
Amazon ‘willing to be misunderstood for very long periods of time’ - gspyrou
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos-innovation
======
ChuckFrank
Why is Bezo able to take risks into new territories? Because "we can analyze
quantitatively rather than to have to make intuitive judgments." What's so
great about this type of business model is that it does not rely on luck
throughout the process. It only relies on luck at the front end of the risks,
minimizing the risk throughout the enterprise. Bezo is the current king of
data driven decisions, and I think that over time it's enabled Amazon to not
only pass it's many competitors (buy.com / half.com / yahoo.com / google
products etc.) but also quickly overcome dis-advantages. Compared to the
amazing roll of luck, insight, cunning, and high risks / high rewards culture
of Apple, Amazon is really the company to emulate. Without Jobs, can Apply
keep it's streak alive? No one is certain. It sometimes feels that with each
not product Apple is betting the company. That's certainly what people were
saying about the ipad. And that's what makes watching Apple so thrilling.
Without Bezos, Amazon appears to be poised to continue it's great leadership.
Watching Amazon might not be as thrilling, but the details are simply
spectacular. While Jobs may get the accolades, I think think that Bezos
deserves the crown.

~~~
jonnathanson
While I support the endorsement of Amazon's data-driven culture and strategy,
I don't think it's fair to describe Apple as its opposite. Apple is not the
gut-driven, "bet the company" firm that the general public seems to think it
is. Its bets are very data-driven, albeit not quite as real-time-data-driven
as a company like Amazon's, whose business model allows for more real time
data in the first place.

In broad strokes, I think I'd describe the two companies this way: Amazon
innovates through optimization of new markets, while Apple innovates through
creating new markets. This isn't a wholly fair description of either company,
and as we know, there are exceptions in either direction. But that's the
business model of the two companies at a 30,000-foot glance.

As you've hinted, probably the best way to differentiate the strategies of the
two companies is on the risk/reward dimension. Amazon operates on a risk-
minimization model, while Apple is risk-seeking in favor of outsized rewards.
This is partially because Apple is still a hardware company (for now, at
least), and it needs to keep reinventing its products to stay ahead of the
commoditization of hardware.

~~~
ChuckFrank
"Amazon innovates through optimization of new markets, while Apple innovates
through creating new markets"

Well said.

~~~
sankara
Amazon has created new markets. The article mentions Kindle and AWS. The ebook
reader and ebooks did not (really) exist before Kindle. Same with AWS.

~~~
jonnathanson
True. There are exceptions to the statement I made, which is why I pointed out
that it's not wholly fair. In fact, Amazon's entire existence can in many ways
be said to have been the creation of a new market.

Even still, I think it's fair to say that Amazon primarily innovates these
days through rapid and extensive iteration, especially on its consumer side.

------
mrschwabe
You have to admire Bezo's approach to new ideas...

"On the day you decide to give up on it (hypothetical idea), what happens?
Your operating margins go up because you stopped investing in something that
wasn’t working. Is that really such a bad day?"

~~~
famousactress
I do appreciate the silver-lining attitude, but this really only applies to
risks that are marginalized by the amount of success you're already
experiencing. It wouldn't be all that great a day if say, we were talking
about how much more expendable income you have now that you've foreclosed on
your house.

Still, I think that's a big part of his point.. to take risks early and often
enough that you can (afford to) think about them this way.

------
stevenj
I find the product development strategies of the major technology companies
quite interesting. I'm talking about Eric Schmidt's "Gang of Four". [1]

On the one hand you have Apple. Apple innovates as good as, and perhaps better
than the other three. But it doesn't have very many products. And while I have
no knowledge of this, I'd bet it doesn't start-and-stop products as frequently
as the others. And it probably doesn't have as many "active" products going on
at any one time. (Maybe it does behind the scenes, but I would be surprised if
it did.)

It may take some iteration and prototyping to see that you could actually turn
an iPhone into a tablet.

But I'm pretty sure Jobs "saw" the tablet long ago. In his mind, it was just a
matter of when.

In the case of Apple, I see experimentation occurring as a result of the
vision laid out by Jobs and other senior executives.

When it comes to the others, Amazon, Facebook, and Google all seem to
implement the "fail fast" strategy. In this case, experimentation leads to
vision. Instead of vision leading to experimentation.

What's interesting is that Apple used to be more like the others. It had many
products and segments. And very little vision. But that strategy brought it
close to death. [2]

Discovery is important to all of them. But the journey seems to be different.

[1] [http://allthingsd.com/20110531/eric-schmidts-gang-of-four-
do...](http://allthingsd.com/20110531/eric-schmidts-gang-of-four-doesnt-have-
room-for-microsoft/)

[2] I could see why Apple sets vision first because designing and developing
physical products is different than organizing information and logistics.

~~~
tortilla
I think Jobs stated that they started first with a tablet then put it on hold
to launch the iPhone.

[http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/06/02/d8-jobs-...](http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/06/02/d8-jobs-
says-apple-actually-developed-ipad-before-the-iphone/)

------
rmason
What I was literally struck by was the fact Bezos seemed to echoing the book,
Little bets how breakthrough ideas emerge from small discoveries. I've stated
before that I believe that is directly related to the concept of lean startups
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2475535>

~~~
drpancake
Hope you're OK after that literal strike :)

------
nathanb
> I can guarantee you that everything we do will not work

I suspect he means "not everything we do will work". Either that or he's
hinting that it's time to sell AMZN.

~~~
jacques_chester
I've seen this particular sentence structure before. It seems to be an
American English thing, though the seminal example comes from Shakespeare:

"All that glisters is not gold".

~~~
sambe
I don't think those are the same: two different uses of "that". The example
from Bezos seems flat-out wrong to me. I had to read it three times to figure
out what he meant. Would be interested to see other examples.

~~~
jacques_chester
Sorry, I don't have any 'real world' examples in mind right now. But I have
seen this sentence construction before.

"All votes are not counted".

"All persons are not equal".

The problem is that they can be parsed two ways and they lend themselves to
the _opposite_ of what, in context, might have been meant.

In the same vein I am amused by "we're not going anywhere!"

------
tomkarlo
"By the time you are betting the company, it means you haven’t invented for
too long."

See: Windows 8?

------
forgingahead
This is a great quote on vision and execution: "We are stubborn on vision. We
are flexible on details"

That "Why We Do This" doesn't change (and hence it's important to have the Why
instead of 'here are X cool features') but the execution can differ. Great
stuff from a great business leader.

------
lwhi
Really great advice - I find it refreshing to read this kind of candid,
straightforward talk.

~~~
guelo
Candid straightforward talk that makes Amazon look really good to stock
analysts.

------
jackpine
I love the bit about making a lot of small bets early. You can always count on
Bezos to drop some knowledge.

