential growth.

11 clauses were identified by the Minister of the Economy in his procedure.

For example, one of them allows Amazon to modify at any time, without notice, and in its absolute discretion the contract binding to sellers. It is up to the seller to look for this information published in the conditions of the site.

Unhappy, he can still terminate the contract, “but then without having had time to find a substitute,” said the court.

Result: either the seller resigns or he loses a significant share of turnover. A clause deemed “exorbitant of French law and contrary to all uses” concludes the decision.

Amazon was unsuccessful in arguing that trading with 170,000 vendors was impossible in an automated process. What the court told him was that “the automated system, precisely because it is, would work just as well with notice.”

With a certain malice, he also recalls that billions of transactions are made every day and that Amazon is in perfect ability to send them a letter on the order, and another on the state of delivery.

discretionary clauses

Another clause pinned, the one that allows Amazon to terminate a contract with immediate effect “for any reason and at any time by simple notification.”

A contractual condition much too “general, discretionary and imprecise”, considers the court which notes the absence of notice and proportionality.

Similarly, Amazon offers the possibility of imposing limits on salespeople based on “performance factors” without explaining their scope and the consequences of non-compliance with the evaluation criteria.

Still in the same vein, the platform is sanctioned for having the freedom to prohibit or restrict access to the site “at its sole discretion”. According to Amazon, the idea is to fight against the sale of dangerous products.

Only problem, the consular judges have not found this clarification in the contract. Same fate for the part that authorizes ASE to refund a customer even in case of non-return of the product of the third-party seller.

An imbalance not compensated by the benefits removed

In a logic of “balance”, the court then examined whether the imbalance of most pinned clauses was not offset by a series of benefits for sellers:

consumer confidence for Amazon, tools sharpened to facilitate management commercial operations, in addition to the storage of products.

The judges mainly recalled that these different benefits are not offered, but have as counterpart “the level of the various commissions paid to ASE by the third vendors”.

And these different benefits also benefit ASE for its own products and attract more and more third party sellers.

“On the other hand,” he says, “some of the shortcomings, especially those relating to business performance indicators, are such as to allow Amazon Service Europe to use a stipulation to, after testing a new product on a market. launched by a third-party seller, favoring the sale of his own to determine that of the third-party seller after aligning his price “.

7 censored clauses, 4 million euros fine

In the end, the court ruled that 7 of the 11 clauses pinned by Bercy were clearly unbalanced to the detriment of third-party sellers.

Amazon will have to modify them. 3 will remain intact, and one has been modified during the procedure. Amazon will have to modify them within 6 months, on pain of 10,000 euros per day.

Rather than the 9.5 million euros defended by Bercy, the court has finally revised down the fine to 4 million euros, especially given the good faith of Amazon, and different “positive steps” since the opening of the procedure.

Note however that the DGCCRF had requested the parameters of the algorithm used, from the United States, to highlight the products in the “Buy Box” Amazon … In vain.

The court finally refused the publication on the grounds that the press release of Bercy dated December 18, 2017 had been very widely (disseminated) and that this judgment should suffer a similar fate.

Download the judgment of the Commercial Court of Paris of September 2, 2019 news available until tomorrow. Posted on 03 September 2019 at 16:27 By Marc Rees


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Amazon Counterfeit Problems Go Deeper than Anyone Realizes: Observation

Illustration / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Articles that Purport to Expose the Issues Assume Best Case Scenario:

This article will have a lot of links. Following them you can see the spate of articles recently published on Amazon’s problems with “marketplace” inventory. Even if you don’t look at the articles, the number of links shows that this is a situation that is being followed by the press.

But none of these articles even begin to hint at the deeper underlying problems. “Tip of the iceberg” would be putting it mildly.

The observations in this article are based on candid conversations with long time sellers on the Amazon Marketplace platform. As is typical, none of the sellers would agree to be named, for fear of retribution by the giant online retailer.

Reading titles of articles like “Amazon May Have a Counterfeit Problem”, the sellers we spoke with could only laugh at the equivocation and doubt. This, apparently, is not a “maybe” thing for those with intimate knowledge of the situation.

“The real situation is that Amazon’s fee structure and shipping requirements only allow for counterfeit, illegal import or “gray market” products (such as returns that are still “new” but not factory sealed) to be sold at a meaningful profit.”

