5 ms·

> As a photographer I'm livid that Amazon bought DPReview just to run it into the ground. Amazon ran it for longer (13 years) than it's original owner (12 year

> As a photographer I'm livid that Amazon bought DPReview just to run it into the ground. Amazon ran it for longer (13 years) than it's original owner (12 years). That's not "run it into the ground". Complaints are more convincing (I don't like dpreview being closed either) when they are reasonable.

stonemetal12 4y ago
How does length of ownership have any bearing on quality of execution?
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Amazon could’ve turned it over to the community, right? Maybe throw in some AWS credits until they could move to a server or two?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Or sold it to someone who wanted to continue to run it. It's value could not have been zero.
  - mynegation 4y ago
    Amazon would probably spend more money on lawyers managing the sale than receive from the sale.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      And spending some money in order to not destroy an important knowledge resource may be the right choice especially if the alternative means burning some good will.
  - coolandsmartrr 4y ago
    That's what I've been thinking. Why not make some money by selling it to another company instead of just closing it down? There seems to be some companies tailored to photography who may be good candidate buyers, like BHPhotovideo.
- bluedino 4y ago
  That party could then remove all the Amazon links and replace them with B&H links out of spite.
- shagie 4y ago
  Would you like to buy the backing auth system for DPReview? Alternatively, if you auth on there that you haven't used in a few years, how would you feel about that getting sold to some person in the community or an advertiser (maybe Broadway Photo would like to buy it...)? A decade of some integrations into Amazon - what effort would it take to remove it? While its a loss (and it is a great loss), the possibilities for things to go horribly awry if someone else was to buy it... and the "this is hosted for perpetuity but all of the information is half a decade out of date and kind of embarrassing now" is also a real risk. A transition of ownership comes with some risk and cost for Amazon that is more than the loss of the site to Amazon and a transfer of ownership also has some risks to the community.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    These are reasonable questions, and as someone who is actively running an M&A infosec due diligence effort on the acquiring side (mentioned to demonstrate I am not naive to the effort involved), I’d be interested if Amazon even asked these questions or just said “fuck it turn it off we’re done squeezing it for what it’s worth.” That last part is what I take issue with, and seeing it happen over and over is getting old. But I suppose if you mention the word “goodwill” to Amazon proper, the closest you’ll get it someone seeing if it’s something they sell on the retail side.
    - shagie 4y ago
      I suspect they did (note that this layoff / closing was not part of the initial layoff round) and that the between then and now was considering those questions and their impact. I also suspect that when they got done answering the questions, it came out to be "the cost of trying to sell this to a responsible party and make all the changes to the site to remove integrations (using what is likely a demoralized division of the company) is much more than any possible gains or loss of goodwill."
- polar 4y ago
  > the community Who would that be, exactly?
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  Hey, stop being mean to Jeff Bezos , Amazon only made $14,600,000,000 last year, how is it possible to feed your kids on that kind on money? Have a heart.There’s just no way he could possibly keep DPReview going.
  - twiddling 4y ago
    Someone please think of the tycoons' kids
- WWLink 4y ago
  Amazon exec: "NOPE NOPE! FUCK YOU! Fuck all of you for being part of this community! I want my second yacht and I'm going to fire people and cut services recklessly to get it." Just remember shit like this if you ever get a recruiter contacting you from amazon.
beefman 4y ago
I can't blame Amazon for stopping production on the site. I can blame them for failing to host the existing content in perpetuity.
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  >I can’t blame Amazon for stopping production on the site. But on the other hand, can’t you? Where is the spirit today of someone like Carnegie, who said I’m going to take all this wealth and build thousands of free public libraries? Digital imagery in various forms is the predominant art form in this era, this site is a hub for many practitioners of digital imagery. Could Amazon not see it in themselves as one of the richest corporations ever to serve a patron role in the preservation and continued operation of this site? At the cost of a mere pittance in terms of their overall resources. It’s also surprising to me that Amazon wouldn’t see some level of self interest in that. Fewer people are buying these types of cameras, but more people than ever are consuming the media these types of cameras produce, on Amazon’s platforms, platforms hosted on AWS, and elsewhere. There is definitely a value to the overall media ecosystem in keeping this resource alive. It might not be a highly quantifiable value, but that doesn’t mean it is a low value, quite the opposite I would think. As others have said it just seems a bizarre, shortsighted action, that misses the big picture, coming out of the recent economic panic in the tech industry.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    > Where is the spirit today of someone like Carnegie, who said I’m going to take all this wealth and build thousands of free public libraries? I'm really annoyed that philanthropy is so applauded. Yes, it's nice that a robber baron decides to give some money back, even all of it, but it would have been better for the economy if he didn't monopolize it in the first place. The giving back does not make up for the cost. Microsoft held the computer industry back in a way that was very expensive for many many customers not in the computer industry. Bill Gates shouldn't have done that.
    - jwestbury 4y ago
      Philanthropy is just another way for the ultrarich to bend the world to their will -- they choose where to give money, they nearly always (Mackenzie Scott excluded) choose how the money is spent by recipients. Sometimes this has positive outcomes, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who gained incredible wealth on the backs of others' labour is then using that same wealth to further their own views.
layer8 4y ago
I agree they didn’t "run it into the ground", however the fact that they apparently didn’t look for someone willing to take it over, requiring volunteers to cumbersomely scrape the site now in the short time it’s still up, demonstrates a lack of caring at this point.

stonemetal12 4y ago

How does length of ownership have any bearing on quality of execution?

