5 ms·

Amazon != AWS. As someone who has access to customer data in AWS, I'm very limited in what information I can access (to the point where it actively makes my job

Amazon != AWS. As someone who has access to customer data in AWS, I'm very limited in what information I can access (to the point where it actively makes my job in Premium Support harder than it would be otherwise). I also have to provide a legitimate business reason for access to data. Not only is there an audit trail for what I do internally, but any calls I make to review customer data is published in the customer's CloudTrail trail. So the customer can audit when their information is accessed. This report has 0 to do with AWS.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> This report has 0 to do with AWS Same company, leadership and culture. If you compete with Amazon, or could compete, it would be pretty stupid to put your jewels on AWS.
- alex_anglin 5y ago
  On the other hand, it seems to be working out pretty well for Netflix.
- whoknew1122 5y ago
  Different leadership and largely different culture. Or are you just making assumptions? Being on AWS works for Netflix, Disney+, and a lot of other streaming services I won't mention. ESPN and Fox Sports both use AWS. A lot of incredibly visible companies that offer cloud storage white-label S3. Tons of game studios use AWS. A lot of successful companies are pretty stupid I guess. But I'm not going to spend my time trying to refute conspiracy theories about AWS. You do you boo-boo.
  - syops 5y ago
    I suggest that your reply would be much better without the last paragraph.
    - nvr219 5y ago
      hmmm, yes.
  - Railsify 5y ago
    AWS profits appear in Amazon's annual report, AWS is an Amazon business unit. The CEO of AWS reports to the CEO of Amazon.
    - vishnugupta 5y ago
      Interestingly enough Andy Jassy, who is taking over the reins from Bezos, is the CEO of AWS.
      - Railsify 5y ago
        I was not aware of that, interesting indeed.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  On the other hand Apple competes hard against Samsung, yet relies heavily on Samsung to build a large part of it's competing products. Although I admit that this might not be as true anymore as it was a few years ago.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Probably because Apple has an army of lawyers to protect against any problems.
    - philistine 5y ago
      This.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    Samsung is a much looser conglomerate than Amazon. Furthermore, their fab division is much larger than their handset division. I imagine all parties have weighed the pros and cons. Apple continues to actively steer away from Samsung, anyway.
anotha1 5y ago
Given everything mentioned in your comment, I don't see how it implies that amazon can't cast a dragnet at some level you're not aware of.
- ctvo 5y ago
  Let's put it in terms of business. What does Amazon gain reading the data of retailers in AWS that they don't already have? How much more money would this make them? How much brand damage and lost of business to AWS (their most profitable organization) would they lose if this were to leak? The more prevalent their use of this AWS customer data, the higher the chance it gets leaked. Why do you think Amazon, one of the most logical and data driven companies, would make such a bad business decision?
  - berkeleyjunk 5y ago
    Info about what products sell well? Amazon has a thriving white label business and they can use it to decide what to make.
    - ctvo 5y ago
      And we think they need to risk the lost of business of breaking into your data on AWS to get this information? They somehow have no other way to infer this? How much business is this thriving Amazon-made products line? It's a fraction of AWS's profits considering retail's overall profits.
      - russh 5y ago
        People have done worse for less. It may not be a significant fraction of Amazon’s income but it could be a significant fraction of a sellers income or a significant fraction of sales manager’s sales.
      - anotha1 5y ago
        > They somehow have no other way to infer this? That's actually the point. So what if they're using "anonymous" or other indirect data? If "Amazon.com" might be benefiting from AWS data of any kind then it needs to be investigated as potentially anti-competitive.
no_wizard 5y ago
To me the only difference is that AWS biggest client base has the money and expertise to go after Amazon in protracted legal battles while simultaneously scrubbing AWS from their companies. Most retailers, even big ones, don’t have the money or expertise to do this like that. Of the few who do (Apple for instance) Amazon is keen in making sure that those companies are heard and has direct relationships with them, but that’s few and far between. That’s my take on this
- jollybean 5y ago
  I think there are enough retailers with at least some money, I think this is mostly an issue of business expectations. If AWS were caught sharing your data, with anyone, for any reason, it would be a gigantic mess of a problem. Forget 'competing with Amazon on Amazon' - we're talking about sensitive data of all kinds in every single line of business. It would destroy them. Selling on Amazon, and then having sneaky Amazon PM's use your data against you is bad, but the quasi-same thing would exist in other retailers. Best Buy doesn't sell '3rd Party' so obviously all of their sales data is theirs, and I think that the expectations between '3rd Party' and not '3rd Party' Amazon may just be a little bit blurred. I'm suspicious frankly about the distinction, because Amazon may very well believe that that data is theirs to look at anyhow. But AWS has to be a different story, if not, it's going to hurt.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    An interesting thing to note is also that AWS sells pre-rolled HIPAA compatible services in a lot of their offerings. If AWS accidentally peaked into one of these services in an unauthorized manner it'd be a huge legal event and, I suspect that part of them working out that their services are HIPAA compliant involved being extremely transparent on how a number of things around those services operate with some department in the government. Those servers, at least, should be free from any of the snooping concerns folks have.
tw04 5y ago
It doesn't have 0 to do with AWS. AWS funds the amazon beast they compete against. As a retailer you would have to be absolutely insane to feed money to the Amazon mothership via AWS so they can continue to fund undercutting you in the retail space. All of that is ignoring the fact that any customer of size WILL be sharing details about their go-to-market with their AWS account team. Just because a random guy in support can't login to their systems doesn't mean their assigned architect doesn't know what their process workflow looks like and didn't help them design it...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ziml77 5y ago
It does though. That money being paid towards AWS will certainly be used to subsidize Amazon's undercutting. A retailer paying for AWS is funding their own demise.
mdoms 5y ago
Ah the AWS employee is here to tell us that AWS employees are good, actually.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> This report has 0 to do with AWS Same company, leadership and culture. If you compete with Amazon, or could compete, it would be pretty stupid to put your jewels on AWS.

