24 Apr
2003
24 Apr
'03
2:34 a.m.
Doc,
Yahoo Auctions is the only other one I've really
spent time on lately
I was checking Yahoo periodically for some items. While eBay had
a full page or two every day, Yahoo usually had not a single one. I
finally just gave up because soon seemed a waste of time.
eBay prices may be inflated, from a professional
dealer's or an experienced
hobbyist's perspective.
I'm quite happy with eBay prices, though only occasionally the product quality
is poor, or items are unfortunately sometimes mis-described.
For auction prices to be *artificially* inflated, as
a general
condition, is simply
impossible, unless you assume consistent, fraudulent
price-fixing.
Not impossible. There is the potential for the occasional abuse in "shill
bidding", etc.
But, perhaps I should not have said "artifically" It was only a
restatement of what
I thought I had understood that some other people thought that this was so.
MS was charged with exerting undue influence - active
coercion - on
their customers,
using that market share as leverage.
No one ever had to buy Microsoft products. They always could have gone with the
Macintosh platform, or a Unix system.
eBay has never even been accused of coercing their
customers to do anything
Just as no one has to buy or sell on eBay. But for an interesting read on
some of
eBay's customer's viewpoints, scan the eBay DNF message board every time
eBay comes up with a new way to charge their sellers more money for another
new "feature". They aren't all wonderfully overjoyed with eBay. eBay also
has monitors
that monitor that message board, and they suspended "Tag" for voicing an
opinion
they didn't wish heard.
The anti-trust laws are about using market share, and
absence of viable
competitors,
to exert undue or unwarranted influence on that
market.
eBay market share is the largest by a landfall.
No other online auction service seems to be a viable competitor.
eBay has become a very serious marketplace. There is Federal oversight on the
stock and commodities markets. eBay has gotten to be such a big thing these
days, oversight over the online auction market might be needed someday too.
At 12:31 AM 4/24/03 -0500, you wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 11:05 PM, Mail List
wrote:
Yahoo Auctions is the only other one I've really spent time on lately,
and at least as far as Yahoo goes, I submit that you have put the cart
before the horse. In my view, the reason they don't seem to have much
variety or volume of interesting items for sale is that they suck. Their
search engine is very poor, navigation of the categories is a nightmare,
and they host far too much extraneous advertising.
That's a patently ridiculous statement, the fact that it is made often
notwithstanding. I _will_ grant that items often sell for far more than
I would pay. But Bennett, the *definition* of market value is the price
that the available buyer is willing to pay.
eBay prices may be inflated, from a professional dealer's or an
experienced hobbyist's perspective. For auction prices to be
*artificially* inflated, as a general condition, is simply impossible,
unless you assume consistent, fraudulent price-fixing.
Now that's just a huge red herring,and doesn't fit at
all. Honestly? I use MS products maybe once a month. Nothing to do
with fashion - I just prefer a secure and stable computing platform. MS
*doesn't* do their job well, although they market it well.
As far as anti-trust issues are concerned, Microsoft was not charged
with having too large a share of the market. MS was charged with
exerting undue influence - active coercion - on their customers, using
that market share as leverage.
eBay has never even been accused of coercing their customers to do
anything, and I flatly fail to see that as being even possible. To claim
that their paying customers, the eBay sellers, have no other venue is
laughable.
The anti-trust laws are about using market share, and absence of viable
competitors, to exert undue or unwarranted influence on that market.
eBay is the Goliath they are because they provide a good product, not
because of unethical practices. [Like Jeffrey Worley said, "Yet"]
To go with your metaphor, all it takes is one David with a better idea
to bring them down to size.
Doc
the only
reason the other online auction services aren't getting
action is that they
suck.
They definitely do. But the reason they suck is that the others don't
seem to have much
variety or volume of interesting items for sale. eBay is
the de facto Blue Book for used/surplus goods
Yet on this very same mailing list, many have said eBay prices are
"artificially" inflated, etc. and that Michael's book is the more
accurate guide to true market
value. It really
does still end up boiling down to each individuals perspective as eBay
buyer's, eBay
seller's, and hobbyist's goals vary quite widely.
Well, yeah. As I said, I do use other pricing tools. I match my
pricing to my market, and my market to the price I need. For instance, I
have a stack of HP C160 workstations I'd like to sell. I won't put them
on eBay, because the shipping will exceed the probable selling price, the
size of the machine make them a mother to crate, and I'd get a barrage of
"I'll buy it if you'll just send me X part" requests.
I'll sell them locally, on the newsgroup, for a little less than I'd get
on eBay. On those, convenience is the bottom line, not the dollar value.
Further, who the prospective buyer is makes a difference. J Random
Idjit will pay eBay prices. Hobbyists I've traded with or expect to
trade with get deep discounts from market wholesale. The resellers I
deal with pay wholesale, or more often trade at wholesale.
If I have to get market, I offer it to friends and lists at near eBay
prices, explaining the cash crunch, then eBay it. That's the case with
the Laserbus and XMI gear I'm about to put on the market.
Some buyers will pay 3x or 4x retail, if I'll sell to them at all. I
have a very long memory, and my temper takes precedence over my wallet
every time.
I heard that with them being the Goliath that they
are, they bought out
and absorbed
most of their potentially serious competitors.
Not illegal, or even unethical, as long as it's done within SEC regs,
and other federal guidelines.
other
than doing what they do VERY well, and marketing it well
Wouldn't that definition fit Microsoft as well. ( Being honest, and not
just bashing
Microsoft because it's the popular thing to do ). Yet Microsoft was
brought up on
anti-trust charges. The fact
that an entity may be the only viable player on a given field
doesn't "warrant anti-trust action."
If they were the only player that wanted to play, that would surely be
so. But if almost
no competition can make a dent in the market against such a Goliath, it
seemed to
me that was what the "anti-trust" laws were all about. But, IANAL, so I
might be way
off base in my thoughts on the matter.