6 ms·

The 800 Pound Gorilla Amazon Tried to Kill is Google's Trojan Horse

49 points by tipsy 13y ago

btilly 13y ago
It is worthwhile to pay attention to history. Internet shopping has a good historical analog. Mail order catalogs. It took a long time for things to settle down, but eventually everyone wound up with both mailorder and retail outlets. Even the 800 pound gorilla of mailorder, Sears Roebuck, became a hybrid. It took decades before they opened their first store, but today it is mostly known as a chain of department stores. I am sure that the same will eventually happen to Amazon. However not for a long time.
- ippisl 13y ago
  Mail order catalogs never offered the opportunity to transcend the experience at a store. Digital experiences do theoretically offer that possibility. One example is using virtual augmented reality to see how that shoe rack will look in you're home, how does it combines with your wall and floor colors, etc. And this "digital better than real" has already started todat. Some high quality furniture retailers or hotels(forgot which) ,use computer generated models for their catalogs, not carpentry and photography.
  - btilly 13y ago
    I agree that web sites do more than mail order did. And can do more in the future. But the fundamental similarity is there in the convenient to buy / don't get to physically interact / slow to arrive vs having to go to a specific place / get to physically interact / walk out with the item you want minutes later. Also I remember my mother taking out a catalog, putting the picture of the thing she wanted in the place she wanted it, then standing back to better imagine how its colors would fit in. That is a valuable feature that you can't get in a store. (Things do look different in different lighting.)
    - ippisl 13y ago
      1. convenient to buy - online will probably win , i think. From my personal perspective it's more convenient now for many products. 2. don't get to physically interact - most products don't need physical interaction , just visual one. And there's haptic feedback tech if needed. 3. slow to arrive - online is improving(1 day shipping, maybe better for a fee) and will be good enough for most cases. And remember:store depend on volumes to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Once online takes enough market share from them, they'll might collapse under their own weight. Some even start to see this happening in financial statements of big retailers.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    "Mail order catalogs never offered the opportunity to transcend the experience at a store." Mail-order catalogs historically played a very important part in the life of rural Americans. You could even buy a house via mail order. Even when it became possible to travel to a store easily, mail order catalogs still offered one thing that stores didn't: time. You could spend hours, even days poring over your catalog, analyzing and obsessing. Every kid assembled his Christmas wish list from the Sears Christmas catalog, even urban kids.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Mixed metaphors, n=1, and the shock of the new. The interesting thing here is that Google seems competitive on item choice and offers Amazon some meaningful competition.
famousactress 13y ago
TL/DR: I (would have) used this new google shopping thing (once) and would have saved money, except for shipping. Amazon better be terrified. Sheesh. Not that Google's tool doesn't have merit, it might.. but we'll have to wait for someone to write an article worth reading. This is silly.
- yid 13y ago
  In fairness, he saved almost $3.
  - famousactress 13y ago
    Well in actual fairness, he did not because he didn't purchase anything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- dggrjx 13y ago
  Agreed. This was poorly written and he compared apples and oranges. The shoe rack with thinner cutout pieces should be expected to cost more than the blocky solid MDF shoe rack. Uninformative blog post, OP.
umsm 13y ago
I don't think that the author is really comparing apples to apples. The products are different and the prices are different. That being said, most of the time when comparing amazon to local retailers, I notice the price is almost identical, except for tax.
- enthalpyx 13y ago
  Especially when the author could actually do an apple-to-apples comparison. The shoe organizer that cost $18 at Google (with shipping) is $16 at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0
  - jason_shah 13y ago
    Free shipping on both products puts it at $13.24 on Google [1] and $16.17 on Amazon [2]. But yes, my post could have been much more objective and scientific. [1] Google https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_product_1.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_pro... [2] Amazon https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_product_1.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_produ...
msg 13y ago
