3 ms·

how much of that stack is proprietary?

by ashot 18y ago

rjurney 18y ago
Every single technology they've built on here is open: 'PC hardware', Xen, Linux, Java, Hadoop, HTML, SOAP, Javascript, Web Services. The unique components are their grid technology and interface and that they have wrapped it all as a reliable, easy to use and all around great product. Thats why Amazon is so incredibly smart: they maximumize use of open source to create unique and valuable offerings that solve fundamental pain. Last week doing hadoop computes was a pain in the ass. This week its not. Value. This is the most amazing thing going, Amazon is leading the market and continuously innovating, and you don't buy it because of 'switching costs.' Tell me the truth: do you have or are you studying for your MBA?
- ashot 18y ago
  thats my point, its all based on an open stack. so while innovative and important (i no longer use my regular host) its reproducible. In fact there are already several players converging on this space (slicehost et al, appengine). Long term this business is analogous to the hosting business: low margin and commoditized. is it a market? yes. Is it a big market? no. Why? because there is no lock-in. If you can't understand this consider the scenario where 5 or 10 years from now Amazon is providing the infrastructure for 20% of the web, taking in 20% margins above the cost to operate the data centers and making a hefty profit. What stops Microsoft or Google or any other player for that matter from getting in on the action by undercutting them in price? If you look at any (amazon scale) money maker online there is some sort of lock-in involved which is central to their business. Most often its a network effect of some kind. Go ahead, go down the list of the top 10 web companies and take a look yourself. Just because something is technologically cool does not mean its going to make enough money to be significant to amazon's bottom line. Also don't insult people if you can't grasp what they are saying.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    What is Google's lock in? Anyone is free to write a better search engine and buy a bunch of hardware to throw at the problem. The switching cost is typing a different URL to search, or configuring your browser search box to use that engine. The "write a better search engine" part is not easy, and Google's algorithms are proprietary, but their success is not really a network effect, is it? Also, saying Amazon is providing "infrastructure" implies they are going to deliver their current product then stop. But they can continue to build higher levels on top of what they already have. Maybe next will be algorithms baked into Hadoop, so you can throw your data at it without writing any of your own code. They can keep building up like this indefinitely. If Microsoft had released the first version of Windows and stopped, it would have become a commodity eventually (even with network effects).
    - rjurney 18y ago
      Cloudburst is the RMAP genetic search algorithm - and it is baked in already.
    - ashot 18y ago
      Sorry, I hate to be that guy and keep arguing, but I'll just say google does not fit here at all because: 1. there are huge up-front costs and a lot of IP to building a competing search engine (not the case here) 2. google is a consumer company where brand and user behavior are important (not the case here). 3. most importantly, they make their money with an ad network which has network effects and where they charge enormous margins you'll notice in all the discussions between yhoo/msft the most important thing for both companies is their ownership share of the search ad network. this is key to the bottom line and long term relevance and its why you see proposals along the lines of we'll give you a bunch of money and a guarantee of a portion of revenues in exchange for ownership of your network The point on rising above infrastructure only applies if they begin adding some sort of ip or secret sauce. Then they can get network effects if they have people building on a platform that is not easy to replicate, but we've seen nothing like that. Hadoop is not that. You can install hadoop on your own machine today if you want: http://hadoop.apache.org/core/docs/current/quickstart.html http://hadoop.apache.org/core/docs/current/quickstart.html I understand thats harder and thats why consumers are using them, but its not hard in the sense of competing business. In fact most large web companies _already_ do all of this stuff internally.
  - dmv 18y ago
    In making this argument, you've missed the point of Amazon vs Google/Microsoft. From http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-05/mf_amazon?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-05/mf_amazon?cur...: Bezos doesn't disagree. "I'd be surprised if no one else does this," he says, pausing for effect. "It's a really good idea!" And there may be an ace up his sleeve. Any economist will tell you that a commodity business -- storing and processing data, for instance -- is a mug's game, with prices that plunge inevitably toward the cost of production (in the case of bits, pretty close to zero). That's music to Bezos' ears. "Commodity businesses don't scare us," he says. "We're experts at them. We've never had 35 or 40 percent margins like most tech companies."

how much of that stack is proprietary?

by ashot 18y ago

how much of that stack is proprietary?

