Who’s afraid of Jeff Bezos?(blog.samgerstenzang.com)
blog.samgerstenzang.com
Who’s afraid of Jeff Bezos?
http://blog.samgerstenzang.com/post/56847377794/whos-afraid-of-jeff-bezos
85 comments
> Most of what Amazon does, does not compete with technology companies. In the few places they do, they're not a juggernaut.
Since when is AWS not a juggernaut...
Since when is AWS not a juggernaut...
They're definitely a leader in the space, but its not like it isn't a commodity. Great, you've got a durable object store and virtual machines. I'm not Netflix, I'm not Reddit. I don't need to scale to a bazillian users, and even if I did, its going to be with Akamai and the whole damn site mostly static (I'm looking at you, Healthcare.gov).
So, yeah, AWS is awesome. But its not like others can't/aren't catching up.
So, yeah, AWS is awesome. But its not like others can't/aren't catching up.
You're talking about today.
Tomorrow AWS is a $10 billion sales business, with offerings that are 10 times more powerful at 1/3rd the cost that they are now. And that is what Bezos has his eye on.
You're not Reddit? The value proposition will continue to skyrocket for smaller entities too, and it will swamp most of the market. That is the Amazon model, and they're clearly going to stick to it. At scale (AWS is probably only 5% to 10% the scale it'll be in just five years), very few will stand a chance at keeping up.
Tomorrow AWS is a $10 billion sales business, with offerings that are 10 times more powerful at 1/3rd the cost that they are now. And that is what Bezos has his eye on.
You're not Reddit? The value proposition will continue to skyrocket for smaller entities too, and it will swamp most of the market. That is the Amazon model, and they're clearly going to stick to it. At scale (AWS is probably only 5% to 10% the scale it'll be in just five years), very few will stand a chance at keeping up.
No, the value proposition does not continue to skyrocket. If you are a well established digital property and know your load profile, AWS is prohibitively expensive "just in case" you may need to scale to thousands of virtual machines.
Rackspace is slowly eating AWS up. Their customer service is unmatchable.
I've found their customer service to be great, but pathetic from a technical perspective (i.e. they're very nice and apologetic when shit goes south, but its still going to be a while before they figure out how to fix it).
And slowly eating up AWS? No. That's Digital Ocean eating the lower end of the market. Rackspace outsources their CDN to Akamai, and their Cloud experience is damn near abysmal.
And slowly eating up AWS? No. That's Digital Ocean eating the lower end of the market. Rackspace outsources their CDN to Akamai, and their Cloud experience is damn near abysmal.
Do you have a source? From conversations in my tech groups, it seems people are moving away from Rackspace. Not to AWS specifically. Either way, I wouldn't have made the statement originally as I don't have any proof and I'm curious if they both released active customer #s that I missed?
Anyone trying to sell products that they don't manufacture themselves. Even if you do make things amazon might be a very important distribution channel.
There's a lot of overlap between business commentary and sports commentary.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Sports commentary has been called (paraphrase) 'a business built on talking about the results of a weighted random number generator'. I expect that parent is using this comparison to express a judgement on the value of the article...
True story: I just woke up with a dream. In it, I was suggesting to political commentator William Kristol that Jeff Bezos was the new Steve Jobs who could fill the void left by Jobs passing. Never underestimate the power of the narrative ;-)
Reinvest in infrastructure and put quality ahead of everything, including dividends and share price? Wow, what a concept...
I will make the bold claim that within 10 years amazon will fall apart at the seams like a cheap suit in a storm. You cannot run a non profit forever no matter how large your market share is or how obsessed you are about customers.
The culture (from what we can glean from the excerpts of the new book on Bezo's) is also toxic and is unlikely to produce an enduring successful company. Senior execs can't pass gas without Bezos' permission? When he steps down, there is unlikely to be the continuity that produces great enduring companies.
The culture (from what we can glean from the excerpts of the new book on Bezo's) is also toxic and is unlikely to produce an enduring successful company. Senior execs can't pass gas without Bezos' permission? When he steps down, there is unlikely to be the continuity that produces great enduring companies.
