Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders • Hacker News Board

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#281

Post by giarc » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:06 AM UTC

stormbrew wrote: post #212

giarc wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying that if you are a general purpose store, you have to offer products from your competitors. Walmart should sell Target brand products, Home Depot should sell Lowes brand products. See my point? Stores just aren't in the business of selling their competitors products.

Store brands are not usually made available through general supply chains (or rather, they come from a shortened supply chain), apple and google devices are. And Walmart does sell its "competitor's" products alongside their store brands (where they are available), as does Target, Home Depot, and Lowes. This is because their main business is selling things and having a store brand is just a means to squeek a little mo…

How is an Apple iPhone not equivalent to a Walmart Basics pack of toilet paper? Apple makes the iPhone, Walmart makes the toilet paper. Or atleast companies build these products for their associated brands.

I also ask you to provide an example of where Walmart sells competitor branded products (Target etc). Walmart's brand products, Basics (I believe) are not sold in any other store. Targets brand products (Archer Farms) are not available in any other store.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#282

Post by giarc » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:07 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #250

giarc wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple sells many products that are not owned by Apple. I can buy headphones by Bose, RHA, BlueAnt, Beats (were on store prior to Apple purchase). Amazon gets the criticism but they all do it. Remember, we had a store that was willing to sell all these products, it's called Best Buy and it's on the way out. As consumers we choose to boost Amazon into the leading online position.

"We" made that choice before Amazon started banning competitors' products. That's a recent change.

Has Amazon ever sold new iPhones? Have they ever sold a Nexus phone?

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#283

Post by godzillabrennus » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 5:17 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #44

darkclarity wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like being that irresponsible one. Though it is impressive that Amazon has turned a delivery fee - that most people don't like paying - into an exclusive subscription service. A service that customers fall over themselves to sign up for when it's offered at a discount.

I cancelled it because Amazon's abusing their position. Refusing to sell Chromecast and Apple TV, then lying, repeatedly, about the reason when asked? I've been an Amazon customer for 13 years. I was rather annoyed to see them go with the anti-Wikileaks and try to be "sensitive" by banning certain cultural items. But this shows they've zero commitment to selling products customers want. Edit: And it really hurts. Som…

Amazon sells the nVidia shield TV which is an android device for your tv that has chromecast capabilities but admittedly at a much higher price than the Chromecast. Still, if you buy on Amazon and want that kind of functionality it's a good value for a home theater in a box. The android games are pretty lame though.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#284

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 6:30 AM UTC

giarc wrote: post #282

School-Cotton wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" made that choice before Amazon started banning competitors' products. That's a recent change.

Has Amazon ever sold new iPhones? Have they ever sold a Nexus phone?

http://www.amazon.com/Motorola-Unlocked-Cellphone-Discontinu...

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#285

Post by TheAndruu » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 10:31 AM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #232

TheAndruu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Refusing to sell Chromecast and Apple TV This is kind of like expecting a Ford dealer to sell Chevys.

The issue is that Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world and they are refusing to carry items that compete with their other business units. Your example misses the point. People reasonably expect Amazon to carry electronics. Amazon is abusing their position as the largest retailer in world to suppress competition. That's illegal. But with your example, Ford does not control 90% of car dealers in the US, s…

They're both giant companies who manufacture and sell competing products.

Apple Google and Amazon are even larger companies who manufacture and sell the competing products mentioned by this guy.

It's a direct comparison.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#286

Post by daveFNbuck » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #203

kdamken wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but the point of the Apple store is to sell Apple products, and the Google Play store only sells google devices. Amazon supposedly sells everything. It wasn't created to only sell Amazon products, and it's misleading to consumers to not be more open about that. Case in point - they sell iPads. Why don't they just sell Kindles? The inconsistency comes off as sleezy.

It's not sleazy, it's smart business. Amazon doesn't sell guns either, and they technically could probably do so if they setup the proper infrastructure and background checks and whatever else to do so. Just because they are Wal-Mart of the online world doesn't mean they must sell everything everyone wants. The devices they don't sell are in a heavily contested field, no wonder they don't carry them, that's smart bus…

They do sell streaming devices, though. They just don't sell the ones made by their competitors. Using their position as #1 online retailer to bolster their position as a streaming service is more than just smart business.

It's life if Microsoft had used its market position with Windows to push IE.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#287

Post by unclebucknasty » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #279

unclebucknasty wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) i…

I guess you can parse it any way, but I consider those to be very different. A more valid comparison is between the retail stores and Amazon's distribution network, fulfillment centers, warehouses, etc. These things all fall under capital expenditures (CapEx) and represent hard costs that must be paid/financed.

Like retail stores, they are also part of the required infrastructure to fulfill customer orders.

Prime, OTOH is more a marketing expense. I would compare it to coupons, store savings cards, etc.

So, the double-standard doesn't exist in my view; unless you were to count retail store costs without counting Amazon fulfillment costs.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#288

Post by tim333 » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #162

shuri wrote: post #3

You have to love this sentence "We want Prime to be such a good value, you’d be irresponsible not to be a member."

You can almost hear the ghost of Warren Buffet pitching Geico echoing through Bezos' prose.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tale-two-annual-letters-bezos...

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#289

Post by tsycho » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

andrewguenther wrote: post #187

mahyarm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me amazon just seems like a bad deal compensation wise compared to other BigCos like facebook, google, apple, msft . Back loaded stock grants, lower pay, etc. Then add a high pressure big-company culture on top of that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong!

The thing that I like about working at Amazon is that they don't push the "Kool-Aid" culture that I sense from Facebook, Google, and Apple. I come to work, I feel proud of what I've done, I go home. That is it. That is what I want out of a job. I don't want to be a "Googler," or be told that I'm "changing the world" as I deploy a new sticker pack of poop emojis to Messenger. I want a job, not a cult.

The funny thing about your statement is that you are drinking your own version of koolaid at Amazon.

FWIW, there is definitely koolaid mentality at Google and Facebook (source: worked at, and have lots of friends at both), but it's not the same way as you think. People are proud of what the company has accomplished as a whole in changing the world, but they aren't as blind to think that the feature that they added to a product is world changing in itself.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ letter to shareholders

#290

Post by tim333 » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

jlubawy wrote: post #118

Not 100% sure how the Amazon/Zappos relationship is setup but I think it's odd that Zappos isn't mentioned anywhere in this or AFAIK anywhere in there investor documents. Does anyone now how Zappos is performing since being acquired? Especially with all of the controversy with their management styles? To be fair I'm sure Zappos is probably a small part of Amazon's revenue, but as a Las Vegas native I'm interested.

Seems to be doing ok http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/zappos-predicts-massiv...