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Amazon could’ve turned it over to the community, right? Maybe throw in some AWS credits until they could move to a server or two?

nickthegreek 4y ago
Or sold it to someone who wanted to continue to run it. It's value could not have been zero.
- mynegation 4y ago
  Amazon would probably spend more money on lawyers managing the sale than receive from the sale.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    And spending some money in order to not destroy an important knowledge resource may be the right choice especially if the alternative means burning some good will.
- coolandsmartrr 4y ago
  That's what I've been thinking. Why not make some money by selling it to another company instead of just closing it down? There seems to be some companies tailored to photography who may be good candidate buyers, like BHPhotovideo.
bluedino 4y ago
That party could then remove all the Amazon links and replace them with B&H links out of spite.
shagie 4y ago
Would you like to buy the backing auth system for DPReview? Alternatively, if you auth on there that you haven't used in a few years, how would you feel about that getting sold to some person in the community or an advertiser (maybe Broadway Photo would like to buy it...)? A decade of some integrations into Amazon - what effort would it take to remove it? While its a loss (and it is a great loss), the possibilities for things to go horribly awry if someone else was to buy it... and the "this is hosted for perpetuity but all of the information is half a decade out of date and kind of embarrassing now" is also a real risk. A transition of ownership comes with some risk and cost for Amazon that is more than the loss of the site to Amazon and a transfer of ownership also has some risks to the community.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  These are reasonable questions, and as someone who is actively running an M&A infosec due diligence effort on the acquiring side (mentioned to demonstrate I am not naive to the effort involved), I’d be interested if Amazon even asked these questions or just said “fuck it turn it off we’re done squeezing it for what it’s worth.” That last part is what I take issue with, and seeing it happen over and over is getting old. But I suppose if you mention the word “goodwill” to Amazon proper, the closest you’ll get it someone seeing if it’s something they sell on the retail side.
  - shagie 4y ago
    I suspect they did (note that this layoff / closing was not part of the initial layoff round) and that the between then and now was considering those questions and their impact. I also suspect that when they got done answering the questions, it came out to be "the cost of trying to sell this to a responsible party and make all the changes to the site to remove integrations (using what is likely a demoralized division of the company) is much more than any possible gains or loss of goodwill."
polar 4y ago
> the community Who would that be, exactly?
DeathArrow 4y ago
Hey, stop being mean to Jeff Bezos , Amazon only made $14,600,000,000 last year, how is it possible to feed your kids on that kind on money? Have a heart.There’s just no way he could possibly keep DPReview going.
- twiddling 4y ago
  Someone please think of the tycoons' kids
WWLink 4y ago
Amazon exec: "NOPE NOPE! FUCK YOU! Fuck all of you for being part of this community! I want my second yacht and I'm going to fire people and cut services recklessly to get it." Just remember shit like this if you ever get a recruiter contacting you from amazon.

beefman 4y ago

I can't blame Amazon for stopping production on the site. I can blame them for failing to host the existing content in perpetuity.

canoebuilder 4y ago
>I can’t blame Amazon for stopping production on the site. But on the other hand, can’t you? Where is the spirit today of someone like Carnegie, who said I’m going to take all this wealth and build thousands of free public libraries? Digital imagery in various forms is the predominant art form in this era, this site is a hub for many practitioners of digital imagery. Could Amazon not see it in themselves as one of the richest corporations ever to serve a patron role in the preservation and continued operation of this site? At the cost of a mere pittance in terms of their overall resources. It’s also surprising to me that Amazon wouldn’t see some level of self interest in that. Fewer people are buying these types of cameras, but more people than ever are consuming the media these types of cameras produce, on Amazon’s platforms, platforms hosted on AWS, and elsewhere. There is definitely a value to the overall media ecosystem in keeping this resource alive. It might not be a highly quantifiable value, but that doesn’t mean it is a low value, quite the opposite I would think. As others have said it just seems a bizarre, shortsighted action, that misses the big picture, coming out of the recent economic panic in the tech industry.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > Where is the spirit today of someone like Carnegie, who said I’m going to take all this wealth and build thousands of free public libraries? I'm really annoyed that philanthropy is so applauded. Yes, it's nice that a robber baron decides to give some money back, even all of it, but it would have been better for the economy if he didn't monopolize it in the first place. The giving back does not make up for the cost. Microsoft held the computer industry back in a way that was very expensive for many many customers not in the computer industry. Bill Gates shouldn't have done that.
  - jwestbury 4y ago
    Philanthropy is just another way for the ultrarich to bend the world to their will -- they choose where to give money, they nearly always (Mackenzie Scott excluded) choose how the money is spent by recipients. Sometimes this has positive outcomes, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who gained incredible wealth on the backs of others' labour is then using that same wealth to further their own views.

layer8 4y ago

I agree they didn’t "run it into the ground", however the fact that they apparently didn’t look for someone willing to take it over, requiring volunteers to cumbersomely scrape the site now in the short time it’s still up, demonstrates a lack of caring at this point.