They are hardly a non-profit. He is maybe the most aggressive CEO in the US right now for putting money back into the company.
Amazon's cash flow is insane, if they put the brakes on reinvestment right now, they would be making billions and billions per quarter.
Amazon's cash flow is insane, if they put the brakes on reinvestment right now, they would be making billions and billions per quarter.
1. I'm not so sure about that. According to the most recent financial statement[1], AMZN hasn't generated much in the way of net cash from operations over the past 12 months. Worse yet, they're spending an amount in excess of that on investments (some of which is really capitalized operating expense, like internal software development, that companies like MSFT expense directly). In fact, for the 12 months ended 6/30/2013, the only reason ending cash was greater than beginning cash was because they undertook financing transactions (selling stock, issuing debt, etc.) See the section that discusses "free cash flow," which is in itself a non-GAAP measure, as it omits non-avoidable expenses like operating lease payments, principal repayments on debt, etc. In other words, even that measure doesn't really represent distributable cash.
2. Unlike SaaS companies that sign multi-year contracts as their main source of revenue, the vast majority of Amazon's revenue is products, for which revenue is recognized almost immediately. Over time, then, the cash the company collects should roughly correspond to its GAAP income, unless services that are paid up-front for consumption over time increase as a % of its revenue (e.g., reserved instances, annual subscription fees, etc). In other words, it is unlikely to profitlessly generate cash; the two should rise or fall together.
3. Amazon is a fearsome competitor. But ORCL makes vastly more money. In fact, when Walmart's revenues were the size Amazon's are today (in the early 80s, roughly, adjusting for inflation), it was far more profitable then than Amazon is today--despite having to operate stores and truck fleets.
[1] http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/00011931251...
2. Unlike SaaS companies that sign multi-year contracts as their main source of revenue, the vast majority of Amazon's revenue is products, for which revenue is recognized almost immediately. Over time, then, the cash the company collects should roughly correspond to its GAAP income, unless services that are paid up-front for consumption over time increase as a % of its revenue (e.g., reserved instances, annual subscription fees, etc). In other words, it is unlikely to profitlessly generate cash; the two should rise or fall together.
3. Amazon is a fearsome competitor. But ORCL makes vastly more money. In fact, when Walmart's revenues were the size Amazon's are today (in the early 80s, roughly, adjusting for inflation), it was far more profitable then than Amazon is today--despite having to operate stores and truck fleets.
[1] http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/00011931251...
There are quite a few companies I know that exist for decades now who are living on a (relativly) low margin and cash flow focus. Most of them are retail discounters. And by coincidence these very companies are eating up market share from other retailers.
The whole eCommerce business of Amazon is very supply chain heavy, and here they are among the best (along companies like Apple and McDonalds).
On the other hand I know more than one company with incredible margins who are bleeding money for years now. And they are not doing well. Agreed, Amazon will be facing the challenge of slower growth. Wether they can pull another strategy and execute on it only time will tell. But untill they hit this point Amazon is in very strong position.
Maybe a little anecdote regarding Wal-Mart. Back the day, Wal-Mart invented things like cross-docking. That basically reduced the inventory levels in their warehouses to zero (well, not quite, but in theory items were no longer stocked but transfered from on truck to another). Things like that made Wal-Mart the giant they used to be. And then Amazon recruited a lot of Wal-Marts supply chain and logistics people when they started to built there own network of fullfillment centers.
Regarding the operation of a private fleet of trucks, well back in the 80s it was quite common. But these days are more or less gone. That was replaced by specialised 3rd and even 4th party logistcs providers.
Regarding point 2: These two metrics (cash flow and profit) and as much related as you think. Imagine you sell a product for 100 on day one. Your customer pays you on day 2. And you pay your supplier 80 for that product on day 30. Perfect from a cash-flow perspective, now you can invest without going to a bank.
Profit is a completely different matter now. Imagine your operating cost is 10, then you are cash-flow positive AND profitable. If your operating cost is 30, then you are still cash-flow positive but you are losing money. In theory, a company can live eternally on a positive cash-flow and zero profit (or very low profit). As long as shareholders buy it, that is.
