5 ms·

Apple Iphone, airpods, ipad, macbook. Google search. Coke. Boeing. Caterpillar. Goldman Sachs. AirBnB. Exxon. AutoDesk. BlackRock. CME. Costco. JP Morgan Chase.

Apple Iphone, airpods, ipad, macbook. Google search. Coke. Boeing. Caterpillar. Goldman Sachs. AirBnB. Exxon. AutoDesk. BlackRock. CME. Costco. JP Morgan Chase. Mastercard, Visa, Nike, TSMC and a thousand others. They started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.

thghtihadanacct 3y ago
Those are good ones but i was thinking of local stuff like grocery (which they tried and are currently failing) and gas (not that i use it). Also, real services like plumbing, electric, vehicle maint. ... Angies list got that corner ;)
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  The list is extremely long as you say. Amazon isn't good at much except cheap third party stuff made by contract manufacturers in china, books, and AWS.
eru 3y ago
How did Goldman Sachs '[start] out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors'? Or am I misunderstanding you?
- whoknew1122 3y ago
  The 'they' here is Amazon. This is how it should be read: "Amazon started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Bad use of pronouns on my part. As another comment pointed out, I should have written "Amazon".
  - eru 3y ago
    OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.
BizarroLand 3y ago
Most people responded by providing a logical response to my argument while discarding the semantics. Semantically, what company that (Relies on Amazon to operate) couldn't they destroy on a whim?
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  That's pretty circular. To the extent any company, A, relies on company B to operate, A can be destroyed by B, according the definition of "rely". So the logical response wasn't to assume you were being circular. The logical response was to assume you were inferring Amazon is big enough and capable enough to squash any business.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    And yet it is obvious in retrospect that I didn't mean entirely independent multi-billion dollar empires, but that is the response everyone went with.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      It clearly wasn't obvious to most given the responses.
      - BizarroLand 3y ago
        Maybe not to you

thghtihadanacct 3y ago

Those are good ones but i was thinking of local stuff like grocery (which they tried and are currently failing) and gas (not that i use it). Also, real services like plumbing, electric, vehicle maint. ... Angies list got that corner ;)

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
The list is extremely long as you say. Amazon isn't good at much except cheap third party stuff made by contract manufacturers in china, books, and AWS.

eru 3y ago

How did Goldman Sachs '[start] out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors'? Or am I misunderstanding you?

whoknew1122 3y ago
The 'they' here is Amazon. This is how it should be read: "Amazon started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Bad use of pronouns on my part. As another comment pointed out, I should have written "Amazon".
- eru 3y ago
  OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

BizarroLand 3y ago

Most people responded by providing a logical response to my argument while discarding the semantics. Semantically, what company that (Relies on Amazon to operate) couldn't they destroy on a whim?

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
That's pretty circular. To the extent any company, A, relies on company B to operate, A can be destroyed by B, according the definition of "rely". So the logical response wasn't to assume you were being circular. The logical response was to assume you were inferring Amazon is big enough and capable enough to squash any business.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  And yet it is obvious in retrospect that I didn't mean entirely independent multi-billion dollar empires, but that is the response everyone went with.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    It clearly wasn't obvious to most given the responses.
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      Maybe not to you