3 ms·

> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely subst

> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk of change for even the largest companies in the world.

jtmcmc 9y ago
in 2016 amazon's annual revenue was 136 billion dollars. That means it was .66% of it's total revenue. I would argue that the potential damage to Amazon's brand is quite a bit more than that.
CalChris 9y ago
That's $900M/yr of revenue. At AWS. And the WashPo is entirely different company. Nope.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Not to mention that's less than 10% of Amazon yearly revenue from AWS alone.[1] Gambling an entire business on the fact that nobody will find out you're giving away their proprietary information just for an extra bump in revenue of a couple points does not sound sane to me. For another perspective, the profit AWS generates is multiples of that entire $900M. 1: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-cloud-business-hits-over-12-billion-in-revenue-2017-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-cloud-business-hits-o...
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  They also built them AWS Secret.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Yes, but that's included in that $900M/yr of revenue. It isn't an extra revenue line.