The article does not compare apples to apples unfortunately. The author compares buying a shoe rack on Google Shopping Express to buying on Amazon. He is impressed that a plywood laminated shoe rack sourced by Target is only $12 while a bamboo shoe rack on Amazon is $20, and makes much of imagining, zomg-like, 50% savings on his Amazon purchases over the year. If you look at the same Amazon search results page where the author finds the bamboo rack, there is a serviceable resin rack for $13 (the author is obviously not going high-end with his plywood one). Four results down from his bamboo rack is a natural wood rack for under $16. The real gorilla horse in the room is that the author goes on to lament $5 shipping for Google, which swamps any savings he was getting by going with inferior product. "Now, Google has to make sure its free delivery thing becomes well adopted the way Amazon Prime was, because the $4.99 delivery was a non-starter for me, and ruined the economics." Twist ending?
- bpicolo 13y ago
  Yeah. So Amazon didn't sell that particular shoe rack. I don't see a story here.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Scroll down further. The author found the same laminated shoe rack on Amazon for $16.17, and notes that having a Shopping membership (equivalent to Amazon Prime membership) removes the shipping fee. That means that a price comparison of the same product was $16.17 vs $13.24. Personally I think fretting over three dollars on a shoerack is a bit silly, since the shoes it's holding will each be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the rack. Also relevant: http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_...
nostromo 13y ago
If I was Amazon I'd be more worried about self-driving cars. Self-driving cars will make natural delivery vehicles. If Google partnered with local retailers to provide check-out via wallet and delivery via automated cars, it would disrupt more than just Amazon. Google has all of the nascent building blocks in place: Google Wallet, Google Shopping Express, Google Shopping, Google Maps with StreetView for routing, automated vehicles, and, of course, eyeballs.
- aylons 13y ago
  Ahn? I think a self-driving car would still need someone to carry the product from the car to the door, or am I missing something?
  - yid 13y ago
    Rumors are that Google is testing a grocery-delivery bipedal robot that can climb stairs, use the elevator, etc.
    - briancaw2 13y ago
      I envy the teenagers of the future. They are going to have such wonderful targets of vandalism and destruction. However, it will make sad when Google adds defense mechanisms to the robots and skynet goes live.
    - jeremyjh 13y ago
      Yes and if it gets stumped it could alert a remote operator who could take over and figure out what to do. They don't have to handle every corner case if they have an escape hatch like that.
    - yoster 13y ago
      This will open up all types of theft. Camera on the robot? No problem, that mask and spray paint will clear that problem right up. Not to mention all the kids who will definitely be pushing this over for fun....
  - 13y ago
aroch 13y ago
OP appears to be extrapolating his money savings incorrectly? They base their savings off of one purchase and its cost difference. There are a ton of things I buy off Amazon that are significantly cheaper than big box stores, most of them electronics / audio related.
ljd 13y ago
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0
- wheaties 13y ago
  With shipping Google is now more expensive. Author needs to realize that prices fluctuate on Amazon.
acturbo 13y ago
quote from the article: "I’d pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience (and corresponding delay) in going to a physical store, like Target." i stopped reading after that.
- bluedino 13y ago
  Exactly. The level of disconnect is concerning. Most people are shopping at Target or Walmart because things are 20% cheaper there.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    For bulk purchases like groceries, that's great. If you're buying $12 worth of stuff, heading to the store is a waste of expensive gas.
- untog 13y ago
  The highly-paid, tech sector bubble rears its head again. None of these systems will ever be mainstream if it involves a 20% premium, let alone 50%.
- touristtam 13y ago
  I do the opposite to the author; shopping online where I can not see and/or try the product because it is cheaper. Even the big supermarket like Wallmart, in the UK (ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury and Co.) often fail short of having the best offers in-store.
mayank 13y ago
There is an important point that is being missed, which is the main reason I haven't used Shopping Express: Google Shopping Express: schedule a window for delivery, during which you have to be at home. Amazon Prime: I pick it up at my convenience from my mailbox.
- fatjokes 13y ago
  This makes it ideal for cities like NYC, where most people do not have doormen to receive packages and thus need to be home to sign for them. Being able to schedule a window for delivery would be most useful, rather than having to be home when the mailman comes.
- tjohns 13y ago
  I've been using Shopping Express for a while now, and can say that's definitely not true. Many of my deliveries have arrived while I'm at work. When you place an order, there's a checkbox to indicate whether you want to require a signature, and a blank field for delivery instructions. It's up to you: if you don't request a signature, they'll happily leave your order wherever you ask them to. (UPS/FedEx, on the other hand, will just leave a delivery note on my door. Depending on how risk-averse the sender and driver are feeling that day, I can sometimes leave a signature for the next delivery attempt.)
