Also partially subsidized by the government, who charged their mom-and-pop brick and mortar competitors sales tax while Amazon avoided subjecting their customers to sales tax for many years. That, plus Amazon's ability to operate at a seemingly perpetual loss, was absolutely predatory.
And the government sat on its hands and our representatives loved all the Prime boxes stacked at their doorstep. It has ensh#ttified entire industries that once depended upon retail as their interface with customers.
Private companies spending (and potentially wasting) money investors voluntarily gave them because they think it may lead to a big payoff down the road is capitalism.
Companies doing the "same thing" with government handouts (where the ultimate source of the money had no say in the matter) is not.
It's like the difference between companies that hire workers and those that use slave labor. They may have otherwise identical business models, but the later are operating at an unfair advantage.
If we would know the true motivation of the government, then we could make a difference, but until we don't know it exactly, then there really isn't.
It is entirely possible that that government is giving money against shares or future profits.
It gets problematic and different if, for example, let's say the motivation is to use it as political leverage or even installing backdoors and collect user data.
How's it not capitalism? If your definition of capitalism requires governments to either not exist or not act to improve the conditions of their subjects (including companies), you have a definition of capitalism where basically none existing or only failed states have a capitalist system.
He seems to point pretty directly to Chinese subsidies allowing those printers to be sold under cost. That’s not capitalism.