With Amazon, if you have a conflict, you are done. You cannot come back to the mall. And there is a single (or very few malls).
In other words, it is not a market, where people come together for business) anymore it is being bound to a higher power to grant you rights of doing business.
All of the replies here seem to point out that monopolies are bad and tech companies tend to be monopolistic. This is obvious and we all agree. However, when asked what is the difference between a mall and Apple Store, Varoufakis did not mention a monopoly or oligopoly as the issue, he mentioned rent. Specifically he mentioned that getting a percentage of profit was the biggest issue. I think this is not a strong argument for calling it a new economic model.
Secondly, in Walmart we are all physically seeing the same product on the same shelf. With online "markets", I don't even know if I am seeing the stuff I wanted because there is an algorithm that hides certain things from me but shows it to you. These are exceptionally intrusive moves by the mall itself. Walmart could only dream about such manipulations. In the old model, I can still stand side-by-side with my competitor as product options.
In that sense, it is fundamentally malicious and a very new economic model.
Yes, you can do even more with an online market, but that in my opinion is "do similar things, only faster and more dynamic". Moving products from bottom shelf to middle shelf in all supermarkets = probably 1 week planning/executing. Moving all apps from first page to 3rd search page = probably 5 minutes.
on amazon / google etc with their algorithm certain shops / websites are blocked from you ever noticing they exist due to their algorithms.
This is something Amazon does now with their basics line. Waits for something to get popular, makes it themselves, and then pushes you down in visibility: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-i...