3 ms·
I agree. Also, I'm not really sure this makes sense, if it is only for delivering Amazon packages. Surely FedEx/UPS have better economies of scale as they can
by martinald 13y ago
I agree.
Also, I'm not really sure this makes sense, if it is only for delivering Amazon packages. Surely FedEx/UPS have better economies of scale as they can deliver everyone's packages?
It's been a very long time since you've seen a company do total vertical integration well.
At least in the UK the delivery/logistics market has razor-thin margins with relatively high capital costs. Is this really the best use of Amazon's capital vs spending it on developers or content for their other services?
- jonknee 13y ago> Also, I'm not really sure this makes sense, if it is only for delivering Amazon packages. Surely FedEx/UPS have better economies of scale as they can deliver everyone's packages? They also have profit margins that could be taken by Amazon. Amazon has been putting warehouses near where it sells the most product which means average delivery length has been dropping. I could easily see Amazon beating UPS at local delivery. Especially so with grocery delivery in the mix--they're already stopping by your building to deliver food, why not drop the morning's packages as well?
- nutjob2 13y agoThere's also less handling: Amazon would be loading its own trucks that go directly to the customer in cities with warehouses nearby, compared to UPS who have at least one sort step.
- vidarh 13y agoIn the UK, Amazon also has to take into account future competition as a result of eBay's recent purchase of shutl.it, who specialises in ~1 hour deliveries, coupled with their increasing number of deals with regular stores. E.g. Argos offers a lot of products on eBay, and Argos also used to offer shutl.it delivery for an extra fee.