runako 13y ago
Next post: Google customer service vs. Amazon customer service.
- yoster 13y ago
  Everyone knows how that would turn out...
youngerdryas 13y ago
>I’d pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience This guy is clearly an outlier and not suitable to use for judging ecommerce decisions.
pesenti 13y ago
Interesting subject. I just wish the author had done a deeper study. One user, one product bought = one article written. Wow, the standard for internet writing is really low...
adventured 13y ago
Anytime an article claims company X is going to own ecommerce, you can almost stop reading right there. Did you know Microsoft was going to own ecommerce too? Yep, throughout much of the early to late 1990s, it was a common statement. Magazines ran stupid cover stories proclaiming Microsoft would dominate ecommerce. And a modern interface (re: Google)? What does that even mean. Like how Craiglist has suffered immensely because it doesn't have a supposed modern interface? It's a laughable statement. Just another indication the writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Consumers don't care about what some designer may think is a so-called modern interface. Consumers care about an interface being simple, fast loading, easy to use, etc. Amazon does a great job at that; they've compacted millions of products down to a single search bar and a drop down nav that is very easy to use. The extrapolation the author makes about saving $2k to $5k per year is silly in nature. Complete nonsense. It ignores whether one product is superior to the other, such that one is more expensive / cheaper. It ignores consumer demand, dictating higher or lower prices. It ignores supply of the product influencing pricing. Personally I liked the bamboo shoe shelf and would rather pay $20 for it than $12 for the other one that I didn't like. The author didn't even bother to actually compare products. The caveat at the bottom nullifies the entire point of the post.
leef 13y ago
This might be nice for one off orders of brand name items but it doesn't look to really challenge Amazon or any e-retailer that manages its own inventory. There are at least two main issues I see: 1) Selection - It’s easy to sell the popular stuff. It’s hard to sell the tail of demand. Aggregating together big box retailers can never compete on selection. People want to order things together, from the same place. Selection is crucial. 2) Supply Chain - It’s hard enough to have an effective supply chain when all the inventory is under your control. It will be nearly impossible to deal with N retailers supply chain systems - inventory availability, location, cross-company orders, etc and be efficient enough to make a buck. Unless Google is willing to physically get in the game and manage some warehouses I don’t see this being much of a threat although it might provide some nice competition for next and same day orders.
- ippisl 13y ago
  If amazon's big plan is to gain a monopoly like status , which many investors think it is, this competition and price erosion is a big threat both to future amazon and it's current investors. And hurting the stock is a good way as any to hurt a company.
yoster 13y ago
When Google Shopping Express can offer two day shipping to the entire country, then I will be impressed. Why is the author comparing two different products that are not even made of the same material? I can go buy a faux leather wallet for $5, and turn around and buy a $100 quality leather wallet somewhere else. When it comes to wood, if you want cheap, you can get cheap. When you buy cabinets for your house, you do not go with the cheap particle board, you go with the solid wood. Google is great in many things, but when it comes to customer service, Amazon wins hands down any day of the week.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
I'll post this here, since his site would not let anonymous posting go forward (might be a discuss issue). > Ouch, this is a really sad comment on Harvard these days; I'd be ashamed if a 14 year old made this qualitative vrs quantitative category mistake. (Which you since fixed, but please - it should never have been written). Try looking into GOOGs shipping network, and compare it against AMZNs. Since we have long term data on AMZNs model (including $775 mil on a robot production facility): 1) Is GOOG outsourcing or doing this internally? 1a) If not, who are they using? 1b) If they are, where is the spend in their yearly budget reports? (Not seeing it) 2) Can they match the coverage that AMZN has? 3) Can they match the volume that AMZN has? 4) Can they hope to catch up before AMZN makes the robot jump it's planning? And so on. You're almost an adult - try to analyze the world a little closer, you're allegedly the elite of America. Is HN really this naive? This is terrible, if this was from an Oxford or Cambridge student - well, sorry, I'd hope they couldn't produce this level of immature nonsense. And yes, I suspect you'll "down vote" - but sometimes a short sharp slap should be required. Oh, and the heavy use of trackers is both intrusive and unnecessary for a private site. You're not providing any service, barring selling yourself, which should again make you pause at the "whys" of using the trackers you are.

