Eager To See Ahead, Amazon Carries The FTC On Its Back For The Search
Westborough, MA - November 10: David Wang, robotic software engineer at Amazon, works on a robot ... More prior to a demonstration. Amazon offered a media tour and gave demonstrations of its robots, electric delivery vans, and drones. (Photo by David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Delivery robots that will 'spring out' of vans, a $10B AI data center in North Carolina, and surely more in the coming weeks. What you've read is just a sampling of the stories that found their way into news about Amazon recently. It's trying to discover a business future that will assuredly look nothing like the present.
It all raises a question: why is Amazon doing so much, trying so much, and spending so much? It's already one of the rare noun, verb and adjectives of commerce, and according to the FTC, it's a 'monopoly.' What's the point of spending enormous sums on the future when the future is allegedly already secure?
The answer to the questions posed is that Amazon has no choice. While the FTC is constrained by the known, and operates as though online shopping is the frontier of e-commerce, Amazon's executives recognize that the only way it can remain relevant is through discovery of what will eclipse what makes it appear so impregnable in the eyes of a sight-limited FTC in the present. It's a scary concept. For Amazon.
Against all odds, Jeff Bezos discovered a tomorrow of retail that was roundly dismissed by the powers-that-be of retail (including Walmart) in the 1990s. Amazon was a niche concept for the socially inept. The normal among us would always prefer to buy books in a store, around other people, and while physically seeing the books. Same with CDs and DVDs. Hopefully readers see where this is going.
Hard as it is to remember, Amazon's ascent from bookseller to one of the most prominent commercial names ever was the epitome of unlikely. No one thought Bezos et al had a chance. If you doubt this, check out Bezos's net worth and Amazon's market cap of roughly $2.2 trillion. Markets are way too efficient for established businesses to let a 2.2 billion business concept pass, let alone one that can be measured in trillions of dollars. What Bezos et al saw, they saw uniquely.
Which hopefully explains Amazon's frenzied experimentation in the present. To remain Amazon, executives at the Seattle giant must somehow discover what's next. Ok, so what's next?
In contemplating what's ahead, it's useful to backtrack to the FTC. To say that the Commission is looking backwards insults understatement. At the same time, it speaks to the difference between regulators who imagine tomorrow will look the same as today, and businesses with shareholders for whom the relentless demand is that executives see 5, 10 and 15 years into the commercial future.
In other words, for Amazon to yet again remain Amazon, it executive another miracle the scope of which measures up to its profound transformation of how we shop. Easy? Words won't be wasted answering such a question.
In truth, there's no need to answer the question. Instead, readers can simply scan the Amazon stories in the news now, and beyond. They're not committing large sums to various projects because they know what's ahead, but because they don't. What pays for all this experimentation is the past successes that the FTC is focused on.
In Amazon's case, it doesn't have the luxury of looking backwards. Which means it will carry an oblivious FTC on its back as it strives at great cost to see into the future. The irony is that the FTC is blind to the meaning of such substantial investment from Amazon, the very investment that thoroughly discredits the FTC's case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Couche-Tard Sees ‘Clear Path' to Seven & i Deal With US Stores Divestment
Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. said several potential buyers have made proposals to acquire convenience stores in the US that overlap with Seven & i Holdings Co., showing progress toward a deal that could help the Canadian retailer win regulatory approval for its proposal to buy its Japanese rival. The two agreed earlier this year to discuss the potential divestment of more than 2,000 stores in the US and seek out interested parties in order to address concerns by Seven & i over a merger being blocked by the US Federal Trade Commission. Couche-Tard also pushed back against any parallels to the failed $24.6 billion merger of grocery chains Kroger Co. and Albertsons Cos.
Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
These L.A. Business Owners Say Protest-Fueled Mayhem Is Hammering Their Sales
LOS ANGELES—Johnny Wong has been painting over graffiti outside his downtown flower shop every morning since political protests marred by vandalism and violence began late last week. On Wednesday morning, he gave up. 'We just got tired,' said Wong, whose revenue is down 80% in the past few days. He closes each day around noon. Foot traffic has plummeted and many people aren't braving the streets to pick up orders.
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law
Eight women's college soccer, volleyball and track and field athletes have filed an appeal challenging the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week, clearing the way for direct payments from universities to athletes. The eight women argue female athletes won't receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes barred from making money off their name, image and likeness (NIL). Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Haas, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia lead the appeal. They all previously filed objections to the proposed settlement. Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. "We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion," Hare said. "Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports." The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. "This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes," Hare said. "Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case." The appeal, filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, was first reported by Front Office Sports. It will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
