5 ms·
Well, what's your success metric? I'd argue that neither of them would have been able to implement the rich features they have at the speed and scale they've ac
by beat 7y ago
Well, what's your success metric? I'd argue that neither of them would have been able to implement the rich features they have at the speed and scale they've achieved - features that have given them market domination.
If pure aesthetics is your metric, then yeah, they're ugly. So?
- ken 7y agoAmazon's M.O. is "pay money, get physical item". On the scale of how much aesthetics matters on a website, that's way over on the "not at all" side. About the only thing I'd put further that direction is Craigslist (which is "maybe pay no money, maybe get physical item"). For nearly every other website, aesthetics is of significant or even primary concern. When I'm not receiving packages from it, I care about how it looks. Facebook, Google, and StackOverflow were all much cleaner designs than what they replaced, and Wikipedia is perhaps the biggest and most aesthetically consistent website there is. Aesthetics matter.
- shados 7y agoDoes Amazon do micro apps on their storefront side? I know they do on the AWS side, but the ecommerce bit is very different.
- ci5er 7y agoYes. For example, the ratings (stars) and reviews are separate "widgets" in the product page. Search, of course. - https://thenewstack.io/led-amazon-microservices-architecture/
- jayd16 7y ago>So? So I want them to scale and not be ugly.
- beat 7y agoSo then what is the cause of the ugliness? Is it inconsistent appearance between components? Or that it's too busy and cluttered, which would probably be true with a monolith as well?