49 points by tipsy 13y ago

It is worthwhile to pay attention to history. Internet shopping has a good historical analog. Mail order catalogs. It took a long time for things to settle down, but eventually everyone wound up with both mailorder and retail outlets. Even the 800 pound gorilla of mailorder, Sears Roebuck, became a hybrid. It took decades before they opened their first store, but today it is mostly known as a chain of department stores. I am sure that the same will eventually happen to Amazon. However not for a long time.

ippisl 13y ago
Mail order catalogs never offered the opportunity to transcend the experience at a store. Digital experiences do theoretically offer that possibility. One example is using virtual augmented reality to see how that shoe rack will look in you're home, how does it combines with your wall and floor colors, etc. And this "digital better than real" has already started todat. Some high quality furniture retailers or hotels(forgot which) ,use computer generated models for their catalogs, not carpentry and photography.
- btilly 13y ago
  I agree that web sites do more than mail order did. And can do more in the future. But the fundamental similarity is there in the convenient to buy / don't get to physically interact / slow to arrive vs having to go to a specific place / get to physically interact / walk out with the item you want minutes later. Also I remember my mother taking out a catalog, putting the picture of the thing she wanted in the place she wanted it, then standing back to better imagine how its colors would fit in. That is a valuable feature that you can't get in a store. (Things do look different in different lighting.)
  - ippisl 13y ago
    1. convenient to buy - online will probably win , i think. From my personal perspective it's more convenient now for many products. 2. don't get to physically interact - most products don't need physical interaction , just visual one. And there's haptic feedback tech if needed. 3. slow to arrive - online is improving(1 day shipping, maybe better for a fee) and will be good enough for most cases. And remember:store depend on volumes to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Once online takes enough market share from them, they'll might collapse under their own weight. Some even start to see this happening in financial statements of big retailers.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  "Mail order catalogs never offered the opportunity to transcend the experience at a store." Mail-order catalogs historically played a very important part in the life of rural Americans. You could even buy a house via mail order. Even when it became possible to travel to a store easily, mail order catalogs still offered one thing that stores didn't: time. You could spend hours, even days poring over your catalog, analyzing and obsessing. Every kid assembled his Christmas wish list from the Sears Christmas catalog, even urban kids.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Mixed metaphors, n=1, and the shock of the new. The interesting thing here is that Google seems competitive on item choice and offers Amazon some meaningful competition.

famousactress 13y ago

TL/DR: I (would have) used this new google shopping thing (once) and would have saved money, except for shipping. Amazon better be terrified. Sheesh. Not that Google's tool doesn't have merit, it might.. but we'll have to wait for someone to write an article worth reading. This is silly.

yid 13y ago
In fairness, he saved almost $3.
- famousactress 13y ago
  Well in actual fairness, he did not because he didn't purchase anything.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
dggrjx 13y ago
Agreed. This was poorly written and he compared apples and oranges. The shoe rack with thinner cutout pieces should be expected to cost more than the blocky solid MDF shoe rack. Uninformative blog post, OP.

umsm 13y ago

I don't think that the author is really comparing apples to apples. The products are different and the prices are different. That being said, most of the time when comparing amazon to local retailers, I notice the price is almost identical, except for tax.

enthalpyx 13y ago
Especially when the author could actually do an apple-to-apples comparison. The shoe organizer that cost $18 at Google (with shipping) is $16 at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0
- jason_shah 13y ago
  Free shipping on both products puts it at $13.24 on Google [1] and $16.17 on Amazon [2]. But yes, my post could have been much more objective and scientific. [1] Google https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_product_1.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_pro... [2] Amazon https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_product_1.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_produ...

msg 13y ago

The article does not compare apples to apples unfortunately. The author compares buying a shoe rack on Google Shopping Express to buying on Amazon. He is impressed that a plywood laminated shoe rack sourced by Target is only $12 while a bamboo shoe rack on Amazon is $20, and makes much of imagining, zomg-like, 50% savings on his Amazon purchases over the year. If you look at the same Amazon search results page where the author finds the bamboo rack, there is a serviceable resin rack for $13 (the author is obviously not going high-end with his plywood one). Four results down from his bamboo rack is a natural wood rack for under $16. The real gorilla horse in the room is that the author goes on to lament $5 shipping for Google, which swamps any savings he was getting by going with inferior product. "Now, Google has to make sure its free delivery thing becomes well adopted the way Amazon Prime was, because the $4.99 delivery was a non-starter for me, and ruined the economics." Twist ending?

