Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 297 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#271

Post by brianwawok »

dpark wrote: post #256
debacle wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange mentality. Many good accountants will weigh the chance of you getting audited + fined against the ROI of an "oversight." Your accountant was probably trying to save you money.

> Many good accountants will weigh the chance of you getting audited + fined against the ROI of an "oversight." "Good" is a questionable descriptor here. I would think that a good accountant should follow ethical rules, which would exclude the possibility of knowingly breaking the law to under-report taxes.

Except which accountant will get more business.

a) Hey I have a cousin Vinny. Great account. Knows every single rule and is always ethical. I sleep great at night

b) Hey I have a cousin Jen. Great accountant. She found all kinds of crazy savings, saved me $1000 last year.

People know in their heart they should go for the honest guy. But hey, saving money.. who can pass that up?

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#272

Post by rpgmaker »

ikeboy wrote: post #163
organsnyder wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cancelled my Prime subscription for the same reason. I've been experimenting with using eBay the same way I used Amazon (mainly for computer-related purchases—we never got into the habit of using it for many household goods). So far, I've found eBay to be in many ways better than Amazon was. Amazon has gotten to the point where you're often buying from some unknown vendor anyways, so in many ways it's already simil…

If you stick to the 99% feedback with more than 50 feedbacks on Amazon you'll do fine as well. Amazon has far stricter requirements for sellers. What specifically do you find better at eBay?

> Amazon has far stricter requirements for sellers.

I wouldn't notice. The site is filled with dishonest merchants peddling their misrepresented wares. I've had far more issues with merchants on Amazon than on ebay.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#273

Post by dredmorbius »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #202
dredmorbius wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Economic value" is a slippery concept. First off, most people read that as "price times volume", or the exchange value of some good or service. The Amazon River isn't exchanged, it has no exchange value. Another definition of "economic value" is use value , which is to say, the benefit derived from use, possession, existence, control, etc., of some good. The problem here is that economics has little handle on estima…

Wow! really solid response. Ever seen XKCD's book "What if?" This seems like it'd fit in well there! thanks @dredmorbius

Thanks. I've ... been thinking about some related questions for a while.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#274

Post by rpgmaker »

burkaman wrote: post #180
ditonal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We venerate leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt because they inspired millions of individuals to act directly against their self-interest and in favor of the organizations that those leaders own and manage. "We will fight on the beaches" sure sounds inspiring, but if it was my intestines bleeding out onto the sands of Normandy, at that exact moment, it wouldn't have quite the same ring. Yet these inspiring words sti…

WWII is like the one war you could pick where it was not against the soldiers' self-interest to fight. With most wars you could argue it's more about rulers fighting over power than it is about people defending themselves, but not WWII. It's the most morally straightforward war I can think of.

I was going to say the same thing. I still upvoted the comment because it's true when applied to most wars (and devs working at BigCos).

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#275

Post by unclebucknasty »

andrewfong wrote: post #65
zeven7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I've heard. A quick search found me this: > The company loses an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion on Prime shipping annually http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-free-shipping-killing-am... Amazon wants market share enough to absorb a loss on shipping costs. It's part of why Amazon is still not profitable.

Saying Amazon is absorbing a loss on shipping costs to get market share implies that that they're engaged in predatory pricing (i.e. they're selling below cost to get market share with the intent to raise prices once competition has been destroyed). There might be some truth to that, but the better explanation for why Amazon isn't profitable is that it's simply plowing all of its profits back into the business. This…

Is there anyone who believes Amazon's prices wouldn't rise in the absence of competition?

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#276

Post by unclebucknasty »

sokoloff wrote: post #156
zeven7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I've heard. A quick search found me this: > The company loses an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion on Prime shipping annually http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-free-shipping-killing-am... Amazon wants market share enough to absorb a loss on shipping costs. It's part of why Amazon is still not profitable.