Excuses for the very simple explanation, but I hope the general point more or less came across.
The whole eCommerce business of Amazon is very supply chain heavy, and here they are among the best (along companies like Apple and McDonalds).
On the other hand I know more than one company with incredible margins who are bleeding money for years now. And they are not doing well. Agreed, Amazon will be facing the challenge of slower growth. Wether they can pull another strategy and execute on it only time will tell. But untill they hit this point Amazon is in very strong position.
Maybe a little anecdote regarding Wal-Mart. Back the day, Wal-Mart invented things like cross-docking. That basically reduced the inventory levels in their warehouses to zero (well, not quite, but in theory items were no longer stocked but transfered from on truck to another). Things like that made Wal-Mart the giant they used to be. And then Amazon recruited a lot of Wal-Marts supply chain and logistics people when they started to built there own network of fullfillment centers.
Regarding the operation of a private fleet of trucks, well back in the 80s it was quite common. But these days are more or less gone. That was replaced by specialised 3rd and even 4th party logistcs providers.
Regarding point 2: These two metrics (cash flow and profit) and as much related as you think. Imagine you sell a product for 100 on day one. Your customer pays you on day 2. And you pay your supplier 80 for that product on day 30. Perfect from a cash-flow perspective, now you can invest without going to a bank.
Profit is a completely different matter now. Imagine your operating cost is 10, then you are cash-flow positive AND profitable. If your operating cost is 30, then you are still cash-flow positive but you are losing money. In theory, a company can live eternally on a positive cash-flow and zero profit (or very low profit). As long as shareholders buy it, that is.
Excuses for the very simple explanation, but I hope the general point more or less came across.
Point 1. Yes, low margin/cash-generative businesses exist, like grocery stores and well, pretty much all of hardline (and much softline) retail. AMZN has not yet generated much profit or much distributable cash flow, relative to their revenue scale (and normalizing their expense base, for things like leases and capitalized software).
My point regarding Walmart was that, even with many of the historical expenses (like trucks) that they no longer bear, they were still more profitable throughout their history than Amazon has ever been. Why?
Point 2. I don't think we disagree, as I'm referring to the long term, not the short term. In most circumstances, a business can't be both unprofitable and cash-flow positive indefinitely, unless there is something very strange happening with the accounting (like unusual tax losses a la GE Capital).
Profits and free cash flow can and do diverge for short periods in the company's lifecycle, but they ultimately must converge in terms of sign/direction.
My point regarding Walmart was that, even with many of the historical expenses (like trucks) that they no longer bear, they were still more profitable throughout their history than Amazon has ever been. Why?
Point 2. I don't think we disagree, as I'm referring to the long term, not the short term. In most circumstances, a business can't be both unprofitable and cash-flow positive indefinitely, unless there is something very strange happening with the accounting (like unusual tax losses a la GE Capital).
Profits and free cash flow can and do diverge for short periods in the company's lifecycle, but they ultimately must converge in terms of sign/direction.
over the whole life cycle of a company, ok. Not on the exact mumbers but wether wether profits and cash flow are positive or negative. Chancea are that in the worst case the short term effects already killed the company in question, though.
Regarding Amazon, they are profitable enough. Cool thimg is they are building the fullfillment centers by the dozens, payed from free cash flow. And thats pretty amazing I think. But you are right, in the long run Amazon will most likly hit a growzh cieling. When they do they will have to changw strategy.
Regarding Amazon, they are profitable enough. Cool thimg is they are building the fullfillment centers by the dozens, payed from free cash flow. And thats pretty amazing I think. But you are right, in the long run Amazon will most likly hit a growzh cieling. When they do they will have to changw strategy.
Umm... What?
The 10-Q you just posted says AMZN pulled in $4 Billion in cash equivalents for the quarter which is almost double what they did the last equivalent quarter. It also says they have $8 billion in the last 6 month period whereas the year before they had $5 billion in the same 6 month period.
My point wasn't that they are making a profit, my point is that they are pumping enormous amounts of money into their own infrastructure. Looks at the capital investments section of the report.