bpicolo 13y ago
Yeah. So Amazon didn't sell that particular shoe rack. I don't see a story here.
jmillikin 13y ago
Scroll down further. The author found the same laminated shoe rack on Amazon for $16.17, and notes that having a Shopping membership (equivalent to Amazon Prime membership) removes the shipping fee. That means that a price comparison of the same product was $16.17 vs $13.24. Personally I think fretting over three dollars on a shoerack is a bit silly, since the shoes it's holding will each be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the rack. Also relevant: http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_...

nostromo 13y ago

If I was Amazon I'd be more worried about self-driving cars. Self-driving cars will make natural delivery vehicles. If Google partnered with local retailers to provide check-out via wallet and delivery via automated cars, it would disrupt more than just Amazon. Google has all of the nascent building blocks in place: Google Wallet, Google Shopping Express, Google Shopping, Google Maps with StreetView for routing, automated vehicles, and, of course, eyeballs.

aylons 13y ago
Ahn? I think a self-driving car would still need someone to carry the product from the car to the door, or am I missing something?
- yid 13y ago
  Rumors are that Google is testing a grocery-delivery bipedal robot that can climb stairs, use the elevator, etc.
  - briancaw2 13y ago
    I envy the teenagers of the future. They are going to have such wonderful targets of vandalism and destruction. However, it will make sad when Google adds defense mechanisms to the robots and skynet goes live.
  - jeremyjh 13y ago
    Yes and if it gets stumped it could alert a remote operator who could take over and figure out what to do. They don't have to handle every corner case if they have an escape hatch like that.
  - yoster 13y ago
    This will open up all types of theft. Camera on the robot? No problem, that mask and spray paint will clear that problem right up. Not to mention all the kids who will definitely be pushing this over for fun....
- 13y ago

aroch 13y ago

OP appears to be extrapolating his money savings incorrectly? They base their savings off of one purchase and its cost difference. There are a ton of things I buy off Amazon that are significantly cheaper than big box stores, most of them electronics / audio related.

ljd 13y ago

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0

wheaties 13y ago
With shipping Google is now more expensive. Author needs to realize that prices fluctuate on Amazon.

acturbo 13y ago

quote from the article: "I’d pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience (and corresponding delay) in going to a physical store, like Target." i stopped reading after that.

bluedino 13y ago
Exactly. The level of disconnect is concerning. Most people are shopping at Target or Walmart because things are 20% cheaper there.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  For bulk purchases like groceries, that's great. If you're buying $12 worth of stuff, heading to the store is a waste of expensive gas.
untog 13y ago
The highly-paid, tech sector bubble rears its head again. None of these systems will ever be mainstream if it involves a 20% premium, let alone 50%.
touristtam 13y ago
I do the opposite to the author; shopping online where I can not see and/or try the product because it is cheaper. Even the big supermarket like Wallmart, in the UK (ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury and Co.) often fail short of having the best offers in-store.

mayank 13y ago

There is an important point that is being missed, which is the main reason I haven't used Shopping Express: Google Shopping Express: schedule a window for delivery, during which you have to be at home. Amazon Prime: I pick it up at my convenience from my mailbox.

fatjokes 13y ago
This makes it ideal for cities like NYC, where most people do not have doormen to receive packages and thus need to be home to sign for them. Being able to schedule a window for delivery would be most useful, rather than having to be home when the mailman comes.
tjohns 13y ago
I've been using Shopping Express for a while now, and can say that's definitely not true. Many of my deliveries have arrived while I'm at work. When you place an order, there's a checkbox to indicate whether you want to require a signature, and a blank field for delivery instructions. It's up to you: if you don't request a signature, they'll happily leave your order wherever you ask them to. (UPS/FedEx, on the other hand, will just leave a delivery note on my door. Depending on how risk-averse the sender and driver are feeling that day, I can sometimes leave a signature for the next delivery attempt.)