How much are Walmart, Home Depot, and BestBuy losing on "operating retail stores"? It's a cost of operation or cost of sales, IMO, and you have to look at it in the context of overall profitability and revenue growth, not as a standalone line item. Otherwise, you might argue for those other three to close all their retail outlets or charge admission in order to "stem the losses".

It's an operational cost, not COGS. And, sure it's a standalone line item as much as any other.

Not sure I understand the distinction you're attempting to make. It's a function of their model that can affect their competitiveness and may well argue for (or against) closures.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#277

Post by Matthias247 »

ErrantX wrote: post #186
Matthias247 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's probably also the only justification for paying money for prime. I also use it mainly because it's a requirement for their DVD/Blu-Ray rental service. However that got a massive price increase the last month - so I'm considering stopping to use both. Regarding delivery the interesting thing is that before prime emerged nearly all orders here in Germany were delivered on the next day. Then prime came up…

I was surprised how popular DVD rental still was in Germany. Someone I know from Amazon was telling me. I get the impression they desperately want to kill off the market for it though?

I also got the impression because after they took the company over that provided the rental service before (Lovefilm) everything got worse. Amazons website is far worse than what existed before, prices got up and in the first phase the delivery also took longer.

However Streaming and especially Amazons offering is no alternative for Blu-Ray rental in my opinion:

- The video quality for streaming is lacking.

- The amount of movies (not shows) that amazon is offering through VOD is quite low and most of it is old and uninteresting stuff. Outside of prime you can get newer videos also through VOD. But the prices are not really attractive when you can get a higher quality version on disc for a lower or equal price.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#278

Post by Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd »

Matthias247 wrote: post #109
notjosh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, Germany also has Prime Video.

Yes, but it's probably also the only justification for paying money for prime. I also use it mainly because it's a requirement for their DVD/Blu-Ray rental service. However that got a massive price increase the last month - so I'm considering stopping to use both. Regarding delivery the interesting thing is that before prime emerged nearly all orders here in Germany were delivered on the next day. Then prime came up…

The reason I got Prime in Germany (at student rates: €24/y) was free delivery without a minimum amount. Nowadays it's even free same-day delivery (when it's available).

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#279

Post by sokoloff »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #276
sokoloff wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much are Walmart, Home Depot, and BestBuy losing on "operating retail stores"? It's a cost of operation or cost of sales, IMO, and you have to look at it in the context of overall profitability and revenue growth, not as a standalone line item. Otherwise, you might argue for those other three to close all their retail outlets or charge admission in order to "stem the losses".

It's an operational cost, not COGS. And, sure it's a standalone line item as much as any other. Not sure I understand the distinction you're attempting to make. It's a function of their model that can affect their competitiveness and may well argue for (or against) closures.

I used "cost of sales" when I meant "cost of revenue". However, I suspect the revenue from Prime counts as top-line and the shipping cost losses are absorbed as a cost on the COGS line, so the net effect is probably reflected as revenue and COGS. If I get some time, I'll poke through their last 10-Q/10-K to see if I can confirm that treatment.

The point I was trying to make is that Prime (and any associated losses) is part of Amazon's go-to-market strategy, just as opening retail stores is part of HD, WMT, and BBY's strategy. Saying that Amazon is "losing money on Prime" but that the others aren't "losing money on stores" seems a double-standard to me.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#280

Post by rwjwjuwjudf »

SilasX wrote: post #249
rwjwjuwjudf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive means you found the special thing you are looking for; negative means you just found an ordinary thing. False positive means you thought you found the special thing but you didn't, it was just ordinary; false negative means you thought you found an ordinary thing but actually it was special. False positives mean you throw away ham as spam (terrible), false negatives mean you let some spam into your mailbox (…

But spam is more "usual" than ham, so ...

Hmmm, good point. Ok, if you count individual messages, there is more spam, but if you look at the kinds of spam messages, they are way less diverse. So spam goes into one of ~10 buckets (419, pharmacy, fake conferences, view my profile, etc.), but the rest goes into 1000 different buckets. But you still have a good point.
Post reply on HN