The 10-Q you just posted says AMZN pulled in $4 Billion in cash equivalents for the quarter which is almost double what they did the last equivalent quarter. It also says they have $8 billion in the last 6 month period whereas the year before they had $5 billion in the same 6 month period.
My point wasn't that they are making a profit, my point is that they are pumping enormous amounts of money into their own infrastructure. Looks at the capital investments section of the report.
I'm not sure where you're looking. Page 3, Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Last 12 months ended 6/30/2013, $4.5B CFO, ($5.8B) CFI, $2.8B CFF. Without issuing debt, their net cash would have decreased.
You are essentially arguing that the investment expenditures will fade over time, leaving Amazon strongly free-cash-flow positive.
I am saying that, at present, the only reason they generate cash is that they issued debt, and that we need to look carefully at the nature of the cash expenditures on investments, as I believe many will likely continue (and that some of them are really recharacterized operating expenses).
The question is whether those investment expenses are truly optional/one-time. Neither of us knows for sure.
You are essentially arguing that the investment expenditures will fade over time, leaving Amazon strongly free-cash-flow positive.
I am saying that, at present, the only reason they generate cash is that they issued debt, and that we need to look carefully at the nature of the cash expenditures on investments, as I believe many will likely continue (and that some of them are really recharacterized operating expenses).
The question is whether those investment expenses are truly optional/one-time. Neither of us knows for sure.
You don't seem to actually understand Amazon's business.
First of all, there isn't even a remote threat to their retail empire. Everybody else is a drastically distant joke. They're already the size of Target, and they're still growing rapidly. Nobody stands a chance at catching them. Walmart.com continues to just flail in the wind. That means they're going to end up with a monster position that can't be assaulted in the next decade. A simple extrapolation reveals that in a matter of seconds. Just toss a mere 5 years onto their growth and they'll do nothing but pad their crazy lead over the competition.
They paid off billions in debt post dotcom bubble. How do you suppose they dug themselves out of that hole without generating tons of cash?
Where'd they get the $11.3b in cash they ended fiscal '12 with? How'd they pay for all those warehouses?
Answer: they produce plenty of cash courtesy of a very healthy business model
First of all, there isn't even a remote threat to their retail empire. Everybody else is a drastically distant joke. They're already the size of Target, and they're still growing rapidly. Nobody stands a chance at catching them. Walmart.com continues to just flail in the wind. That means they're going to end up with a monster position that can't be assaulted in the next decade. A simple extrapolation reveals that in a matter of seconds. Just toss a mere 5 years onto their growth and they'll do nothing but pad their crazy lead over the competition.
They paid off billions in debt post dotcom bubble. How do you suppose they dug themselves out of that hole without generating tons of cash?
Where'd they get the $11.3b in cash they ended fiscal '12 with? How'd they pay for all those warehouses?
Answer: they produce plenty of cash courtesy of a very healthy business model
>First of all, there isn't even a remote threat to their retail empire.
How about Alibaba? They already have more revenue than Amazon and eBay combined.
How about Alibaba? They already have more revenue than Amazon and eBay combined.
That's not a bold claim...hundreds of pundits have said exactly the same thing. Not only do you not have a reputation to maintain, but you have chosen a completely conspicuous comment section to make the claim, ensuring that nobody cares enough to track down your comment 10 years from now.
Funnily enough, there is one Exec whose 40 year strategy is almost identical despite radically different markets and tactics...namely the "reinvest until you are blue in the face" strategy. You may have heard of him, his name is Warren Buffet. Bezos has the advantage that with his company, he doesn't have to realize any profits.
Funnily enough, there is one Exec whose 40 year strategy is almost identical despite radically different markets and tactics...namely the "reinvest until you are blue in the face" strategy. You may have heard of him, his name is Warren Buffet. Bezos has the advantage that with his company, he doesn't have to realize any profits.
Let's not overlook Jack Ma of Alibaba. When it started Taobao in China to compete with eBay China, eBay had 85% of the online auction market in China. Within a few years, eBay was forced out of the China market completely. And if one looks at Taobao closely, its model is much friendlier to small businesses and that's the main driver of its success. I wouldn't be surprised if Taobao starts competing with eBay globally within the next few years. And then there is alibaba.com...
