Then Amazon enters your business space in direct competition to you. Through your business with AWS you are now funding a large, fierce, and direct competitor.
Anyone else think of this, or am I just being paranoid?
I believe this is inaccurate, Netflix was streaming from AWS in their early years IIRC.
The history is that mainly they used well-known CDNs for streaming, followed by their OpenConnect CDN network now. AWS has always been used for metadata.
I'm not aware of them streaming from AWS, though it's possible a development group there did a test or something temporarily.
They've never used AWS for their CDN.
Can someone familiar with Netflix speak to this?
It makes sense that they'll continue to run stuff in AWS due to their existing footprint, but are they mandated to build new stuff outside the cloud? And if so, why?
The catalog of successful movies is available publicly anyway :-)
You are doing a large part of the market research for your competitors by using cloud services and platforms. You just pray they are good actors and ethical.
Or they contract with you to sell a private label version of your own product.
For example, Ergotron makes a very nice quality monitor arm:
Amazon Basics has a monitor arm that looks just like the Ergotron, except it's all black instead of silver and black.
I have a couple of the Amazon arms. The reason they look the same is because they are made by Ergotron. It says so right on the box:
Ship From: Ergotron Inc - Private Brands - US
All under the implied threat that if you don't partner with them, they will go to a competitor and push that product before yours.
Their entire business model at this point seems to charge other business for the right to figure out what a good business for them to get into it.
Safeway, Fred Meyer, Costco, you name it there is a Select or some other generic offering of their competitor’s goods.
Amazon Basics is just like the grocery store brands that have become popular. They're basically rebranded products by a different company at a cheaper price with some level of quality endorsed by the retailer (Amazon, Costco, Kroger/Publix grocery stores, etc)
Then Amazon comes up with Amazon Basics brand through which you only get genuine products.
And guess what is reinforced in users mind? That Amazon Basics is only true source of legit stuff rest all businesses selling on Amazon are fraudsters.
Who profits from allowing fake on their store? Amazon.
Like if I was to go to a brick and mortar store and there was a 10% chance that the brand name cereal I bought could be counterfeit but a 0% chance if I bought the store brand.
I am sure there are hundreds of companies that were asking AWS to offer a fully managed Kafka service. I asked for it many times to my account manager when they where pitching Kinesis.
This is also an issue at my current company, and I think a significant driver of the "cloud agnostic" push.
More concerning would probably be the possibility that your AWS service would be suspended or otherwise purposefully disrupted.
>> What is the relevance of funding your competitor?
> That's not an argument.
Sure it is. It's a great argument. Do you somehow think Amazon is limiting itself to copying businesses on the AWS platform only? No: they'll copy any successful business anywhere.
Unless your business is Netflix, you, by yourself, are not contributing enough to their bottom line to boost their efforts to compete with you. And guess what: Netflix doesn't believe that the money they're paying AWS is enough to hurt their competitiveness with Prime Video. The 10 VMs your company is going to run aren't going to matter.
You can certainly object to Amazon business practices and take a principled stand against doing AWS business with them, but that's something you would presumably do whether or not they were competing with you.
It is like these FBA sellers are paying Amazon, then giving valuable data to them and helping Amazon put them out of business. It is just a shitty situation
So they'll get even more data on the marketing side.
>Through your business with AWS you are now funding a large, fierce, and direct competitor.
No one here is talking about FBA's or the Amazon marketplace; they're talking about using AWS and having Amazon infiltrate your product space down the road.
That said, you are funding a fierce competitor, even if your AWS bill is just 10 bucks a month...
Using AWS to build your back end before finding out that Amazon is now going to enter your market is hardly the same thing. Your handful of VMs make exactly zero difference. AWS or no, Amazon was going to eat your lunch.
Your business is not going to make any difference in Amazon's financial situation, but if you're saving money by using AWS's services, why would you spend even more money by porting to Azure or GCP?
So if the savings in time to market/cost/whatever truly justified moving to AWS, does it matter that Amazon comes to town?
In other words, consider: if you did the analysis and saw the potential benefit but decided not to move to AWS due to the risk of feeding the beast, what happens when Amazon still enters your product space? You’re still gonna have to fight them, but you just gave up months or years of cost savings or product features or whatever other positive you identified that could’ve improved your position in the market.
other than making you feel bad, is there any practical downside to this?
And more directly to your point, Amazon presumably evaluates each market they enter separately. They have a big enough war chest to run at a loss forever, but they won’t do so because it’s not good business
Amazon is effectively just replacing UPS / FedEx. In the long run, the net result to society is the same whether UPS, FedEx or Amazon flies the plane (assuming every plane operates at the same capacity and have equal fuel efficiency). The pollution from these planes is a function of how much people shop online, not which company flies the plane.
Amazon ships by rail already. I see Amazon Prime-branded trailers on flatbed rail cars tearing across the country all the time. And the number of Prime-branded tractor trailers I see on the highways between cities has grown exponentially in the last year or so.
Of course that's not really Amazon's problem. We really need more reasonable taxes on fossil fuels that make it cost-prohibitive for Amazon to rely on air shipping.
Very much so. It's a big factor in enabling "we don't have to own a car at all, because we can get anything we need shipped to us". 2-day shipping is the slow case these days, and if it's in a local warehouse you can expect same-day or next-day. (And in some cities you can get 2-hour delivery of fresh items.)
