4 ms·

I started using uBlock's default-deny setting 2 weeks ago (it rejects all requests to secondary domains unless the domain is explicitly allowed). It's amazing t

by sigmar 11y ago

I started using uBlock's default-deny setting 2 weeks ago (it rejects all requests to secondary domains unless the domain is explicitly allowed). It's amazing to see how many websites use AWS or amazon ads these days. It is really strange to think about how the average consumer views Amazon as an online retailer, but that is really only half the picture. As the end of the article states: >Maybe someday A.W.S. will be the company that also happens to own an online retailer.

empath75 11y ago
I actually don't see how AWS and Amazon remain together in the long term. They seem like two totally different businesses with different goals, long term prospects, etc.
- abakker 11y ago
  There is some relation there, though. The obviously use their own infrastructure to run Amazon, which has significant scaling/infrastructure requirement. Initially, of course, AWS was the "space capacity" at Amazon, now their total capacity vastly exceeds what their store needs. I think though that Amazon will probably remain more of a conglomerate, rather than divesting any parts of its business. Instead, it seems to add more and more brands, services, etc. In the long this will probably be good for them, since they'll be able to effectively integrate the experience of customers across all brands/services/etc.
  - ksenzee 11y ago
    AWS didn't start out as Amazon.com's spare capacity. It was an entirely separate business idea. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/cloud-computing/the-myth-about-how-amazon-s-web-service-started-just-won-t-die.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/cloud-computing/...
- petra 11y ago
  Amazon actually has/had a variety of groups aiming to be the "operating system" of other businesses - AWS, 3rd party fulfillment and sales, B2B marketplace, amazon stores(closed), etc. So not sure there's a mismatch problem. Also i wonder - how can Amazon tie all those B2B units into a larger whole ?
- burnte 11y ago
  Because the concept that a company has to have everything align with a "core business" is a relatively new, and incredibly stupid concept. The business of business is making money, not being in a specific industry. Nokia has made paper, rubber products, wires, capacitors, robots, computers, phones and networking equipment. Samsung has an even more broad array of products, as do most Korean, Japanese, and Chinese conglomerates. The idea of a "core business" is a relatively recent invention of western business which mistakenly argued that a company could only do one thing well as though a company and a person were the same thing. Dow, GE, P&G, Johnson Family Enterprises, and Berkshire Hathaway would all disagree. Jeff Bezos sees Amazon as the GE for the next 100 years. He has a long view that left American corporate culture in the late 1970s. Japanese corporate culture takes the long view, they have business plans that look out across decades, rather than quarters. Bezos is making amazon a very wide company, because it's harder to fail as a wide company than it is a deep company. Now, in some ways Amazon IS a deep company, with Amazon products delivered through their supply chain, marketed by their website running on their platform, and a rich media ecosystem on Amazon consumer devices. However it will survive damage to one of those sectors because of the breadth of the company. The idea of cor businesses and splitting up companies that do "to much" is rooted in the quarterly corporate culture, which sacrifices the future of the company in exchange fore shareholder (and executive) rewards today. Business stagnant? Split it up into aligned companies for a quick stock boost. Did you actually create anything new or useful, or change the way the businesses operate? No, but it looks good on paper.
  - eldavido 11y ago
    Agree that American business culture is too short-sighted. The question is size is far from decided, though. Though these Japanese firms may survive long-term, they often aren't good stewards of shareholder capital as measured by return on equity (ROE) and other financial metrics. But it does seem that conglomerates are making a comeback, with Alphabet, Amazon, and the perennial favorite Berkshire, whose own CEO has said their size is starting to present problems. Definitely an interesting question.
    - burnte 11y ago
      I completely agree that the Japanese might not be the best model, but as usual, I feel the truth lies in a third path. Not quarterly, not 50 years, but maybe look for a path for the company to survive the next 10-20 years, and always be willing to change. "Plans are worthless, planning is priceless."

by sigmar 11y ago

empath75 11y ago

I actually don't see how AWS and Amazon remain together in the long term. They seem like two totally different businesses with different goals, long term prospects, etc.

abakker 11y ago
There is some relation there, though. The obviously use their own infrastructure to run Amazon, which has significant scaling/infrastructure requirement. Initially, of course, AWS was the "space capacity" at Amazon, now their total capacity vastly exceeds what their store needs. I think though that Amazon will probably remain more of a conglomerate, rather than divesting any parts of its business. Instead, it seems to add more and more brands, services, etc. In the long this will probably be good for them, since they'll be able to effectively integrate the experience of customers across all brands/services/etc.
- ksenzee 11y ago
  AWS didn't start out as Amazon.com's spare capacity. It was an entirely separate business idea. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/cloud-computing/the-myth-about-how-amazon-s-web-service-started-just-won-t-die.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/cloud-computing/...
petra 11y ago
Amazon actually has/had a variety of groups aiming to be the "operating system" of other businesses - AWS, 3rd party fulfillment and sales, B2B marketplace, amazon stores(closed), etc. So not sure there's a mismatch problem. Also i wonder - how can Amazon tie all those B2B units into a larger whole ?
burnte 11y ago
Because the concept that a company has to have everything align with a "core business" is a relatively new, and incredibly stupid concept. The business of business is making money, not being in a specific industry. Nokia has made paper, rubber products, wires, capacitors, robots, computers, phones and networking equipment. Samsung has an even more broad array of products, as do most Korean, Japanese, and Chinese conglomerates. The idea of a "core business" is a relatively recent invention of western business which mistakenly argued that a company could only do one thing well as though a company and a person were the same thing. Dow, GE, P&G, Johnson Family Enterprises, and Berkshire Hathaway would all disagree. Jeff Bezos sees Amazon as the GE for the next 100 years. He has a long view that left American corporate culture in the late 1970s. Japanese corporate culture takes the long view, they have business plans that look out across decades, rather than quarters. Bezos is making amazon a very wide company, because it's harder to fail as a wide company than it is a deep company. Now, in some ways Amazon IS a deep company, with Amazon products delivered through their supply chain, marketed by their website running on their platform, and a rich media ecosystem on Amazon consumer devices. However it will survive damage to one of those sectors because of the breadth of the company. The idea of cor businesses and splitting up companies that do "to much" is rooted in the quarterly corporate culture, which sacrifices the future of the company in exchange fore shareholder (and executive) rewards today. Business stagnant? Split it up into aligned companies for a quick stock boost. Did you actually create anything new or useful, or change the way the businesses operate? No, but it looks good on paper.
- eldavido 11y ago
  Agree that American business culture is too short-sighted. The question is size is far from decided, though. Though these Japanese firms may survive long-term, they often aren't good stewards of shareholder capital as measured by return on equity (ROE) and other financial metrics. But it does seem that conglomerates are making a comeback, with Alphabet, Amazon, and the perennial favorite Berkshire, whose own CEO has said their size is starting to present problems. Definitely an interesting question.
  - burnte 11y ago
    I completely agree that the Japanese might not be the best model, but as usual, I feel the truth lies in a third path. Not quarterly, not 50 years, but maybe look for a path for the company to survive the next 10-20 years, and always be willing to change. "Plans are worthless, planning is priceless."