China is not a normal market. It's clear that the communist party has their hands in all the pies, and where they can promote Chinese companies, foreign ones will suffer intense competition or be forced out of the market.
I'll start paying attention when Taobao actually competes outside of China before proclaiming it's success over eBay.
I'll start paying attention when Taobao actually competes outside of China before proclaiming it's success over eBay.
Marissa Mayer's going to be on this list shortly.
She really isn't. Her efforts at Google, especially as time went on, were increasingly mediocre, and at Yahoo she's proven to be little different.
What she has going in her favor is that Yahoo was mismanaged to an utterly stunning degree before her time. I don't doubt that a more sensible approach is going to do net-good things for them.
But there's just no way she's going to be included in the same chapter of history as the other names given.
What she has going in her favor is that Yahoo was mismanaged to an utterly stunning degree before her time. I don't doubt that a more sensible approach is going to do net-good things for them.
But there's just no way she's going to be included in the same chapter of history as the other names given.
Maybe not the same chapter, but at least the same font size.
I think she's going to go down as the first female major player in the Big Tech realm -- which is not to disparage Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, but they haven't achieved the same level of household recognition that Marissa has.
(I'm not really familiar with her goings-on at Google, but everything she's done at Yahoo seems incredibly positive. Like you said, though, that could just be a 'going from awful to merely okay' effect.)
I think she's going to go down as the first female major player in the Big Tech realm -- which is not to disparage Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, but they haven't achieved the same level of household recognition that Marissa has.
(I'm not really familiar with her goings-on at Google, but everything she's done at Yahoo seems incredibly positive. Like you said, though, that could just be a 'going from awful to merely okay' effect.)
I wouldn't call an end to remote work incredibly positive.
She's pretty and smells good but I think we need some more solid proof.
I'm no feminist, but look up Mayer's background before making idiotic statements like that.
Think about how much you hear about Yahoo in 2013.
Think about how much you heard about Yahoo in 2011.
Think about how much you heard about Yahoo in 2011.
Everytime I hear about Yahoo it's because we're all collectively cringing at yet another ridiculous thing they did. Or is that not how everyone feels?
It's funny that's the case. But Yahoo is picking up on demographic that's slowly but surely adapting the Internet. My mom being a great example. She's been on the Internet as long as I have, but I would say she's adapting now. Unfortunately using Facebook, but also Youtube and all of her services from Yahoo(mail, news, search).
Say what you will about Marissa Mayer(I don't know enough about her). But she's making right decision on who her market is and although growth may be slower, I can see a larger number of people retiring that are going to be spending all sorts of time on Yahoo. Since HN is the anti-thesis of the Yahoo demographic, I think there is a more nuanced and emotional approach that Yahoo is taking. But I could be wrong.
edit: Also if anyone from Yahoo read this, please fix the problem with Yahoo mail and Chromium in Linux. My mom is annoyed by being asked to upgrade(Safari or Firefox) and asked to change the theme.
Say what you will about Marissa Mayer(I don't know enough about her). But she's making right decision on who her market is and although growth may be slower, I can see a larger number of people retiring that are going to be spending all sorts of time on Yahoo. Since HN is the anti-thesis of the Yahoo demographic, I think there is a more nuanced and emotional approach that Yahoo is taking. But I could be wrong.
edit: Also if anyone from Yahoo read this, please fix the problem with Yahoo mail and Chromium in Linux. My mom is annoyed by being asked to upgrade(Safari or Firefox) and asked to change the theme.
Maybe I haven't been reading much, but what else has Yahoo done recently besides bring in Mayer and do a website redesign?
They've done a lot of acquisitions. I think the biggest was Tumblr. Not much to show from the acquisitions yet, but based on the fact that there has been acquisitions, Googlers moving to Yahoo, etcetera, I think there's a pretty good chance they're working on some things that will eventually pay off.
Well right now that sounds a lot like the old Yahoo that blew massive amounts of shareholder value on terrible acquisitions that never panned out.
