4 ms·

And even in consoles, you have the option of never buying one: you can play videogames on PC, on a tablet or on a mobile phone. And now you even have the cloud

And even in consoles, you have the option of never buying one: you can play videogames on PC, on a tablet or on a mobile phone. And now you even have the cloud option with NVIDIA or MS' Game Pass Ultimate. With Amazon however, it's more complicated since they control so many businesses. Visiting a website? Very probably it's hosted on AWS, or on a platform that runs on AWS. Visiting a friend with a smart doorbell thingy? Quite probably an Amazon Ring. Want to buy an e-book to read? Sell your soul to either Apple, Google or Amazon, or other smaller platforms (or pirate the book or buy it physically).

taeric 3y ago
Note that AWS is actually not a part of this lawsuit. So that is mostly not relevant.
- arielcostas 3y ago
  No, but it still is part of Amazon. In fact, as others have commented, AWS helps subsidise parts of the Amazon store that would otherwise result in losses.
  - taeric 3y ago
    But how is it at all relevant to this story? And if it is a vital point, why not get mentioned by the FTC? I don't think there is nothing at all there. However, most of the criticisms you will see in the wild about how AWS pays for retail are almost certainly from ignorance of how retail had to literally seed AWS. And don't take my criticism of that point as some sort of promotion of Amazon. I can be critical of the complaints without having to worship them.
- redwood 3y ago
  Is that explicitly the case? Because the same antics apply to the marketplace and the copying of ecosystem participant services there too..
  - taeric 3y ago
    Is what explicitly the case? The PDF for the allegations of this case are in the link. No mention of AWS.
    - redwood 3y ago
      But Amazon is mentioned and Amazon owns AWS and many of the abuses described with respect to the e-commerce marketplace are also relevant to the AWS marketplace. I hear you on how they are not directly and literally mentioned in the text explicitly however one can understand why there's a thematic overlap and certainly I can imagine if I were AWS I would be sweating right now

taeric 3y ago

Note that AWS is actually not a part of this lawsuit. So that is mostly not relevant.

arielcostas 3y ago
No, but it still is part of Amazon. In fact, as others have commented, AWS helps subsidise parts of the Amazon store that would otherwise result in losses.
- taeric 3y ago
  But how is it at all relevant to this story? And if it is a vital point, why not get mentioned by the FTC? I don't think there is nothing at all there. However, most of the criticisms you will see in the wild about how AWS pays for retail are almost certainly from ignorance of how retail had to literally seed AWS. And don't take my criticism of that point as some sort of promotion of Amazon. I can be critical of the complaints without having to worship them.
redwood 3y ago
Is that explicitly the case? Because the same antics apply to the marketplace and the copying of ecosystem participant services there too..
- taeric 3y ago
  Is what explicitly the case? The PDF for the allegations of this case are in the link. No mention of AWS.
  - redwood 3y ago
    But Amazon is mentioned and Amazon owns AWS and many of the abuses described with respect to the e-commerce marketplace are also relevant to the AWS marketplace. I hear you on how they are not directly and literally mentioned in the text explicitly however one can understand why there's a thematic overlap and certainly I can imagine if I were AWS I would be sweating right now