runako 13y ago

Next post: Google customer service vs. Amazon customer service.

yoster 13y ago
Everyone knows how that would turn out...

youngerdryas 13y ago

>I’d pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience This guy is clearly an outlier and not suitable to use for judging ecommerce decisions.

pesenti 13y ago

Interesting subject. I just wish the author had done a deeper study. One user, one product bought = one article written. Wow, the standard for internet writing is really low...

adventured 13y ago

Anytime an article claims company X is going to own ecommerce, you can almost stop reading right there. Did you know Microsoft was going to own ecommerce too? Yep, throughout much of the early to late 1990s, it was a common statement. Magazines ran stupid cover stories proclaiming Microsoft would dominate ecommerce. And a modern interface (re: Google)? What does that even mean. Like how Craiglist has suffered immensely because it doesn't have a supposed modern interface? It's a laughable statement. Just another indication the writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Consumers don't care about what some designer may think is a so-called modern interface. Consumers care about an interface being simple, fast loading, easy to use, etc. Amazon does a great job at that; they've compacted millions of products down to a single search bar and a drop down nav that is very easy to use. The extrapolation the author makes about saving $2k to $5k per year is silly in nature. Complete nonsense. It ignores whether one product is superior to the other, such that one is more expensive / cheaper. It ignores consumer demand, dictating higher or lower prices. It ignores supply of the product influencing pricing. Personally I liked the bamboo shoe shelf and would rather pay $20 for it than $12 for the other one that I didn't like. The author didn't even bother to actually compare products. The caveat at the bottom nullifies the entire point of the post.

leef 13y ago

This might be nice for one off orders of brand name items but it doesn't look to really challenge Amazon or any e-retailer that manages its own inventory. There are at least two main issues I see: 1) Selection - It’s easy to sell the popular stuff. It’s hard to sell the tail of demand. Aggregating together big box retailers can never compete on selection. People want to order things together, from the same place. Selection is crucial. 2) Supply Chain - It’s hard enough to have an effective supply chain when all the inventory is under your control. It will be nearly impossible to deal with N retailers supply chain systems - inventory availability, location, cross-company orders, etc and be efficient enough to make a buck. Unless Google is willing to physically get in the game and manage some warehouses I don’t see this being much of a threat although it might provide some nice competition for next and same day orders.

ippisl 13y ago
If amazon's big plan is to gain a monopoly like status , which many investors think it is, this competition and price erosion is a big threat both to future amazon and it's current investors. And hurting the stock is a good way as any to hurt a company.

yoster 13y ago

When Google Shopping Express can offer two day shipping to the entire country, then I will be impressed. Why is the author comparing two different products that are not even made of the same material? I can go buy a faux leather wallet for $5, and turn around and buy a $100 quality leather wallet somewhere else. When it comes to wood, if you want cheap, you can get cheap. When you buy cabinets for your house, you do not go with the cheap particle board, you go with the solid wood. Google is great in many things, but when it comes to customer service, Amazon wins hands down any day of the week.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Helpful_Bunny 13y ago

I'll post this here, since his site would not let anonymous posting go forward (might be a discuss issue). > Ouch, this is a really sad comment on Harvard these days; I'd be ashamed if a 14 year old made this qualitative vrs quantitative category mistake. (Which you since fixed, but please - it should never have been written). Try looking into GOOGs shipping network, and compare it against AMZNs. Since we have long term data on AMZNs model (including $775 mil on a robot production facility): 1) Is GOOG outsourcing or doing this internally? 1a) If not, who are they using? 1b) If they are, where is the spend in their yearly budget reports? (Not seeing it) 2) Can they match the coverage that AMZN has? 3) Can they match the volume that AMZN has? 4) Can they hope to catch up before AMZN makes the robot jump it's planning? And so on. You're almost an adult - try to analyze the world a little closer, you're allegedly the elite of America. Is HN really this naive? This is terrible, if this was from an Oxford or Cambridge student - well, sorry, I'd hope they couldn't produce this level of immature nonsense. And yes, I suspect you'll "down vote" - but sometimes a short sharp slap should be required. Oh, and the heavy use of trackers is both intrusive and unnecessary for a private site. You're not providing any service, barring selling yourself, which should again make you pause at the "whys" of using the trackers you are.