2 ms·

I think the argument is that AWS would be a better player in the market if it wasn't directly owned by Amazon. They still get the benefit of having been built b

I think the argument is that AWS would be a better player in the market if it wasn't directly owned by Amazon. They still get the benefit of having been built by all the money of Amazon, and they could still be owned by Bezos as a separate company, but they wouldn't be paying money into the co-mingled account/balance sheet with Amazon.

buboard 7y ago
> and they could still be owned by Bezos as a separate company But that's their whole 'competitive disadvantage'. WaPo and amazon are already separate. The fact that AWS would be separate on paper has very little gravity also.