alex_anglin 5y ago
On the other hand, it seems to be working out pretty well for Netflix.
whoknew1122 5y ago
Different leadership and largely different culture. Or are you just making assumptions? Being on AWS works for Netflix, Disney+, and a lot of other streaming services I won't mention. ESPN and Fox Sports both use AWS. A lot of incredibly visible companies that offer cloud storage white-label S3. Tons of game studios use AWS. A lot of successful companies are pretty stupid I guess. But I'm not going to spend my time trying to refute conspiracy theories about AWS. You do you boo-boo.
- syops 5y ago
  I suggest that your reply would be much better without the last paragraph.
  - nvr219 5y ago
    hmmm, yes.
- Railsify 5y ago
  AWS profits appear in Amazon's annual report, AWS is an Amazon business unit. The CEO of AWS reports to the CEO of Amazon.
  - vishnugupta 5y ago
    Interestingly enough Andy Jassy, who is taking over the reins from Bezos, is the CEO of AWS.
    - Railsify 5y ago
      I was not aware of that, interesting indeed.
Workaccount2 5y ago
On the other hand Apple competes hard against Samsung, yet relies heavily on Samsung to build a large part of it's competing products. Although I admit that this might not be as true anymore as it was a few years ago.
- amelius 5y ago
  Probably because Apple has an army of lawyers to protect against any problems.
  - philistine 5y ago
    This.
- selectodude 5y ago
  Samsung is a much looser conglomerate than Amazon. Furthermore, their fab division is much larger than their handset division. I imagine all parties have weighed the pros and cons. Apple continues to actively steer away from Samsung, anyway.

anotha1 5y ago

Given everything mentioned in your comment, I don't see how it implies that amazon can't cast a dragnet at some level you're not aware of.

ctvo 5y ago
Let's put it in terms of business. What does Amazon gain reading the data of retailers in AWS that they don't already have? How much more money would this make them? How much brand damage and lost of business to AWS (their most profitable organization) would they lose if this were to leak? The more prevalent their use of this AWS customer data, the higher the chance it gets leaked. Why do you think Amazon, one of the most logical and data driven companies, would make such a bad business decision?
- berkeleyjunk 5y ago
  Info about what products sell well? Amazon has a thriving white label business and they can use it to decide what to make.
  - ctvo 5y ago
    And we think they need to risk the lost of business of breaking into your data on AWS to get this information? They somehow have no other way to infer this? How much business is this thriving Amazon-made products line? It's a fraction of AWS's profits considering retail's overall profits.
    - russh 5y ago
      People have done worse for less. It may not be a significant fraction of Amazon’s income but it could be a significant fraction of a sellers income or a significant fraction of sales manager’s sales.
    - anotha1 5y ago
      > They somehow have no other way to infer this? That's actually the point. So what if they're using "anonymous" or other indirect data? If "Amazon.com" might be benefiting from AWS data of any kind then it needs to be investigated as potentially anti-competitive.

no_wizard 5y ago

To me the only difference is that AWS biggest client base has the money and expertise to go after Amazon in protracted legal battles while simultaneously scrubbing AWS from their companies. Most retailers, even big ones, don’t have the money or expertise to do this like that. Of the few who do (Apple for instance) Amazon is keen in making sure that those companies are heard and has direct relationships with them, but that’s few and far between. That’s my take on this

jollybean 5y ago
I think there are enough retailers with at least some money, I think this is mostly an issue of business expectations. If AWS were caught sharing your data, with anyone, for any reason, it would be a gigantic mess of a problem. Forget 'competing with Amazon on Amazon' - we're talking about sensitive data of all kinds in every single line of business. It would destroy them. Selling on Amazon, and then having sneaky Amazon PM's use your data against you is bad, but the quasi-same thing would exist in other retailers. Best Buy doesn't sell '3rd Party' so obviously all of their sales data is theirs, and I think that the expectations between '3rd Party' and not '3rd Party' Amazon may just be a little bit blurred. I'm suspicious frankly about the distinction, because Amazon may very well believe that that data is theirs to look at anyhow. But AWS has to be a different story, if not, it's going to hurt.
- munk-a 5y ago
  An interesting thing to note is also that AWS sells pre-rolled HIPAA compatible services in a lot of their offerings. If AWS accidentally peaked into one of these services in an unauthorized manner it'd be a huge legal event and, I suspect that part of them working out that their services are HIPAA compliant involved being extremely transparent on how a number of things around those services operate with some department in the government. Those servers, at least, should be free from any of the snooping concerns folks have.

tw04 5y ago

It doesn't have 0 to do with AWS. AWS funds the amazon beast they compete against. As a retailer you would have to be absolutely insane to feed money to the Amazon mothership via AWS so they can continue to fund undercutting you in the retail space. All of that is ignoring the fact that any customer of size WILL be sharing details about their go-to-market with their AWS account team. Just because a random guy in support can't login to their systems doesn't mean their assigned architect doesn't know what their process workflow looks like and didn't help them design it...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ziml77 5y ago

It does though. That money being paid towards AWS will certainly be used to subsidize Amazon's undercutting. A retailer paying for AWS is funding their own demise.

mdoms 5y ago

Ah the AWS employee is here to tell us that AWS employees are good, actually.