Tumblr will pay for itself? Not a chance they're going to earn a billion dollars off of that, much less turn a healthy profit. As such, at it seems like all Mayer is doing is burning value on a spend $3 get $1 back exchange. Works great in a stock market bubble of course.
Tumblr will pay for itself? Not a chance they're going to earn a billion dollars off of that, much less turn a healthy profit. As such, at it seems like all Mayer is doing is burning value on a spend $3 get $1 back exchange. Works great in a stock market bubble of course.
You're right that Tumblr probably won't pay for itself as an individual unit, but perhaps the new Yahoo might be greater than the sum of its parts. It's not a sure thing, of course. We still need to see if they have a coherent direction. If they don't, then they probably can't be greater than the sum of their parts.
Yahoo was mismanaged to an utterly stunning degree before her time, so I don't doubt that a more sensible approach is going to do net-good things for them.
Yes-Yes-and Yes. Yahoo decline always bothered me. I
think their stock will eventually be higher than Google, as
long as they don't start acting like Google. Yahoo
still has historical stock API's, while Google decided to
hog the info, and is most likely charging. I wish I bought
Yahoo stock a few years ago.
I don't like saying this, but her looks have something
to do with it?
Nah, tech doesn't have a sexism problem at all.
/s
/s
@shit_hn_says
Well, whoever doesn't had better start. His empire is huge and just getting started. And he is by all accounts a formidable thinker. I have a lot of respect for him, as opposed to biz-mag dorks like Ballmer.
[deleted]
If everyone is is afraid of Amazon, then Amazon should be afraid of everyone. Potentially any one of them can topple amazon. The truth is, amazon hasn't killed any companies other than certain old bookstores. Have they killed walmart, costco, ebay, target, macys ? Nope, not even close.
Not much new here — who doesn't already realize this — and Heroku does not belong on the list of EC2 competitors, given that they actually host on EC2. There's a big difference between IaaS and PaaS.
Well, AWS has been making moves more towards Heroku PaaS territory with elastic beanstalk, rds, etc.
I admire Bezos tactic of reinvesting in new markets. It's something that the other 'kingpins' in the article haven't done as well. Beyond that, he's done quite well in these markets.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Larry-Sergey
& Google is far more feature proof company
Amazon
- Solves easy problems at large scale
Google
- Solves complex problems at large scale
& Google is far more feature proof company
Amazon
- Solves easy problems at large scale
- Solves complex problems at large scale
Yeah, Amazon is a super easy problem. Let's try to make a website that sells everything. We'll only need to get every manufacturer under the sun to sell under us and make a system is compatible with all other theirs. Heck, we can easily make a big ol' warehouse system that stores every single freaking product known to man-kind and make it profitable. Super easy.
Oh, and getting your customers to become more loyal to you? Easy peazy. Combine those little warehouses with two day shipping literally anywhere in the United States and offer it to customers for under a hundred bucks a year. Trivial optimization problem, if you ask me.
And Amazon Web Services? Pbbbt. Just get some servers and make software that separates them into virtualized storage, computing, DNS, long-term storage, etc into different sizes and make the uptime not suck. That's like CS101
Don't even get me started on the Kindle. Just switch your entire focus from eCommerce and other industries to hardware and make a tablet and integrate it with your other media services (music, video, books, etc) and offer it for cheaper than anyone else. Super easy.
#shitthatHNsays
Oh, and getting your customers to become more loyal to you? Easy peazy. Combine those little warehouses with two day shipping literally anywhere in the United States and offer it to customers for under a hundred bucks a year. Trivial optimization problem, if you ask me.
And Amazon Web Services? Pbbbt. Just get some servers and make software that separates them into virtualized storage, computing, DNS, long-term storage, etc into different sizes and make the uptime not suck. That's like CS101
Don't even get me started on the Kindle. Just switch your entire focus from eCommerce and other industries to hardware and make a tablet and integrate it with your other media services (music, video, books, etc) and offer it for cheaper than anyone else. Super easy.
#shitthatHNsays
Amazon and Microsoft solve business problems.
Google solves information problems.
Twitter and Facebook solve communication problems.
So many of these silos have similar solutions, but approaches are so incredibly different that it can be difficult to compare them at first blush.