– anonymous marketplace seller

There are plenty of lawsuits by well known manufacturers who claim there is a big problem with fakes selling on the Amazon platform. Daimler AG, the company that produces Mercedes-Benz products, filed a lawsuit in Washington State, and Birkenstock, the European shoe maker, has complained loudly and publicly about the situation, and ultimately pulled their Brand from the site altogether.

The problems go much deeper than this. According to the sellers we spoke to the issue is literally built into the entire inventory of more than 500 million products listed on the site.

One reason why this is not fully reported, or even spoken of, is the fear of retribution.

A second reason is the way Amazon uses a legal strategy of “having it both ways”; customers feel like they are always buying from Amazon itself when buying on the site, or at least that they are protected by Amazon. At the same time when bigger problems do arise, suddenly, the marketplace is a pseudo-public area which can not be directly linked back to Amazon and for which they claim to have no liability.

But it is the third reason that shields the mega-site, more than anything else, from bad publicity: the fact that, in order to understand the issues thoroughly, a deep investigation into its history and business practices is required.

Apparently, according to our extremely experienced sources, it all goes back to the time, before 2008, when Amazon was still primarily an online bookstore (For years, in fact, the site’s tagline was “Earths biggest bookstore”).

Ponzi Reinvented for the Digital Age: with the blessing of the US Gov.

The “business model” at that time was simple yet brutal; buy books directly from publishers at the full wholesale price and sell them for that same amount with “free” shipping (for prime members).

And in doing this they accomplished many things, all near and dear to their founder’s heart:

-Annihilate all book sellers, online or off, since selling at zero margin could only be done by losing billions, which, in-turn, only an online Wall Street financed “dot-com darling” could afford.

-Addict the suppliers (publishers) to the steady flow of sales, with the percentage from Amazon relentlessly rising until it is the only significant buyer.

-Preemptively destroy any online seller by putting the barrier to entry so high that it would be suicidal to even try to compete (see the diapers.com saga)

-Brain-wash the public into thinking that it was “normal” to be able to buy products at wholesale prices (with free shipping) and that there was nothing “fishy” about the fact that only Amazon could afford to do it (by losing billions, on paper).

An Offer they Couldn’t Refuse: Sell or Die

From a Businessweek / Bloomberg story about how Bezos forced Diapers.com, owned by Quidisi, out of business (buying them out after the strong-arm mafia-like practices outlined below):

“Quidsi could now taste its own blood. At one point, Quidsi executives took what they knew about shipping rates, factored in Procter & Gamble’s (PG) wholesale prices, and calculated that Amazon was on track to lose $100 million over three months in the diaper category alone.

When Bezos’s lieutenants learned of WalMart’s counter-bid, they ratcheted up the pressure, telling the Quidsi founders that (Bezos) was such a furious competitor that he would drive diaper prices to zero if they sold to Bentonville.”

-report published in Businessweek and recounted in “The EVerything store”

All of this was a spectacular success, for Amazon, as can be attested to by the recently acquired “richest man-in-the-world” title. Amazon lost billions per quarter for decades and, and, yet, as the “last man standing” eventually turned that around into the creation of the world’s richest human. All stemming from virtual monopoly in online sales of ALL products in the US (over 50%, with the second largest online seller at 6.6%). Imagine even one other online retail company with more than 20% and it’s easy to see there is no “competition” for Amazon and no real alternative for buyers or sellers.

And what about sellers on the Amazon Marketplace? Did they benefit from the massive success of the platform (as they contributed more than 50% of revenue to the giant retailer)?

All the anecdotes of “some guy in Minnesota” who resells Walmart clearance items, aside, the only winners in that part of the story were and are …wait for it… counterfeiters, illegal importers and gray market sellers. Oh, and Chinese “no-brand” factories that sell on Amazon in the US.

Why?

It seems that, square in the bullseye of Amazon’s hit-list, in addition to anyone that sells anything who’s not on Amazon, is the very group that has kept the company afloat all these years: The millions of, mostly small, sellers on the marketplace all trying to eke out a living.

They have zero leverage and no where else to go to sell online (remember virtually all the customers are already locked into the Amazon platform due to the “bribery” of too-good-to-be-true prices and free shipping), therefore, they can be gouged with impossible fees.

The fee structure is, as you might expect, complicated, but fees are the highest of any online marketplace and never fall, only rise, which they do often, according to sellers. For items at lower price points deducted fees can be as much as 50%. The real costs are hidden in fees like “variable closing” and other made-up monikers to obfuscate the real reasoning behind the math. But in practical terms, selling a $8 item can cost up to $4 in added fees.

