4 ms·

Much like AWS spun out of their in-house experience running flexible computing infrastructure, this would be a natural fit for them to flex their logistics stre

Much like AWS spun out of their in-house experience running flexible computing infrastructure, this would be a natural fit for them to flex their logistics strengths. Via their multi-channel fulfillment offerings, you can already use Amazon's logistics network to ship your products sold on or off of Amazon. This would just be supporting more type of shipments than just fulfillment. On the other hand, Fedex, DHL, UPS etc have built a big part of their strengths of shipping worldwide overnight. That's very different than what Amazon does, where they try to warehouse products close to customers to minimize shipping distance and time. Great when you want to buy an iPhone, but not suitable for shipping a document from New York City to Tokyo.

muddi900 7y ago
Yeah, but most ecommerce operators have no incentive to use Amazon, because you are paying your competitor. There is a reason most grocery stores are shifting, or have already shifted to, Google or Microsoft for their cloud infrastructure.
- bb611 7y ago
  It's a major issue with AWS across a bunch of sectors. I work at a large SaaS company transitioning to public cloud, the number of companies that contractually obligate us not to host on AWS is at least an order of magnitude higher than any other cloud provider.
- blevo 7y ago
  >paying the competitor it's a good point, yet many still use Amazon/AWS regardless. Netflix, for instance (AWS). Then, on the micro-scale: FBA[0] sellers (Amazon Marketplace). I assume it has to do with the ultra low barrier to entry which Amazon/AWS provides. The convenience factor is off the charts. Nevertheless, I assume Netflix has ideations of following in Dropbox's footsteps.[1] [0] "Fulfilled by Amazon" [1] abandoning AWS for self-owned dedicated infrastructure
gumby 7y ago
> Much like AWS spun out of their in-house experience running flexible computing infrastructure Actually that’s a myth (https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-how-amazon-s-web-service-started-just-won-t-die.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-... ). Oddly, unlike most corporate founding myths (e.g. eBay and Pez) it wasn’t invented by company marketing.

muddi900 7y ago

Yeah, but most ecommerce operators have no incentive to use Amazon, because you are paying your competitor. There is a reason most grocery stores are shifting, or have already shifted to, Google or Microsoft for their cloud infrastructure.

bb611 7y ago
It's a major issue with AWS across a bunch of sectors. I work at a large SaaS company transitioning to public cloud, the number of companies that contractually obligate us not to host on AWS is at least an order of magnitude higher than any other cloud provider.
blevo 7y ago
>paying the competitor it's a good point, yet many still use Amazon/AWS regardless. Netflix, for instance (AWS). Then, on the micro-scale: FBA[0] sellers (Amazon Marketplace). I assume it has to do with the ultra low barrier to entry which Amazon/AWS provides. The convenience factor is off the charts. Nevertheless, I assume Netflix has ideations of following in Dropbox's footsteps.[1] [0] "Fulfilled by Amazon" [1] abandoning AWS for self-owned dedicated infrastructure

gumby 7y ago

> Much like AWS spun out of their in-house experience running flexible computing infrastructure Actually that’s a myth (https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-how-amazon-s-web-service-started-just-won-t-die.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-... ). Oddly, unlike most corporate founding myths (e.g. eBay and Pez) it wasn’t invented by company marketing.