Google solves information problems.
Twitter and Facebook solve communication problems.
So many of these silos have similar solutions, but approaches are so incredibly different that it can be difficult to compare them at first blush.
Google -- solved a single very important problem really well by applying a well known tool (SVD and graph networks) to a novel example, also made android, otherwise not very exciting.
Furthermore, brick and mortar problems are hard -- things break, rot, get lost, require staff to move them around, etc. Not to poo-poo Google or any other pure software company, but it isn't harder because its on a computer, it's actually easier.
Furthermore, brick and mortar problems are hard -- things break, rot, get lost, require staff to move them around, etc. Not to poo-poo Google or any other pure software company, but it isn't harder because its on a computer, it's actually easier.
>also made android
This is a common misconception. Google didn't "make" Android. They acquired it by purchasing Android, Inc.
This is a common misconception. Google didn't "make" Android. They acquired it by purchasing Android, Inc.
At an early stage, and incubating them for years before they told the world what they were working on.
> not very exciting
So you are "unexcited" by Glass, Loons, Earth/map/streetview, Go, etc.?
So you are "unexcited" by Glass, Loons, Earth/map/streetview, Go, etc.?
They don't really make any money on those things, at least yet.
Streetview is cool. I guess I am impressed by good navigation algorithms. Loons, glass, Go, lots of aerial data -- yeah, impressive, sure.
And lets not forget self driving cars
I'm not sure it's that easy.
Logistics is an easy problem? AWS is an easy problem? Overturning the publishing industry is an easy problem?
Put another way: Google has one product (search) that makes them money. Amazon has several.
Logistics is an easy problem? AWS is an easy problem? Overturning the publishing industry is an easy problem?
Put another way: Google has one product (search) that makes them money. Amazon has several.
Solves easy problems at large scale
Well, I was going to say something similar, but I really just think he means Amazon's problems are easy compared to googles. That being the point, I don't think his phrasing is worth taking issue over.
I'd say close to nothing on the AWS side or the retail website side of things are "easy" problems to design and maintain every day.
You kidding right? I hardly think Amazon Prime 2 day shipping an easy problem at scale. Fortune 500 companies outsource this kind of problem to companies like IBM, and they deal with it on smaller scales.
This is not an easy problem to solve while being profitable. And they are working on introducing perishables into the problem statement. Hardly easy.
This is not an easy problem to solve while being profitable. And they are working on introducing perishables into the problem statement. Hardly easy.
Google literally has one product that keeps nearly all of their lights on.
They're far more vulnerable than most people think.
They're far more vulnerable than most people think.
Steel producers
- Simple manufacturing at large scale
Car producers - Complex manufacturing at large scale
I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other.
Car producers - Complex manufacturing at large scale
I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other.
[deleted]
Surprisingly, no mention of Washington Post. That keeps him firmly up there in the zone of evil.
> Congratulations, sir
The tone seems like that of a Bozo fanboy.
> Congratulations, sir
The tone seems like that of a Bozo fanboy.
Please read the post with a heavy dose of sarcasm mixed with admiration :) I'd very much like to see formidable challengers arise.
And I actually wrote this post a week before Bezos bought the WaPo, although I think it only underscores the point.
And I actually wrote this post a week before Bezos bought the WaPo, although I think it only underscores the point.
Before you write anything again on Bozo or Amazon, please read http://stallman.org/amazon. If you have already read it, fine.
I just read through that link. What a nice list of naive points. Well, maybe I miss some context on the UK angle, i can make some comparisons with the german one.
The sweatshop warehouses, yeah. And you really think when you order a bokk by your local book store the people in the warehouse sending are treated any better? In this part of logistics, and I'm not at all proud of that, one of the easiest ways to cut costs (and everyone operating a warehouse will do that since logistics is regarded by most people as costs) is HR. The part of being ordered around by a computer, welcome to logistics in the 21st century. And that part is true for truck drivers, too. How are books delivered to your local book store again? If you think the boys and girls delivereing parcels for UPS and the like are treated any better, forget it. Most of them aren't even employed by these companies anymore, they are mere sub-contractors.
