3 ms·

> Amazon in China was actually beginning to do quite well in the last year when they found their niche in second tier cities. Maybe they got caught up in the s

> Amazon in China was actually beginning to do quite well in the last year when they found their niche in second tier cities. Maybe they got caught up in the stupid VC mindset that unless you're the dominant player with exponential growth, you've failed.

toasterlovin 7y ago
FWIW, I wouldn't really question Amazon's judgement here just because of a comment on HN. Amazon has vastly more information about how their business was performing than anybody outside of the company. And they have management that has a track record of being able to run a business very competently. They probably had very good reasons for exiting China.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Amazon has vastly more information about how their business was performing than anybody outside of the company. You can literally say the exact same thing about VCs that treat anything short of market dominance with exponential growth as failure. It's not a question or more/less information. People with the same extensive information can make vastly different decisions based on having different values and priorities. The person with the most information doesn't necessarily make the best decisions.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    While I generally agree that incompetence explains a lot of decisions and, more specifically, the need for exponential returns explains a lot of VC decision making, we’re talking about Amazon here. They’re one of the most long term oriented companies in the world. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but Jeff Bezos spent tons of his own money to build a clock that is designed to work continuously for 10,000 years. And Amazon’s trajectory has been an abject lesson in long term thinking.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > While I generally agree that incompetence explains a lot of decisions I'm not talking about incompetence at all. > They’re one of the most long term oriented companies in the world. That still doesn't change anything. More information or a very long term focus isn't going to make someone see that being a successful #2 or #3 player in a market isn't a failure.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        What I'm saying is that an extremely competent company decided that an opportunity wasn't worth pursuing. Are you seriously arguing that you have better insight into how Amazon should run their business than they do? Despite the fact that you have no information about what their prospects were other than whatever tiny morsels were publicly known? Has it occurred to you that there is non-public information that is informing their decision?
- OJFord 7y ago
  > They probably had very good reasons for exiting China. My guess would be her government stipulating 'joint venture or leave'.

toasterlovin 7y ago

FWIW, I wouldn't really question Amazon's judgement here just because of a comment on HN. Amazon has vastly more information about how their business was performing than anybody outside of the company. And they have management that has a track record of being able to run a business very competently. They probably had very good reasons for exiting China.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Amazon has vastly more information about how their business was performing than anybody outside of the company. You can literally say the exact same thing about VCs that treat anything short of market dominance with exponential growth as failure. It's not a question or more/less information. People with the same extensive information can make vastly different decisions based on having different values and priorities. The person with the most information doesn't necessarily make the best decisions.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  While I generally agree that incompetence explains a lot of decisions and, more specifically, the need for exponential returns explains a lot of VC decision making, we’re talking about Amazon here. They’re one of the most long term oriented companies in the world. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but Jeff Bezos spent tons of his own money to build a clock that is designed to work continuously for 10,000 years. And Amazon’s trajectory has been an abject lesson in long term thinking.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > While I generally agree that incompetence explains a lot of decisions I'm not talking about incompetence at all. > They’re one of the most long term oriented companies in the world. That still doesn't change anything. More information or a very long term focus isn't going to make someone see that being a successful #2 or #3 player in a market isn't a failure.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      What I'm saying is that an extremely competent company decided that an opportunity wasn't worth pursuing. Are you seriously arguing that you have better insight into how Amazon should run their business than they do? Despite the fact that you have no information about what their prospects were other than whatever tiny morsels were publicly known? Has it occurred to you that there is non-public information that is informing their decision?
OJFord 7y ago
> They probably had very good reasons for exiting China. My guess would be her government stipulating 'joint venture or leave'.