Sure, like i said not even Tesla managed to do it perfectly. But i do agree the user that said we really should find a solution to cut out the middle man. They take their cut and most of the times they are the more a source of trouble then customer satisfaction.
In the Tesla example anyone that dealt with car dealerships (news) knows i bad they usually are, and expensive.
The thing is, Tesla was about as well positioned to "disrupt" (god, how I hate that nonsensical buzzword) this system - and they still screwed it up. Their customer service is reportedly terrible, their delivery times are no shorter than those of others, and their cars aren't meaningfully cheaper than competitors. So, what's the effect of this? More profits to Tesla. I don't see that as a net benefit, sorry.
As to their advantages: they're massively cash rich, backed by a billionaire notoriously willing to spend his cash on risky ideas (and take the losses that often come from this), they've been working on vertical integration from the get-go, producing most of their components themselves (including various ICs) that other carmakers rely on third parties to make - which again lets Tesla in-house their service and support infrastructure, as they're not dependent on service personnell being trained by third parties. They're also selling high priced, low volume, high profit margin products, which are relatively easy to transport (in part because they can move on their own and are large enough to not require much additional packaging or other things making transport complicated, and there is an abundance of infrastructure already built up around transporting that type of product around the world).
And yet, they're barely managing to do an okay job. What this tells us is that for anyone without their advantages, such an undertaking would be essentially impossible. The only option then would be direct sales shipped from either a single centralized warehouse, or, if volumes allow, from a low number of regional warehouses. National level distribution and support would be impossible; retail would be impossible (if run on their own) or very complicated (if selling to other retailers, as supply deals would need to be negotiated with each). Of course, companies could band together to form some sort of organization or corporation that would do all of this work for them ... but that's a distributor. They already exist. And as they are for-profit entities, they extract profits from their work. I guess you could pitch the idea of starting a cooperatively run not-for-profit distribution company to various large tech companies, but I sincerely doubt they'd be willing to bankroll the costs of starting such an endeavor.
So, until the structures of global capitalism change fundamentally, this is a way of doing things that will not go away - unless you also want access to these goods to go away. Heck, it's even quite common for companies to just not sell their products in large parts of the world because they don't have a distribution network there - like Hynix SSDs in Europe. This tells us something about just how complicated that is, if you're willing to give up access to
massive markets entirely just because you don't have distribution in place already.
@ARF Feel free to bring up any counterarguments you might have to what is being said here. I'd love to hear them. Those laughing reactions are a rather weak response
