3 ms·
Personally, I agree with you. That said, the current argument is that because AWS is part of Amazon at large, it can gain undue advantage by being subsidized b
by alephnerd 2y ago
Personally, I agree with you.
That said, the current argument is that because AWS is part of Amazon at large, it can gain undue advantage by being subsidized by other organizations in Amazon, and forgo profits in order to gain a controlling share in an industry.
This is basically Lina Khan's whole argument [0]
I personally don't subscribe to this argument as a major reason for AWS's dominance compared to Azure in the early 2010s was because of stronger execution (lots of training sessions, evangelization, some truly cutting edge architecture) and better product-market fit, but Hipster Anti-Trust assumes a bunch of smallish companies competing with each other can result in a similar outcome (hence why VCs like Thiel, Horowitz, and Andressen tended to support scholars affiliated to the New Brandeis Movement)
[0] - https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...
- rapsey 2y agoBut you could say the exact same thing about Azure, GCP, Oracle cloud and others.
- alephnerd 2y agoHence why I said I personally don't agree with the New Brandeis Movement argument, and is something that Amazon's lawyers will absolutely bring up. Some of the more "fundamentalist" members of that movement want de facto single product companies, with little to no consolidation/M&A. Hypothetically good if you assume small players can compete optimally, but in action this absolutely means significant inefficiencies, at least in the tech industry because all small players inevitabely try to become large players in order to optimize on margins via economies of scale.