But, and this is the complicated bit, even that might work for a legitimate seller if not for the fact that, in many cases, the seller is competing against Amazon itself! And, as you have seen above, prices have no bottom limit as profit is not required for Amazon to “win”.

To wrap this mind-boggling concept up with a bow: if any company wants to realize even 1 cent of retail profit after fees, selling on the Amazon Marketplace, it must acquire the goods for roughly 70-90% below standard retail prices, and even that might not be sufficient.

Who can do that? Chinese no-brand factories shipping directly to the US with subsidized USPS shipping rates, counterfeiters, illegal importers and gray market sellers. Period.

A thorough investigation of the millions of sellers currently selling on Amazon would, without a doubt, say our sources, turn up not just a few bad apples, but a system that is virtually rotten to the core. Beyond even Elizabeth Warren’s wildest fears.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Tech This Week: 3 Stories You May Have Missed

Perhaps not noticed due to the Mueller Mania, and with so much going on in Tech, here are a few stories that you might have missed. The first is tied to an antitrust inquiry announced by the Department of Justice on Tuesday and later commented on by the Treasury Seecretary. Two Apple stories follow and both are good news, first, a serious commitment to 5G development for iPhones, and second, a more focused lineup for Macbooks

Apple Acquires Intel’s Smartphone Modem Unit to Accelerate Huge 5G Push

MacBook Air and Pro Upgrades Harken Back to Steve Jobs Heroically Simplifying Apple Line Up in 1997


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

In Understatement of the Century, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says Amazon “destroyed the retail industry”

Teeth or not in Inquiry? Jawboning or action for Targeted Tech?…

Commenting on the antitrust review announced by the Justice Department on Tuesday, in an interview on CNBC, Mnuchin said that “it is good that the attorney general is going to look into this”.

Also saying that Amazon has “limited competition”, “hurt small businesses”, and that it was “absolutely right” for the Attorney General to look into “these issues”.

Read More: Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced via press release that it would initiate a review to determine if major online platforms had “reduced competition, stifled innovation or otherwise harmed consumers”.

”The Department of Justice announced today that the Department’s Antitrust Division is reviewing whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”

Department of Justice Release from Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Interestingly, the idea of some kind of antitrust action against Amazon, Google or Facebook is one that is gaining traction among Republicans and Democrats alike. Senator Elizabeth Warren in particular has often spoken of the need for intervention.

Read More: A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully: Big tech Behemoth Plays Coronavirus Card

Each of the “market-leading online platforms” have built-in defenses against traditional antitrust actions, which have traditionally looked for dominant companies where consumer prices were directly impacted by use of monopoly profits (such as in United States v. AT&T and later, v. Microsoft).

In the case of Facebook and Google, profits are hidden behind “free” products and services which allow the companies to claim that no harm comes to consumers as a result of their power. Naturally, the idea that the products and services come without cost is losing credibility in light of the many scandals and instances of harm, monetary or otherwise.

Kindergarten Colors and “Consumer Obsession” while Evil Lurks Beneath…

In the case of Amazon, it is even more complex, since, as a company famous for enormous losses rather than profit, all while using various loss leader strategies to prove that it is “consumer obsessed” and not a monopoly at all.

Indeed, Amazon’s response to the Justice Department’s press release was, through a spokesman, that Amazon accounts for “less than 4% of US retail sales” and that “small and medium-sized businesses are thriving with Amazon”. Not mentioned was the dominant 50% share of the online sales market.

By comparison the second largest online sales channel, eBay, for 2019 is estimated to reach 6.1%, while Walmart’s online platform has an approximate 4.6% share.

Rarely has the media been able (or willing) to unravel the deeply complex history of Amazon’s strategies – which can be traced all the way back to the incredibly favorable pricing of it’s stock during the dot.com bubble boom and it’s “stealth” transformation from “The World’s Largest Bookstore” into “The Everything Store” over a ten year period.

The closest definition for its business behavior is as a “monopsony”, which can be defined as holding a monopoly over suppliers or labor, not consumers.