If you're going to fairly compare the emissions involved in package delivery, you'd need to take increased car usage into account, among many other things.
You can also safely assume that the cost of air freight is amortized across a large number of packages. And in general, Amazon tries to predict what will be needed in advance, so that they can ship it to a local warehouse via slower methods. The planes are, effectively, for the case where they didn't anticipate demand and it's too expensive an item to keep that much distributed inventory of.
Maybe, but my own experience is a counterexample. I'm a bike commuter who doesn't own a car, and I cancelled Prime because I found Prime's shipping to be unreliable at best. (Late deliveries, mostly.) If I need to order something I'll wait until I meet the minimum for free shipping or pay extra for shipping. Online shopping is the game changer, not Prime, as far as I'm concerned.
Since I started using Amazon it's gotten really hard for me to justify driving to a place like Fry's because they almost never have exactly what I need, and usually what they do have is hot garbage. The resellers on Amazon frequently stock exactly what I need at pretty good prices and I can usually get it same day or next day. And if I need a technical book or something I usually buy it off Amazon too because other than maybe the university library(10 miles away) there's nobody who stocks the kind of books I need to do my job.
Most of the stuff I get from Amazon I can probably get from Digikey or Mouser as well. I usually only order from Digikey when I need a very specific part. Amazon is where I order things like bulk LEDs, resistors, solderable breadboards, wire, and other consumables. And usually they have a great selection of tools as well.
I'm curious, are you located near one of Amazon's primary areas (namely, those areas where they offer Prime Now 2-hour delivery)? I get the distinct impression that the service quality is very different depending on if you're in such an area or not.
I've mainly had issues with getting deliveries to the apartments I've lived in. I'm not certain that the problem was Amazon. It could have been that the carriers thought they could get away with claiming I wasn't home when I was, etc. I recall once that UPS or FedEx told me that they didn't want to deliver to my address and I'd have to go to a location in north Austin to pick up my package. I eventually convinced them to do their job and deliver the package. Another time I got a note from USPS telling me to pick it up from a specific post office, which I tried to do, but it wasn't there and was actually out for delivery again then as far as I recall. I decided that I'm not going to play these games.
When I started getting delivery to my work address (which always has a person there to accept packages during business hours), the situation improved, but was not solved. Work doesn't like personal deliveries and this limits the size of items I can get.
I made it clear to Amazon that they need to improve the reliability of their carriers if they want me as a customer. Amazon's statistics suggest my experience is quite rare, though, assuming those numbers are true.
Once, I tried an Amazon locker, but the locker wouldn't open for me and I had to get a human to fetch the package. I would start to think that I'm on some internal Amazon shit list, but I later ordered a $100 electronic item from Amazon with Prime and it didn't come in on time (delivery to my work) so they refunded me fully. I think the problem for that package again wasn't Amazon's fault. I assumed the package was lost and wouldn't be coming in, but after about a week the package appeared. Amazon said keep it for free even though I was willing to pay again. That's nice of them, but I think I've lost more than $100 worth of my time trying to chase various packages over the years so I'm still at a loss as far as I'm concerned.
This wasn't the first time I had issues with Prime's delivery. When I lived in the DC metro area shortly after Prime started, Prime would us a local carrier called "LaserShip" that was so bad that I decided to cancel Prime so I could get a normal carrier instead. Prime was a downgrade as far as I'm concerned. Everything I've read about LaserShip online matches my experience.
And more awareness among consumers - how often do we need same day/next day delivery? I bet not that often
It would be nice for consumers to support local businesses instead of always buying from mega corporations...
The EPA + Taxes (of various kinds) are how companies/individuals pay for environmental damage, and it's also how companies/individuals pay to protect the environment.
Cleanups use tax money, research into potential regulations to minimize impact uses tax money, etc.
So it's not some kind of outlandish idea, but at the moment the EPA is REALLY buddy/buddy with large companies so they're currently effectively neutered.
If you do, make sure to offset that with: (1) the reduction in retail space use for products, (2) the reduced amount of cars on the road, etc. etc.
That would be wonderful.
> That would be wonderful.
Given the number of prime subscribers, most of the US disagrees with you. 2 day shipping is simply not going to happen on rail.
This is true.
However, Amazon wants "2 day shipping" to be 2 day shipping, not probably 2 day shipping, which means they need to deal with the long tail of orders.
And for that, you need airplanes.
According to the IPCC, CO2 emissions are only 1/4-1/2 of aviation's impact on climate change. In 1999 they estimated the total impact as 3.5%, and projected out what will happen as aviation use increases, which it has.
Plus the conversion to natural gas has flattened out. Methane is 40% less carbon per BTU than coal. But it still creates considerable CO2.
If they're offering it to the public, no reason not to offer it at a corporate rate.
If they could do this then they could pack so much more stuff on the planes than a commercial parcels company could.
It depends on big and how you define it. For instance Samsung has getting on for three times as many employees as Apple. Plus they actually make stuff rather than just get some other company to do it for them.
The stock market values companies precisely because they don't have the liability of employees that make stuff. Personally I value companies that do.
The hard part is not getting taken out of context by someone that overhears your conversations, so you should still exercise caution.
Five hours later: still waiting for first hand.
* Ducks, I'm going to take a karma hit for this