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

201–210 of 410 posts

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

#201

Post by dkrich »

elif wrote: post #152
dkrich wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think concerns about Amazon becoming a monopoly are greatly exaggerated. They are getting attacked from all sides, by Microsoft in the cloud and Wal-Mart in ecommerce. As Microsoft grabs share from them in web services it'll reduce Amazon's ability to cross-subsidize its ecommerce business. As Wal-Mart and Costco continue to catch up in ecommerce and free two-day shipping becomes table stakes in ecommerce, Amazon's…

where is that pressure represented in this chart? AWS total revenue is less than a year's growth. Wal-Mart showing signs of desperation does not imply amazon's defeat. http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/56abe654c08a80431d8...

Well, that chart only goes to 2015. But in any case, ecommerce and web services are growing businesses, so naturally the growth has been huge looking back. But looking forward, Azure is presenting itself as a greater challenge to AWS each day and all retailers are getting smarter about ecommerce, taking cues from Amazon. Amazon has a huge lead in ecommerce and web services, but it's going to diminish. Prime video is a sinkhole of money. I get that they're using that to attract people to Prime, but it's a massive investment and if profits in other businesses start shrinking, they will be screwed.

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

#202

Post by hbosch »

23david wrote: post #117
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…

It's not paranoia. An ex-Amazon manager told me fairly recently that they look at customer performance data (trends etc) when evaluating future business opportunities. So once you start getting traction and customers, there's some internal product manager evaluating whether it's worth entering your market.

I highly doubt this. It would be extremely careless by Amazon to jeopardize their insanely-successful, industry-leading profit-machine with something so reckless.

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

#203

Post by kodablah »

chriswarbo wrote: post #19
midnitewarrior wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great source of reviews, incredible convenience, massive selection of goods, huge value for membership (Amazon Instant Video included), free 2-day delivery, reasonable pricing, consumer-friendly customer service, yes, it's a nightmare? This is one of those things where you are going to have to explain to consumers why they should be outraged in order for them to realize how awful it is. By most measures, Amazon is on…

> huge value for membership (Amazon Instant Video included) Forcing customers to support their unwanted video service by bundling it with the next-day shipping service was a completely transparent move, and every Amazon customer I know a) saw straight through it, b) doesn't use it and c) would like to stop paying for it.

> every Amazon customer I know [...] doesn't use it and [...] would like to stop paying for it

Then consider myself and several that "I know" as a counter to your personal anecdote and the people that you know. You can argue that unbundling is preferable, but in my case I use the video and music portion more than the shipping portion.

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

#204

Post by s73ver »

refurb wrote: post #181
joezydeco wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It also is not unheard of for Wal-Mart to demand to examine the private financial records of a supplier, and to insist that its margins are too high and must be cut." https://www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-dont-know

Suppliers are free to tell Walmart to stuff it.

"Free" in the sense that they have the 1st Amendment right to do so. Not in the sense that they actually can, especially once Walmart gets to be a significant customer to them.

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

#205

Post by s73ver »

water42 wrote: post #173
KirinDave wrote: post #94

This is... Not the best? That Wal-Mart is powerful enough to dictate the internal business practice and tech decisions of it's vendor. On the other hand, Amazon is a massive immoral monster devouring the US economy and replacing it with something vaguely worse, year by year. It's rapidly approaching a "too big to be allowed to fail" status, and that's awful for Americans. Since anti-trust laws weren't written by a ge…

>"It shouldn't be a big surprise that there are cases in which we'd prefer our most sensitive data isn't sitting on a competitor's platform, " he said, adding that it's a "small number." what is unreasonable about this? do you trust amazon?

It's not their data.

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

#206

Post by KirinDave »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #189
MadcapJake wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demonstrably absurd Please do demonstrate how it is absurd.

> Amazon is a massive immoral monster this should be enough > devouring the US economy and replacing it with something vaguely worse, year by year. Luddites repeat: automation, price reduction and job shifting isn't bad for the economy and it isn't worse either > It's rapidly approaching a "too big to be allowed to fail" status, and that's awful for Americans. Completely unsubstantiated. Surely it's one of the larger…

I can see where your coming from. You essentially want to end a guaranteed participatory role in civil governance.

I think that's awful. You think you should have to fight and use substantial resources to have a say in how your life is lived. I do not share this belief.

But it's worth pulling at one string of your argument. Work is effectively mandatory for US citizens. You cannot handle any health crisis, or even eat and drink reliably, if you do not work. There is no notion of job retraining or security, and over half the citizens of the US make so little money that they effectively get subsidies from the government and don't pay taxes.

Removing these people's livelihoods without any opportunity for retraining is effectively ruining their lives. Automation threatens to do this without sharing the returns on automation with the work force it's displacing. That is an unacceptable outcome.

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

#207

Post by bflesch »

dkrich wrote: post #137
KirinDave wrote: post #94

This is... Not the best? That Wal-Mart is powerful enough to dictate the internal business practice and tech decisions of it's vendor. On the other hand, Amazon is a massive immoral monster devouring the US economy and replacing it with something vaguely worse, year by year. It's rapidly approaching a "too big to be allowed to fail" status, and that's awful for Americans. Since anti-trust laws weren't written by a ge…

I think concerns about Amazon becoming a monopoly are greatly exaggerated. They are getting attacked from all sides, by Microsoft in the cloud and Wal-Mart in ecommerce. As Microsoft grabs share from them in web services it'll reduce Amazon's ability to cross-subsidize its ecommerce business. As Wal-Mart and Costco continue to catch up in ecommerce and free two-day shipping becomes table stakes in ecommerce, Amazon's…

Valid point. I don't know why techies always like trying to fuck over (or over scrutinize) the tech companies they know/hear most about, while many offline-first companies never appear on our radar..

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

#208

Post by KirinDave »

refurb wrote: post #177
MadcapJake wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demonstrably absurd Please do demonstrate how it is absurd.

Because it used words like "immoral monster" and "devour the economy" without actually backing any of it up with evidence.

Those statements are obviously opinions. The evidence that I think they are such is before you. You're welcome to disagree, but don't demand I prove a moral judgement has been made, that's just silly.

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

#209

Post by Kocrachon »

bubblethink wrote: post #165
Ntrails wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't they stop stocking those things because they wouldn't run Amazon Prime by defaults or something?

Amazon decided to fork Android, and create fire phone, their own app store, and a bunch of other attempts at cutting Google out. They decided to not support other streamers because they again launched their own stick. So instead of explaining to customers, or dealing with returns, about why they can't play amazon content on chromecast, they just banned chromecast from the store. And to emphasize, it's not about not s…

I mean, this isn't that unusual. Its the same Reason Netflix, last I checked, makes you sign up for its services on the website and you cant do it on the App. Netflix would then be required to give something like 20 something percent of its revenue to Google.

If Amazon were to have to give 20% of all transactions made through any of its Apps to Google, considering Amazon runs on making no retail profit, how do you think thats going to go?

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

#210

Post by s73ver »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #189
MadcapJake wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demonstrably absurd Please do demonstrate how it is absurd.

> Amazon is a massive immoral monster this should be enough > devouring the US economy and replacing it with something vaguely worse, year by year. Luddites repeat: automation, price reduction and job shifting isn't bad for the economy and it isn't worse either > It's rapidly approaching a "too big to be allowed to fail" status, and that's awful for Americans. Completely unsubstantiated. Surely it's one of the larger…

"Luddites repeat: automation, price reduction and job shifting isn't bad for the economy and it isn't worse either"

You haven't proven that. And its entirely possible that it's not worse for the economy in general, but it's quite awful for segments of it. And given the current attitude toward the safety net in the US, once those jobs are gone, that's it for those people.

Post reply on HN