And at least were I live, the credit of killing local, independant book stores goes to big bookstore chains and not Amazon. Quite ironic that these chains are now trying to get a share of the eBook market using the same DRM techniques everybody is blaming Amazon for.
And this tax evading scheme. Hell I worked for big company that operated at the same site for more tha a decade before they payed ANY taxes there. The COO was quite sad they finally had to. Most european big corps are doing the very same thing with branches in, say, Delaware.
All that is not to say I consider all this to be good or even OK. It's just the way it is. Classical case of hate the game, not the player. But I don't think Benzos is troubled a lot by all this.
The sweatshop warehouses, yeah. And you really think when you order a bokk by your local book store the people in the warehouse sending are treated any better? In this part of logistics, and I'm not at all proud of that, one of the easiest ways to cut costs (and everyone operating a warehouse will do that since logistics is regarded by most people as costs) is HR. The part of being ordered around by a computer, welcome to logistics in the 21st century. And that part is true for truck drivers, too. How are books delivered to your local book store again? If you think the boys and girls delivereing parcels for UPS and the like are treated any better, forget it. Most of them aren't even employed by these companies anymore, they are mere sub-contractors.
And at least were I live, the credit of killing local, independant book stores goes to big bookstore chains and not Amazon. Quite ironic that these chains are now trying to get a share of the eBook market using the same DRM techniques everybody is blaming Amazon for.
And this tax evading scheme. Hell I worked for big company that operated at the same site for more tha a decade before they payed ANY taxes there. The COO was quite sad they finally had to. Most european big corps are doing the very same thing with branches in, say, Delaware.
All that is not to say I consider all this to be good or even OK. It's just the way it is. Classical case of hate the game, not the player. But I don't think Benzos is troubled a lot by all this.
What makes his buying WaPo evil? Seriously. At all. Anything?
There's nothing particularly evil about Bezos buying the WP, but it's another step in my long-held belief that all of the major traditional news organs will be controlled by people who make their money elsewhere.
I think that's a better alternative than having traditional news organs being controlled by people who make their money from those news organs.
(I would argue the best alternative is ownership by individuals/organizations who have no financial stake whatsoever in journalism.)
(I would argue the best alternative is ownership by individuals/organizations who have no financial stake whatsoever in journalism.)
Excellent point. There is another category of bad owners too, state owned. I'd almost prefer that to the square metre of adverts per story that the local rag produces though.
State controlled media is certainly bad, but that is not implied by state ownership. In my experience state owned organisations provide better quality journalism than their commercial counterparts, and the gap is widening as commercial media race each other to the bottom.
Perhaps better than mainstream, ad-supported commercial counter, but that's hardly the gold standard. "Not as terrible as those who go whoring for ad dollars" isn't a ringing endorsement.
State-funded is not terribly far off, either: if funding depends to any real degree on the political climate, then the conflicts are unavoidable.
The line between state-owned and state-controlled is incredibly thin, and is only one catastrophe away from being wiped out.
State-funded is not terribly far off, either: if funding depends to any real degree on the political climate, then the conflicts are unavoidable.
The line between state-owned and state-controlled is incredibly thin, and is only one catastrophe away from being wiped out.
That might actually be better for said news organs.
I agree about the tone. The information makes a nice enough point, but the tone is a bit much.
Edit: Also, is it normal for a post to get so many of its comments deleted? I thought we collectively moderated through scorn and disapproval, some of those comments were interesting.
Edit: Also, is it normal for a post to get so many of its comments deleted? I thought we collectively moderated through scorn and disapproval, some of those comments were interesting.
While a lot of technology leaders might admire Bezos for his leadership of Amazon, I wonder how many fear him. Most of what Amazon does, does not compete with technology companies. In the few places they do, they're not a juggernaut.
For example, despite years of effort, the Kindle Fire has not significantly harmed the market share or margin of the iPad. Google and Samsung have done far more damage to Apple. And Amazon's media sales are not much of a threat to Apple: they haven't stolen significant share, and Apple does not try to make money on content anyway.
I think there are a lot of people who do fear Bezos, but they are mostly retailers and hosting companies.