4 ms·

Why would they want to? Levi Strauss didn't get rich prospecting. Let Amazon sell the jeans and pick axes (both digitally and physically in their case) to the m

Why would they want to? Levi Strauss didn't get rich prospecting. Let Amazon sell the jeans and pick axes (both digitally and physically in their case) to the modern day prospectors.

arkitaip 10y ago
Because that's where 10x growth might be. For every company that uses directly uses AWS, there are countless companies that don't get or need AWS directly but really need a CMS, CRM, VOIP, groupware, Helpdesk, Callcenter, etc. If anyone can build on top of Amazon's platform, it's Amazon.
- qeternity 10y ago
  Sure, just as it was for the 49ers. Your keyword there is "might". But there's a huge failure rate. It's the same statistics that VCs face. Amazon is in a place to sell premium products to nearly 100% of the market, at really low risk.
  - nebabyte 10y ago
    If Amazon had governed its growth by deciding just to stay at where it "is", it'd still just be an online bookseller. And you'd be asking "why should they move into digital services? They're in a unique position to sell books online with low risk." Amazon has the potential to distupt nearly any service it wants to. The "risk" analysis and assessment is something they can handle - besides, the "riskier" applications they can just bide their time on and see how/whether they pan out for competition. Anything Amazon can undercut by having a wider service available on its platform, is just another bag of money they'd be leaving sitting on the table. And Amazon doesn't leave money on the table.
    - qeternity 10y ago
      AWS was already low risk, since they started with idle platform capacity that they needed to have for holiday shopping bursts. You're proving my point. They go for very asymmetric return profiles. Selling books online is exactly the same. Using expensive retail space to sell goods that have few good substitutes between them is a really dumb proposition. The market for books was well established, so that wasn't risky. Don't get me wrong, it's brilliant thinking and opportunity seeking. But it is not moonshot behavior.
      - maxwell 10y ago
        "Real applications" (someone named off CMS, CRM, VoIP, groupware, helpdesk, and callcenter software above) hardly seem like moonshots.
        tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
        Right, it's not like Amazon doesn't have big spend on all of these things for itself.
        qeternity 10y ago
        The implication from OP is that those aren't "real applications". They are merely following in AWS footsteps ("hey, we had to build this anyway...maybe there's a 3rd party market for it").
rb808 10y ago
A bit like Sun microsystems in the dotcom boom.
- dboreham 10y ago
  From Scott McNealy's lips to your keyboard..
adventured 10y ago
Because plenty of enterprise companies did get rich prospecting. And as to your analogy: there's a lot more money in being BHP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Glencore, Rio Tinto, etc. than in selling the shovels. Oracle has earned $30 billion in net income the last three years and is worth $183 billion. That's just one enterprise company. It's as simple as that. There's no scenario under which AWS doesn't increasingly target enterprise software companies, in an attempt to commoditize various products & services they provide and destroy their margins.

Why would they want to? Levi Strauss didn't get rich prospecting. Let Amazon sell the jeans and pick axes (both digitally and physically in their case) to the modern day prospectors.

arkitaip 10y ago

Because that's where 10x growth might be. For every company that uses directly uses AWS, there are countless companies that don't get or need AWS directly but really need a CMS, CRM, VOIP, groupware, Helpdesk, Callcenter, etc. If anyone can build on top of Amazon's platform, it's Amazon.

qeternity 10y ago
Sure, just as it was for the 49ers. Your keyword there is "might". But there's a huge failure rate. It's the same statistics that VCs face. Amazon is in a place to sell premium products to nearly 100% of the market, at really low risk.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  If Amazon had governed its growth by deciding just to stay at where it "is", it'd still just be an online bookseller. And you'd be asking "why should they move into digital services? They're in a unique position to sell books online with low risk." Amazon has the potential to distupt nearly any service it wants to. The "risk" analysis and assessment is something they can handle - besides, the "riskier" applications they can just bide their time on and see how/whether they pan out for competition. Anything Amazon can undercut by having a wider service available on its platform, is just another bag of money they'd be leaving sitting on the table. And Amazon doesn't leave money on the table.
  - qeternity 10y ago
    AWS was already low risk, since they started with idle platform capacity that they needed to have for holiday shopping bursts. You're proving my point. They go for very asymmetric return profiles. Selling books online is exactly the same. Using expensive retail space to sell goods that have few good substitutes between them is a really dumb proposition. The market for books was well established, so that wasn't risky. Don't get me wrong, it's brilliant thinking and opportunity seeking. But it is not moonshot behavior.
    - maxwell 10y ago
      "Real applications" (someone named off CMS, CRM, VoIP, groupware, helpdesk, and callcenter software above) hardly seem like moonshots.
      - tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
        Right, it's not like Amazon doesn't have big spend on all of these things for itself.
      - qeternity 10y ago
        The implication from OP is that those aren't "real applications". They are merely following in AWS footsteps ("hey, we had to build this anyway...maybe there's a 3rd party market for it").

rb808 10y ago

A bit like Sun microsystems in the dotcom boom.

dboreham 10y ago
From Scott McNealy's lips to your keyboard..

adventured 10y ago

Because plenty of enterprise companies did get rich prospecting. And as to your analogy: there's a lot more money in being BHP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Glencore, Rio Tinto, etc. than in selling the shovels. Oracle has earned $30 billion in net income the last three years and is worth $183 billion. That's just one enterprise company. It's as simple as that. There's no scenario under which AWS doesn't increasingly target enterprise software companies, in an attempt to commoditize various products & services they provide and destroy their margins.