> I get the impression you assume the network effect is something that just happens over night. The network effect is extremely hard to master and takes a lot of money/time to do so. Hence why the fees are as high as they are.

Network Effect as in they use their sizable userbase to prevent any other competition in the space. For online auctions to work you need a large buyer base so it can attract a large seller base.

I never said it was easy or difficult, not even sure you need to "master" it, but who cares? That wasn't even an important point of that sentence, which was that it's difficult to sell anywhere BUT eBay because of the Network Effect

Fees are high because eBay has no idea how to keep earning money except to gouge people. They certainly can't make buyers pay anything so the sellers essentially get dumped with more and more "fees". I am still confused how that relates to the discussion about the Network Effect. They worked hard initially and now they deserve to gouge people who are using their site?

> Care to elaborate? I wasn't under the impression ebay was doing either.[1]

I cannot prove either but how does showing a stock price disprove what I said? They can still lose marketshare and still have a positive stock price. And they continue to make profits because they continue to bleed their sellers dry.

Ask anyone (or I guess, just sellers would be more accurate) if they would use eBay if they had to. They would say, "Fuck No", so why do they use it? Because, Network Effect.

> Network Effect as in they use their sizable userbase to prevent any other competition in the space

That's not network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). I think you mean to say: "It's unfair that a service, which provides more value than a coompetitor, charges a higher fee"?

The Network Effect does not imply monopolistic behaviour.

That's two distinct issues. Although large successful companies tend to do both, it does not imply causality.

It is true that the need for the network effect is a Barrier to Entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry), which is what keeps your "competitor" from entering, and which leaves Ebay with monopolistic situation - intented or not.

> For online auctions to work you need a large buyer base so it can attract a large seller base.

And how do you propose companies should attain a large buyer base without spending large amounts of money? eBay is NOT forcing you to use their platform, much like google is not forcing you to use their search engine. Customer acquisition is EXPENSIVE.

> They worked hard initially and now they deserve to gouge people who are using their site?

I don't think I follow your logic? Software development and marketing don't just all of the sudden stop as soon as a company attains a substantial network effect. Should facebook stop developing now that it has a substantial network effect?

> Fees are high because eBay has no idea how to keep earning money except to gouge people.

How do you propose they protect their network effect then?

> I cannot prove either...Ask anyone (or I guess, just sellers would be more accurate) if they would use eBay if they had to. They would say, "Fuck No", so why do they use it? Because, Network Effect.

Classic case of Cognitive dissonance.[1] If I read between the lines all I hear is "complain complain complain", with no substantial evidence to back it up. If this is that big of an issue, you (or anyone for that matter) would see an opportunity and steal market share yourself. I'm sure you would find the costs of establishing and maintaining a network effect exponentially difficult.

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance