Live data from Hacker News

Conglomerates Didn’t Die, They Look Like Amazon

nytimes.com

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: Conglomerates Didn’t Die, They Look Like Amazon

#91
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that Amazon can move from an area of lesser scarcity.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding. Could you give a concrete example of this with Amazon?

Amazon is a logistics company. They aren't (just) a store, they aren't (just) a web host. They have positioned themselves where they do a lot of unglamorous stuff that makes business work.

The are a meta store, anyone can set up a store and do the hard work of marketing and fulfilling orders and Amazon gets a slice. Then Amazon started hanging on to other people's inventory too, now you just need to buy the stuff and Amazon will hold it while you go out and do the hard work of marketing and selling and Amazon gets a slice. Their know there is scarcity of products and try to connect sellers with buyers.

With AWS they know new businesses will use their infrastructure but they don't want to take the risk with how it will be used. Any startup with any idea can take a real existential risk on their business idea and Amazon will take a slice. They know that for all its ephemerality information in the correct place is scarce, but they don't know how to solve all the problems with information. They made good tools and lease them to those the tackle information scarcity.

Where it doesn't make sense to have other people do it, they try to reduce costs by literally moving things from a to b. Their drones are the their most vivid example but there are countless mundane Amazon warehouses strategically placed. If Amazon doesn't know if the risk/reward is good enough they will contract it out and let the other assume the risk.

They are automating or distributing the ways of reducing scarcity and leaving themselves with minimal risk. As their risk and cost gets lower it makes sense for them to tackle ever smaller amounts of scarcity.

They are so efficient at dealing with scarcity that it makes sense for them, a multi-billion dollar company, to give you a button with the sole purpose of ordering you more laundry detergent by pushing that single purpose button. They are leveraging the scarcity of one empty self in one tiny room of your home. If that isn't the story of a company with a deep relationship with scarcity then I don't know what else it might be.

Re: Conglomerates Didn’t Die, They Look Like Amazon

#92
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding. Could you give a concrete example of this with Amazon?

Amazon is a logistics company. They aren't (just) a store, they aren't (just) a web host. They have positioned themselves where they do a lot of unglamorous stuff that makes business work. The are a meta store, anyone can set up a store and do the hard work of marketing and fulfilling orders and Amazon gets a slice. Then Amazon started hanging on to other people's inventory too, now you just need to buy the stuff and…

>"Their know there is scarcity of products and try to connect sellers with buyers."

What is there a scarcity of? Toys? No. Books? No. Clothes? No. Electronics? No. I'm not seeing it. I can buy these items at a brick and mortar store or another online retailer. They aren't scarce.

See: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers/zgbs

Re: Conglomerates Didn’t Die, They Look Like Amazon

#94
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The canonical example is in Medicine: Doctors, Surgeons, Dentists. All of these professions have strict professional bodies which limit the number of people that can enter them, therefore be it intentionally or not, the wages are kept high.

I think when it comes to healthcare, it will always be the exception, give the inelasticity of the demand for healthcare.

Actually the demand for healthcare will change when there is a change in price. There will always be a base demand level, but if you change the price of seeing a doctor then people would be more inclined to see them for minor things - annoyances, rather than emergencies. Therefore if you allow for more doctors to be created the salary should drop, and if all goes to plan the price for healthcare should also drop.

Although my opinion is in the current US climate, the prices will remain the same and someone else will just suck up the profit.

Re: Conglomerates Didn’t Die, They Look Like Amazon

#95

(from the Yale note) > switching costs are high > Amazon’s platform lock-in > users said they would be taking their business from Amazon and returning to Diapers.com—which, other users pointed out, was no longer possible I have a hard time taking this seriously. "Lock-in" is just a sunk cost, it's more about the psychology of switching than an actual problem. If they went through all the pain of figuring out AWS's XM…

I'm increasingly wary of the "sunk cost fallacy" argument. For reasons which are difficult to articulate clearly, but the upshot is that I don't think SCF gives full weight to the issues involved, at least in some instances. One aspect of this is risk. Whatever your present course is, you've greately reduced your uncertainty regarding it. A new course of action may involve a great deal of unrealised and unrecognised…

Present courses often have a great deal of unrecognized uncertainty and risk too: https://blog.codecentric.de/en/2013/12/never-change-running-...

Decision theory generally proceeds as follows: map out all possible outcomes, all possible courses of action, estimate probabilities of each action leading to each outcome, and choose the action with best outcome distribution.

So far I haven't seen anybody argue against it directly... the problem instead is availability, most people aren't aware of it and can't or don't use it on a daily basis.

Post reply on HN