
Amazon won't spin off AWS. That's hurting AWS - forrestbrazeal
https://forrestbrazeal.com/2019/07/24/cloud-irregular-amazon-wont-spin-off-aws-and-thats-too-bad-for-aws/
======
noirbot
The folks talking about the JEDI/WaPo issues are missing the bigger concern,
which is other retailers pushing down to their SaaS partners a hard message to
get off of AWS. I've heard of multiple contracts that came with a clause of
"If you're on AWS, we will only renew this if you're off in 2 years". That's a
real problem for AWS, especially when Google and Azure are starting to really
push into the space more, and AWS's legacy code/patterns/UX are starting to
show their age a bit more.

~~~
dehrmann
I get the concern, but Amazon is very aware that they can't do anything non-
competitive with AWS to help its other business. Netflix (who undoubtedly has
a long-term contract) still hosts there.

The home field advantages companies have been getting away with lately tend to
be tighter integrations (think Chromecast, Android, and Chrome). The only
company that would pull something as bad as what's being feared is Oracle.

~~~
benologist
Amazon has made it their business to clone 10,000s of items and software's
just as easy to copy, they have already cloned multiple open source products
and even commercial stuff they saw hosted on AWS.

The only thing stopping them from routinely cloning stuff they see on AWS is
nothing. They are accused of using vendor sales data to decide which products
to clone, well that front-row seat watching you scale infers revenue too.
Whenever Bezos wants Amazon will assign thousands of developers to cherry-
picking SaaS and software to clone.

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/amazon_copies_partn...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/amazon_copies_partner_products/)

~~~
StreamBright
Do you think they were able to clone it because it was hosted on AWS?

~~~
benologist
They were able to clone it because copying is easier than having the idea and
building something for the first time and verifying that anyone wants it.
Hosting is analogous to the sales data, it helps prioritize who you should
clone first.

Cloning is just practice for many developers.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=show%20hn%20clone&sort=byPopularity&type=story)

------
buboard
The argument sounds confused. People are not "confused" to protest about
amazon in AWS conference, they are one. Companies trust AWS exactly because
it's backed by the world's richest and apparently capable and trustworthy CEO.
Them losing business because of that is just ... normal market functioning?
There's no god-given right to AWS to dominate the market. Let the best ones
overall, win.

~~~
noirbot
I think the argument is that AWS would be a better player in the market if it
wasn't directly owned by Amazon. They still get the benefit of having been
built by all the money of Amazon, and they could still be owned by Bezos as a
separate company, but they wouldn't be paying money into the co-mingled
account/balance sheet with Amazon.

~~~
buboard
> and they could still be owned by Bezos as a separate company

But that's their whole 'competitive disadvantage'. WaPo and amazon are already
separate. The fact that AWS would be separate on paper has very little gravity
also.

------
nidificate
Even if AWS was spunoff, surely it would still be owned by Bezos just as much?
I assume in spin off proportional ownership by shareholders remains the same.
I also don't see why their policies vis a vis government would be any
different if they were a separate company. So, the argument comes down to
people not being smart enough to realize AWS isn't any different as a separate
company.

------
cnst
> So with few exceptions, they are hedging their bets. They build on
> containers in a misplaced belief that will make quick migrations easier,
> they architect dubious “multi-cloud” workloads … the point is, they’re not
> using AWS the way it’s designed to be used, as a holistic, deeply integrated
> platform, and the looming shadow of Amazon is the reason why.

And why is this bad, exactly?

The fewer orgs use and depend exclusively on AWS, the better we'll all be as
an industry.

The whole idea that we'd take years of FLOSS work and stuck it into the black-
box cloud which we can't control, is pretty absurd if you think about it.

Here's a good article on the issues:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-
really-s...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-
serve.en.html)

------
growlist
Not sure I get the logic here. A spun-off AWS and Amazon's interests would
naturally diverge over time. What's to stop a situation where AWS become
another Oracle that Amazon seek to replace with their own self-built
alternative? Couldn't (and why wouldn't) Amazon just start rebuilding AWS
afresh?

------
throwGuardian
Aren't the activists happy about JEDI? They don't want AWS to serve American
defense forces, so it looks like a win-win