Every single technology they've built on here is open: 'PC hardware', Xen, Linux, Java, Hadoop, HTML, SOAP, Javascript, Web Services. The unique components are their grid technology and interface and that they have wrapped it all as a reliable, easy to use and all around great product. Thats why Amazon is so incredibly smart: they maximumize use of open source to create unique and valuable offerings that solve fundamental pain. Last week doing hadoop computes was a pain in the ass. This week its not. Value. This is the most amazing thing going, Amazon is leading the market and continuously innovating, and you don't buy it because of 'switching costs.' Tell me the truth: do you have or are you studying for your MBA?

ashot 18y ago
thats my point, its all based on an open stack. so while innovative and important (i no longer use my regular host) its reproducible. In fact there are already several players converging on this space (slicehost et al, appengine). Long term this business is analogous to the hosting business: low margin and commoditized. is it a market? yes. Is it a big market? no. Why? because there is no lock-in. If you can't understand this consider the scenario where 5 or 10 years from now Amazon is providing the infrastructure for 20% of the web, taking in 20% margins above the cost to operate the data centers and making a hefty profit. What stops Microsoft or Google or any other player for that matter from getting in on the action by undercutting them in price? If you look at any (amazon scale) money maker online there is some sort of lock-in involved which is central to their business. Most often its a network effect of some kind. Go ahead, go down the list of the top 10 web companies and take a look yourself. Just because something is technologically cool does not mean its going to make enough money to be significant to amazon's bottom line. Also don't insult people if you can't grasp what they are saying.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  What is Google's lock in? Anyone is free to write a better search engine and buy a bunch of hardware to throw at the problem. The switching cost is typing a different URL to search, or configuring your browser search box to use that engine. The "write a better search engine" part is not easy, and Google's algorithms are proprietary, but their success is not really a network effect, is it? Also, saying Amazon is providing "infrastructure" implies they are going to deliver their current product then stop. But they can continue to build higher levels on top of what they already have. Maybe next will be algorithms baked into Hadoop, so you can throw your data at it without writing any of your own code. They can keep building up like this indefinitely. If Microsoft had released the first version of Windows and stopped, it would have become a commodity eventually (even with network effects).
  - rjurney 18y ago
    Cloudburst is the RMAP genetic search algorithm - and it is baked in already.
  - ashot 18y ago
    Sorry, I hate to be that guy and keep arguing, but I'll just say google does not fit here at all because: 1. there are huge up-front costs and a lot of IP to building a competing search engine (not the case here) 2. google is a consumer company where brand and user behavior are important (not the case here). 3. most importantly, they make their money with an ad network which has network effects and where they charge enormous margins you'll notice in all the discussions between yhoo/msft the most important thing for both companies is their ownership share of the search ad network. this is key to the bottom line and long term relevance and its why you see proposals along the lines of we'll give you a bunch of money and a guarantee of a portion of revenues in exchange for ownership of your network The point on rising above infrastructure only applies if they begin adding some sort of ip or secret sauce. Then they can get network effects if they have people building on a platform that is not easy to replicate, but we've seen nothing like that. Hadoop is not that. You can install hadoop on your own machine today if you want: http://hadoop.apache.org/core/docs/current/quickstart.html http://hadoop.apache.org/core/docs/current/quickstart.html I understand thats harder and thats why consumers are using them, but its not hard in the sense of competing business. In fact most large web companies _already_ do all of this stuff internally.
- dmv 18y ago
  In making this argument, you've missed the point of Amazon vs Google/Microsoft. From http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-05/mf_amazon?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-05/mf_amazon?cur...: Bezos doesn't disagree. "I'd be surprised if no one else does this," he says, pausing for effect. "It's a really good idea!" And there may be an ace up his sleeve. Any economist will tell you that a commodity business -- storing and processing data, for instance -- is a mug's game, with prices that plunge inevitably toward the cost of production (in the case of bits, pretty close to zero). That's music to Bezos' ears. "Commodity businesses don't scare us," he says. "We're experts at them. We've never had 35 or 40 percent margins like most tech companies."