And this is where the “hurt small businesses” comes in. Any small retailer wishing to survive, let alone make a profit, must have online sales in some form (ask Walmart if you doubt that online sales are a necessary requirement for a brick and mortar retail business in 2019) and the domination in that area – that is to say the control of the customers, by Amazon is so extreme that joining the Amazon Marketplace is the only option (other than trying to survive with 90% fewer online sales).

And the Marketplace is controlled with an iron fist by Amazon. For example, since around 2006 all communication between Amazon Marketplace sellers and their buyers is handled by an encrypted, anonymous messaging system designed to prevent sellers from obtaining any direct email addresses from buyers.

This amazingly elaborate system is a glaring indicator, hiding in plain sight, that Amazon views its “selling partners” as anything but.

Although third-party sellers accounted, for example, for 50% of paid units sold on Amazon in 2016, every customer was considered to belong 100% to Amazon and zero percent to the seller.

With fees that can total up to 50% (they use a complex exponential sliding scale which makes it impossible to quote any exact figure) the seller is doomed to have no brand value and no “good will” value as long as it agrees to cooperate on the platform. Not selling on Amazon, unless extremely well capitalized (such as a start-up with hundreds of millions of dollars), is a death sentence.

Naturally, the waters remain muddy, since examples of the precise opposite can be pointed to – if you are a manufacturer and your products are extremely cheap (you are probably in China) and you like to offer your margin to Jeff Bezos as “his opportunity” and, particularly if your products will harm an Amazon competitor that refuses to sell on Amazon, the red carpet will be laid at your feet.

3 Brands Take Over Earth, Almost No-one Notices

It’s odd, as an observer, to note that there is not a single “brand success story” that can be pointed to as having built their brand through the Amazon third-party Marketplace. Could this be more than a coincidence?

”What I am glad we never did and that we’ve avoided so far is being on Amazon”

Jen Rubio, co-founder and chief brand officer of Away

Take, for example, Away Luggage, who went from being a “direct to consumer” start-up founded in 2015 to recently reaching a valuation of over one billion dollars and who made it a point NEVER to sell on Amazon;

She added that a “deal breaker” was that Amazon does not share customer data with vendors.

”Just sticking to our guns and not going on the [Amazon] platform was important for us”

Jen Rubio, Away

In our own recent interview with a long time Amazon Marketplace seller, who insisted on not being named, “or my children’s lives would be in danger”, he stated that many more behaviors towards seller “partners” are anything but collegial.

One of many examples is the “co-mingling” policy. As with much of what goes on behind the scenes at Amazon, this is an opaque, complex concept where all products that reside in any Amazon warehouse (supplied by various sellers participating in the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program) are considered to be “co-mingled” once they arrive.

When an item is purchased from a particular seller any item from any supplier is “picked” and shipped to the buyer. If that item is somehow inferior or even counterfeit, the seller whose name is on the order is automatically blamed although there is no way to trace the item’s true origin.

Our anonymous interviewee stated that, in one case, he was put out of business and even sued as having sold a counterfeit item, even though all his inventory was purchased from the original authorized manufacturer, and he could prove it.

Why didn’t he fight the false and obviously bogus accusation? $50,000 to $100,000 in Legal fees and no chance of any remedy other than, perhaps, re-instatement with no guarantee that the same thing wouldn’t happen again 2 days later.

One could get the impression, surveying the various accounts from sellers, across many walks of life, that Amazon’s perspective is not only that it is unimportant what happens to a particular seller that runs into problems on its platform, but that the demise of any seller is a “win” and that harm to any seller is harm to a competitor, even if that entity is technically a “Marketplace Partner”.

If true, this is as disturbing as any “consumer harm” effected through higher prices, as the sellers, who are also consumers let’s not forget, are just as trapped in the platform’s private “hell” as any consumer who is forced to pay higher prices as a result of monopolistic behavior.

Stories like the one above are “out-there” by the thousands but, strangely, hard to find online. A search on Google (oh yes, one of the other companies being scrutinized by the Justice Department) for “Amazon harms sellers” would often, in the recent past, bring up nothing but links to Amazon itself and how it is harmed by “counterfeit sellers” as if all the problems on the platform are created by the “other guy”.

Interestingly, even that is beginning to change, and there are more and more articles by reputable outlets such as Forbes , The Verge and INC who are daring to take information publicly gathered, as in our case, often from anonymous sources fearing retribution, and report on it without fearing similar retribution to its own organization. It seems likely more such stories will be published in the coming days and months. And perhaps, as they say, one day, the chickens will come home to roost.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.