3 ms·

I dont know if Amazons market balance is sufficiently altered by just severing AWS.

• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > dont know if Amazons market balance is sufficiently altered by just severing AWS I don't either. Hence the caution. The deference to the status quo. It would be a mistake to over-sever and destroy a valuable, value-producing business out of haste. Perhaps the other legs' enduring advantage is merely an artifact of cheap internal capital. Perhaps not.
  • Aloha 3y ago
    My understanding of antitrust law is that's not a prime consideration.
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > that's not a prime consideration I don't have a deep understanding of the law in this matter. But I have seen the sustainability of units spun off as part of merger approvals discussed in court cases. (Counterfactual: Internet Explorer not being a viable standalone business wasn't a valid defence by Microsoft.)
• NBJack 3y ago
  It would hurt them a lot. I mean a lot a lot. But maybe not in the way some think it will. Look back historically at when AWS details were suddenly included in the market earnings around 2015. I encourage you to draw your own conclusions, but I'm convinced they made such a move to keep investors happy despite the economic reality of razor thin profit margins in retail. Then there's how much of Amazon retail is actually powered by AWS.
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Retail is a low single digit profit margin business, as evidenced by many publicly listed retailers financial reports going back decades. Scalable software is a high profit margin business. AWS is not subsidizing Amazon retail and logistics. AWS and Amazon video and other digital products is why Amazon is worth $1.3T while Walmart is worth $428B. The profits are in the digital products.