I'd love to order a car from Amazon too. My last car buying experience was a multi-day beat down, in the end the best I can summarize it: "I probably got screwed, but they didn't screw me as hard as they wanted to."
I don't care about the dealers either, but as another poster stated, dealers have their own lobbying groups to make sure that the people that make the laws do care.
The risk is that a whole bunch of middlemen who don't add much (if any) value would get cut out of the equation. The dealers are well aware that their business model is despised by buyers, hence the forest of protectionist law that they've purchased over the years.
>>Because then they run the risk of getting Amazon'd or Wal-Mart'd.
Your post sounds like Amazon and Wall-Mart are doing some thing wrong in the way they are running things.
And what is the risk you are talking about. Do you mean to imply Amazon and Wall-Mart are evil and have some caused damage to their consumers/customers?
The original Wired story is addressing concerns about storefront distribution channels instead of traditional dealerships and how this impacts existing dealers. So my statement about potential negative impact if Amazon or Wal-Mart could become a distribution channel is from from the perspective of existing dealerships, not from the perspective of the consumer, many of which would jump at the chance to buy a car from Amazon or Wal-Mart.
Cars already are a commodity, albeit an expensive one. When it comes down to getting from point A to point B they are all interchangeable.
"Amazon'd" or "Wal-Mart'd" was my shorthand way of saying that increased efficiency in the distribution channel + leverage from volume purchases would drive margins down for auto makers and put dealerships in jeopardy since the don't add any value.
Because then they run the risk of getting Amazon'd or Wal-Mart'd.