Live data from Hacker News

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

foxbusiness.com

371–380 of 410 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen Game Publishers do this with milestone payments but for a different effect. One of the common clauses is that the publisher gets all assets(source code, art, etc) in the case of a studio folding. They then intentionally delay milestone payments about 3/4 of the way though the project, watch the company fold(since that's the highest-burn part of the project) and then re-hire 2/3rds of the existing staff who…

Recently? I could see that happening a decade ago but I think it would be harder to do now, especially at the (A)AA level. Still, the video game industry remains volatile and a lot of independent developers are one missed milestone payment away from layoffs if not shutdown.

Yup, last story I heard was ~3 years ago. With the game industry there's always a new set of fresh blood that has idealistic views and hasn't seen what publishers(or exploitative dev studios) can pull.

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

#372
post #220

I sold to Walmart for 4 years. In the beginning we believed we were lucky to become vendors. Then we realized how much stress they created. Every single year they would short pay our invoices. We would have to submit a claim with Walmart accounting. This process was completely and utterly time consuming. But the worst of it, they wouldn't pay the invoices owed until a year later. It's hard to float a $100,000 short p…

The article is about vendors selling Saas to Walmart. Having the ability to turn off the service makes it easier to get invoices paid.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you stop the cloud provider from accessing ram or cpu cache. At some point the data has to be decrypted for it to be used. And if decrypted on Amazon equipment, then Amazon could in theory gain access to it.

They were saying all decryption would happen client side and the only operations done by the server would be ones where the server can operate on encrypted data and yield encrypted results. I suspect that the main sticking point in that plan would be that the current state of homomorphic encryption is fairly limited/slow, so if you need AWS for computation as opposed to storage, it's not a practical plan.

Yeah. AWS isn't the best for just plain old storage so I guess this just isn't quite feasible yet. I'm hopeful we'll figure out the fully-encrypted cloud within the decade.

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

#375
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question. How do companies in the US go about assessing the solvency and financial status of suppliers. In Sweden annual reports are public records for all limited companies, not only public companuee. How would US company determine that a supplier is solvent and not at risk of bankruptcy, which would be a risk to build into supply chains etc?

A lot like this, as I understand it. Publicly traded companies have a fair bit of information generally available, but for a private supplier you might well demand some financials to establish enough confidence to pair with them. What's distinctive here, I guess, is that Walmart has the weight to get that info and then start making demands instead of just deciding whether to trust the partner.

It's not like you are required to sell to Walmart. You can always refuse. Plenty of successful companies don't sell anything to Walmart.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, I apologize if it's stupid... But how do you guarantee encryption at all stages such that Amazon cannot snoop it when you have to do final mile encryption on hardware controlled by Amazon? I mean encryption for messenger services where each end is not controlled by a third-party is one thing...but how do you guarantee the third-party in control of the hardware responsible for performing the encryptio…

You can't (and they don't promise) encryption such that AWS can't see everything, if they were in fact malicious. This is true of every cloud. That said, it's not illegal for them to see that xxx vendor increased their storage costs/bandwidth costs by $yyy every month, and that you could look into it - without using one piece of encrypted data. Disclosure: Former AWS

> This is true of every cloud.

It's true of anyone selling bare metal servers too, it is just harder to snoop but the technology exists to do so.

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

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never worked with Walmart directly, but to be fair, I experienced this kind of thing all the time as a contractor. It seems to be sort of an unspoken thing in accounting departments that you allow vendors to complain before you pay too much attention to the particularities of any given invoice. It doesn't excuse the practice and I always appreciated the clients who paid correctly and promptly, but I don't think…

I work in the IT division of a Fortune 100 pharma. About four years ago I was astonished as a senior business director proudly bragged to us about the company's successful accounts payable strategy of paying all vendor bills as late as possible. This allowed the company to earn a higher yield on overnight investments, despite the continuing outcry from business partners. I imagine most giant corporations now behave t…

[deleted]

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

#378
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you're imagining power in entirely the wrong place. It is the consumers who hold all the power within a free economy. Corporations only become large and profitable in a free economy when they meet the ever increasing demands of the consumers. To quote Ludwig von Mises: The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, deci…

Consumers, in aggregate, are stupid and irrational. Their wants and desires and opinions can be shaped by the entities with the most resources to peddle their influence, or the best, most believable lies. Economics can't really fix such a core design flaw in human nature, it has to be the other way around, IMHO.

Consumers are stupid and irrational.

Your solution is that the same people who you think are too stupid to look out for themselves in a market will form a state and magically do collective action to fix the very problem they were individually to stupid to solve.

The problem is just, that for lots of reasons, we know that such collective action is incredibly hard. Collective action is hard in general, but if you take into account that the interest of different people are totally different it becomes close to impossible. This is well known and well researched. The only reason we can actually make collective action happen at level of modern states is because it is coercive. Voluntary collective action would never produce the Iraq war for example.

