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

Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 410 posts

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#41

Post by soneil »

pluc wrote: post #27
snowwolf wrote: post #17

Is this because they actively want to discourage any revenue going Amazon's way from Wal-Mart related business activities, or because they don't trust Amazon not to look at the data hosted on their platform? If the latter, then I think that's just extreme paranoia. If there was ANY evidence of Amazon doing that it would destroy everyones trust in AWS and I suspect people wouldn't be able to move away fast enough (Whi…

I worked on a WM project - they insisted on GCP instead of AWS so I think it's the former, unless they have some trust partnership with Google.

We have a WM project on azure, so I don't think it's the later.

But we also had issues with Amazon not wanting to run an appliance on vmware, so apparently it works both ways.

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#42

Post by throwawaymanbot »

If Wal-Mart decrees this, put up or shut up. Welcome to business.

CEO Diktats about using not using competitor services for anything whatsoever, are as old as Microsoft. Wal-mart is not in the cloud business, so I can only wonder if, as others have commented, it is about data security in AWS domain, since Wal-Mart's main competitor is Amazon.

We know what Google and Facebook get up to with peoples data, why would Amazon not analyze or try similar to their customers? To have all that technical capability and not be curious about stuff would be a waste.

Finally, I think it would be great for everyone (except Amazon), if wal-mart got in to the cloud. Using their leverage to create cheaper cloud would benefit us all.

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#44

Post by noxToken »

pen2l wrote: post #4

> Amazon's rise as the dominant player in renting on-demand, web-based computing power and storage has put some competitors, such as Netflix Inc., in the unlikely position of relying on a corporate rival as they move to the cloud. Oh yeah, Netflix is on AWS. Amazon is doing pretty much everything, I expect/predict in another two years they will launch a music streaming site a la Google Music/Spotify.

As a consumer, one of my fears with Amazon is that the price of Prime is going to skyrocket. Prime is $99USD/year which works out to $8.25/month for all of the bundled services. This included but is not limited to video streaming, music streaming, photo storage, and free 2 day shipping on all eligible items. No single service of any other comparable medium (Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Play Music) offers the same service that prime offers at the same price.

Amazon tries to incentivize customers to use 5 day ground shipping by offering credit to Pantry to tries to push its credit card as a means of payment. Perhaps all their other services can continually subsidize Prime (as well as internal logistics management), but it feels like price hammer could fall at any time.

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#45

Post by Touche »

firebird84 wrote: post #20
snowwolf wrote: post #17

Is this because they actively want to discourage any revenue going Amazon's way from Wal-Mart related business activities, or because they don't trust Amazon not to look at the data hosted on their platform? If the latter, then I think that's just extreme paranoia. If there was ANY evidence of Amazon doing that it would destroy everyones trust in AWS and I suspect people wouldn't be able to move away fast enough (Whi…

By the same token, if I were in Amazon's position, if I were to use the data, I'd make sure nobody knew about it. However, I'd then be in the unenviable position of the Enigma codebreakers, attempting to use information without the enemy knowing I had it.

Why would they take the risk to find out information about a competitor that they are destroying?

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#47

Post by dwighttk »

snowwolf wrote: post #17

Is this because they actively want to discourage any revenue going Amazon's way from Wal-Mart related business activities, or because they don't trust Amazon not to look at the data hosted on their platform? If the latter, then I think that's just extreme paranoia. If there was ANY evidence of Amazon doing that it would destroy everyones trust in AWS and I suspect people wouldn't be able to move away fast enough (Whi…

why not both?

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#48

Post by michaelt »

snowwolf wrote: post #17

Is this because they actively want to discourage any revenue going Amazon's way from Wal-Mart related business activities, or because they don't trust Amazon not to look at the data hosted on their platform? If the latter, then I think that's just extreme paranoia. If there was ANY evidence of Amazon doing that it would destroy everyones trust in AWS and I suspect people wouldn't be able to move away fast enough (Whi…

  If there was ANY evidence of Amazon doing that
  it would destroy everyones trust in AWS
So if one insider with stock options notices another bending the rules, they're incentivised to cover it up rather than raise the alarm?

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#49

Post by [deleted] »

ssharp wrote: post #26
rocgf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure... is this a joke or... ?

I'm assuming Netflix has a pretty detailed contract with Amazon, assuring them service levels and preventing Amazon from doing anything nefarious. Still, I'm sure Netflix has contingency plans in place.

[deleted]

Re: Wal-Mart is telling some vendors they can’t run applications on AWS

#50

Post by noxToken »

samfisher83 wrote: post #38
perseusprime11 wrote: post #18

This is stupid! Walmart is loosing it. Generally happens when you are getting ready to lose, you start becoming erratic. Everybody forgets how WalMart single handedly destroyed the mom and pop shops of America putting them out of jobs.

But they keep prices low. People can go shop at their mom and pop store, but a large majority of people want low prices. They sell 1/2 a trillion worth of stuff. They have a bigger economic impact on America than google, Facebook,Apple etc.

> People can go shop at their mom and pop store, but a large majority of people want low prices.

People really underestimate how much of an impact this has. Here's a completely made up example. Let's say a person of a family of 4 goes grocery shopping once per week. This person buys 30 grocery items on each shopping trip. The difference between Wal-Mart and the local place might only be $0.25 per item. Is it really worth it to go somewhere else to save $0.25? No, unless you're saving $0.25 on everything you buy.

At $0.25 per item with 30 items each week and 52 weeks in a year, this shopper saves $390/year or a little more than $32/month by going to Wal-Mart. $32/month is pretty meaningless to most people who command a developer's salary, but there is a sizable portion of people in the US who could really use an extra $32 each month. That's the difference between Wal-Mart compared to the local shop, and that's the reason why Wal-Mart edged these small stores out of business.

Post reply on HN