------
parvenu74
Oh please... more of this JEDI/WaPo stuff? It ignores that the NSA (and by
extension, the DOD) have a long relationship with Microsoft just as the CIA
have a long relationship with Amazon and have "AWS-lite" installed at Langley.
Microsoft has been very accommodating to the DOD, agreeing to continue
maintenance on Windows XP for as long as the Navy continues to request (and
pay for) it. Yes, Trump has his gripes with WaPo and might have suggested to
Mattis to screw AWS, but it's very likely that the Five Sided Puzzle Palace
wanted to go with Azure Stack all along but had to do the open competition
thing to avoid being sued by companies not named Microsoft.

~~~
013a
Yeah, its pretty crazy how the narrative has become "Trump is insane, AWS was
going to win it until he stepped in." AWS fought very well, but Microsoft was
destined to win no matter what they did, as long as they could check every box
(or make promises that they will check them soon).

You're hiring a new software engineer. You've got one candidate who's a
bonafide genius, but young and can't communicate very well. You've got another
candidate who seems to be within 80% of the skill level of the former, but
came recommended by a trusted third party and can clearly communicate with the
team. Which do you pick?

------
Jonnax
This isn't convincing.

Donald Trump doesn't like the Washington Post so it lost a contract and
protestors interrupted a talk about AWS facial recognition.

How will this be solved by spinning it off? The first is that he thinks a
different CEO would be better and the second isn't going to change because AWS
is a huge cloud company and people aren't stupid that they won't realise the
name has changed.

And it's known as Amazon Web services even if they rebranded to just AWS.

It would be a stupid move to change such a strong brand name to something
else.

~~~
LoveKebabble
I actually think the OP is right, but not for the example they listed and not
in a way that I directly care about or that impacts me (but would be better
for Amazon).

The fact that Amazon is also a retail shopping site / now owns whole foods
causes a lot of high end/large retail giants to NOT use AWS and actively have
in their contracts that they will not do business with a company if AWS is
their cloud provider.

There are exceptions, like if you stand up infrastructure specifically for the
retail client that's against using AWS in another cloud instance (And I'm sure
there are other exceptions out there).

But this is something that negatively impacts Amazon / AWS. I think ultimately
though that's a business decision that they are welcome to make for themselves
and I don't think really impacts the end AWS user.

~~~
scarface74
And yet Netflix is AWS’s largest customer even though Amazon has Prime Video.

On another note, look how Apple both competes with Samsung and use Samsung
parts for iPhones.

The industry is all about co- optition

~~~
noirbot
But is Netflix an example of a company that's happy to be paying Amazon
whatever they're paying them? I don't know the exact chronology, but I think
Netflix pre-dates Amazon being in the Media business much, if at all?

Netflix also don't really have an option, outside of building their own cloud,
since Microsoft and Google also have video streaming. It's a little different
if you're a Sears or Walmart, and you're not directly competing with the other
providers.

Same with Apple and Samsung. Sometimes you're stuck buying from competition
because they're the only people making the thing you need. It doesn't mean
you're happy about it or wouldn't jump ship if possible.

~~~
scarface74
Netflix _did_ build their own data center. They decided to get out of that
business because that wasn’t their core competency.

[https://www.se-radio.net/2014/12/episode-216-adrian-
cockcrof...](https://www.se-radio.net/2014/12/episode-216-adrian-cockcroft-on-
the-modern-cloud-based-platform/)

~~~
noirbot
Sure, but that doesn't really change the point. If you decide that cloud is
where you have to go, Netflix doesn't have an option that's not competing with
them, really. Doesn't mean they love bankrolling Amazon.

------
bcrosby95
I wish they didn't lead with the Donald Trump argument. I feel like a lot of
people are going to write off the article there.

The rest of the points are much more solid if you can make it past that first
flawed one.

~~~
noirbot
I think the buried and more convincing point in there is that Bezos and
Amazon's continued expansion into new markets mean there's more and more
industries that feel threatened by Amazon, and thus more worried about
funneling them money through AWS.

If you're building out a new company right now and get to pick your cloud
provider, how confident are you that in 5 years, Amazon won't be selling a
competing product to yours? And if you're starting from nothing, why not just
use GCP or Azure and avoid that risk?

~~~
mwcampbell
Google and Microsoft also expand into new markets. To me, this is a good
argument to use one of the smaller but growing players, like DigitalOcean.

~~~
mc32
Google and esp MS are more limited in the imitation copy strategy risks. If
you’ve got something compelling that they want, most likely they’ll buy you
out. Amazon occasionally buys companies out too, but are also more likely to
encroach on your turf. MS and Google tend to build (cooperative) “ecosystems”,
Amazon less so.

------
bengale
> Apparently the whole bid process is now on hold, not because of anything AWS
> did wrong, but because, well, Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post,
> which Donald Trump does not appreciate, and so it’s all a mess.

This isn't even Amazon's problem, I'm not sure what anyone is meant to do
about the President of the USA being a petulant child, other than just take
their lumps.

Whole article is a bit odd tbh, doesn't seem like AWS is really struggling.

~~~
8ytecoder
Yes, if AWS is losing out because a politician doesn't like the founder that's
a failure of your country's democratic process and defies everything the US
purports to stand for. Sure, spinning AWS might be the prudent thing to do
from shareholder's point of view in the short term. But doing so, makes things
extraordinarily hard for the very same shareholders in the medium to long
term.