Yes, humans make mistakes in markets. Everybody knows that, but there is no solution for this. Humans always make mistakes in every possible system that can exist, humans don't change. So the reason why we want a market system the waste majority of the time is because people are accountable for their own choices and have to deal with the consequences. In markets we call this profit and lost, this is the mechanism why markets in the face of the same human errors have continued to produce growth in the last 200 years.

We need free human agency and allow people to make mistakes while perusing their lives goals and attempt to solve their problems in creative ways. That what we call individual freedom. This will generate prosperity.

The idea that you can solve human irrationality with human institutions is a fallacy. Human irrationality is a fact, and the argument needs to be what system of relation produces the best outcome.

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

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to see competition as some sort of "holy grail" in order to perceive it as almost invariably better than its absence (from a consumer perspective) in a market economy.

And to preempt a rejoinder, a market economy has proven invariably better than the alternative. Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed because nobody wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes.

There have been advances in economic planning since the time of the USSR, even during the time of the USSR research was being done on technocratic planning systems, however they were never realised, partially due to lack of sufficient hardware and Soviet bureaucracy. For a good read on modern methods, take a look at Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism in which he proposes calculation in kind paired with linear programming methods.

It's worth noting that the USSR's model was also ridiculously inflexible, and the whole idea of a "5 year plan" probably sounded silly back then too.

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

#380

If libertarians don't realize that the system they're advocating for is essentially corporate feudalism, they're suckers. I'd rather have a powerful government accountable to voters than a powerful corporate oligarchy that is only accountable to shareholders.

Do you think any of this is new? Do you think economist have not studied these systems for a long time? You can go back 100s of years and observe very similar patterns.

Even your own comment is not new. The complaint that there cooperation turn into feudalism is as old as capitalism. The problem is just that it never happens, 200 years of fantastic growth. Improvement on every human indicator possible in almost every dimension. Those are facts.

These things became about because big and small cooperation compete within a framework of law to produce what consumers want. Yes, there are many bad laws and bad enforcement, but capitalism is the only system that has ever produced long term sustainable growth.

I urge you to study governments and how accountable they really are to voters. I think nobody that has actually studied political economy and political science and uses the same view of human nature in both governments and markets, will think that government is the superior solution for the waste majority of problems.

The problems inherent in government solving all these problems you would like to solve, are huge. There are knowledge problems, intensive problems, disagreements about what even should be done and more, the inability of independent action in multiple directions at the same time and the list continues.

You complain about amazon, but 10 years ago, I remember that I usually had to pay lots of extra money for shipping. Now, I never do, not to mention that everything is cheaper and when I ship something it arrives faster. You can call if corporate feudalism all you want the benefits are clear.

> powerful corporate oligarchy that is only accountable to shareholders.

In the system I want and that we mostly have corporation are accountable to law, specifically civil law. Civil Law is the institutions we have that allows anybody to sue if his rights were violated. This is the central mechanism to limit cooperation, and it has worked millions of times in the past. Law is an emergent process and it evolves.

My problem with many progressives like you seem to be is that you don't seem to have a appreciation for this mechanism. You just want a powerful top down bureaucracy that can monitors, controls and guides everything. This is costly, easily manipulated and dangerous to a far greater level then Amazon could ever be.

Instead of a huge centralized environmental agency that has to be everywhere and monitor everything, we should have system where a person who feels his right are violated should be able to sue and attempts to enforce his rights. There need not be a clear definition from some agency what exactly the allowed level is, rather you have to prove harm to yourself and the court system has to produce some judgment call on what is acceptable in society. This is how Common Law was created, and economist who study it today, are fascinated by how it handles complex problem.

Instead of ever increasing regulatory bureaucracy and every increasing size of the state to fix every problem we should recognize what a wonderful tool the legal system is and how we can evolve it in a better direction. This is how you create a market economy with efficient handling of conflicts. It will be dynamic and it will focus on problems people actually care about, rather then whatever the latest 'cause' is that some bureaucracy wants to fight'.

One general system that is hard to manipulate and lobby rather then 100 specialized agencies each one deeply interdependent with the people the are supposed to regulate. Even worse if they actually solved the problems they have been assigned their would be no need for them to exist. Did the bureaucracy built up during the prohibition area vanish when prohibition ended? Laws that are no longer relevant cost almost nothing, bureaucracies that are no longer relevant will find some way to make themselves relevant.

The puzzle is the same as was during the time of the founding fathers. How can you have a government that is both powerful and constraint. I think a different more acceptable solution has to be found then a call for ever greater ever more powerful government to constrain ever more powerful cooperation.

I don't claim to have all the answers but when I hear 'a powerful government accountable to voters' and I remember basic political economy then I am afraid where those sort of calls lead.

I think you are overestimating how bad capitalism is and you idealize democracy institutions.

Some suggested fields of research for further study into the subject. Law&Economics, Public Choice Theory, Selectorate theory, New Institutional Economics, Industrial Organisation and more.

Just so I recommend one concrete book I will recommend 'Choosing in Groups: Analytical Politics Revisited'. This book essentially show how incredibly difficult and complex collective action really is. A powerful government that is accountable to voters is easy in theory, but the practice is incredibly difficult.

Post reply on HN