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

381–390 of 410 posts

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

#381

Post by kennydude »

Johnny555 wrote: post #143
robertcope wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the best retort you've got? Sounds like Amazon is killing it.

Heh, it is amazing how perceptions change. It wasn't all that long ago when you'd phone or email your order to the merchant (with credit card number!) or even send it in on paper, you'd be lucky to get any tracking number at all and still wouldn't know what day or even what week your order would be delivered on. But now people get upset about a 12 hour delivery window.

Royal Mail don't give me a 12 hour delivery window, and other merchants actually pay their fair share of tax as well

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

#382

Post by andrewl »

tomsthumb wrote: post #333
stephenhuey wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone close to me related the story of when they almost put one of their products in Wal-Mart's stores in Canada about 2 decades ago. One big showstopper was that they were asking for the quality to be reduced so that the price could be lower. The vendor I know refused, saying that their product lasts a long time and they are proud of it and they wouldn't sign unless that stipulation was removed. A few months later…

There's a great writeup on a company that experience similar: https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart

That story, by Charles Fishman, is part of his book The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and How It's Transforming the American Economy :

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0143038788

It's worth reading.

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

#383

Post by LeifCarrotson »

smallnamespace wrote: post #367
notyourwork wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These types of practices make me sad for humanity.

I mean, the two parties have a diametrically opposed view of how the world works and what their own moral obligations are. One party thinks they're trying to make good games, and getting paid in the process. The other party views the rest of the world as a potential money machine, and they're just optimizing around which lever to pull to maximize their return. Matt Levine had a fun article[1] about this happening in…

> I mean, the two parties have a diametrically opposed view of how the world works and what their own moral obligations are.

> One approach isn't necessarily 'wrong' and the other 'right', ...

No. The truth is that one approach is, in fact, unambiguously morally inferior to the other. That morality may not match the financial implications of a contract, which should be able to assume "good faith" and "fair dealings" in their contracts.

I can understand that some people care more about the money than the morals, and will exploit contracts and the law in unexpected ways to try to make more money or gain more power. But I refuse to accept that this behavior is morally ambiguous. And furthermore, I refuse to act immorally.

Perhaps that means I will miss out on some money or power. Perhaps I will be competed out of business because of this conviction. And yeah, I'll reluctantly play the stupid game where I must by offering discounts for on-time payment instead of attempting to write in appropriate penalties and interest for late payments that I can't enforce against an army of corporate lawyers.

But I can say with conviction that acting in bad faith is morally wrong.

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

#384

Post by ruleabidinguser »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #383
smallnamespace wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the two parties have a diametrically opposed view of how the world works and what their own moral obligations are. One party thinks they're trying to make good games, and getting paid in the process. The other party views the rest of the world as a potential money machine, and they're just optimizing around which lever to pull to maximize their return. Matt Levine had a fun article[1] about this happening in…

> I mean, the two parties have a diametrically opposed view of how the world works and what their own moral obligations are. > One approach isn't necessarily 'wrong' and the other 'right', ... No. The truth is that one approach is, in fact, unambiguously morally inferior to the other. That morality may not match the financial implications of a contract, which should be able to assume "good faith" and "fair dealings"…

How dramatic!

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

#385

Post by pwthornton »

SilasX wrote: post #266
haltingthoughts wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The receiver of the surplus (Walmart vs consumers) is kinda important...

First of all, consumers get lower prices at Walmart, it doesn't just have the effect of higher profits. Second, the real danger in both cases (though people only see it in one, hence my point) is that you're killing off the OEMs this way. No one wants to bring innovative new products to market if some monopsonist will just force them down to the mandated n% profits.

Walmart sells cheap stuff, it doesn't sell stuff cheaply. There is a very important distinction.

It works hard to lower supplier and employee costs not to benefit consumers but to prop up their own margins.

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

#386

Post by emodendroket »

astrodust wrote: post #353
clhodapp wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ever there were a use case for a lawsuit punitive damages, some poor company that is driven out of business by a well-documented case of this would be it. I know I'm being naive here but I feel that it should be clear to anyone with a sense of propriety that the big company should have to pay the liquidation cost for the small one!

Yes, suing your biggest distributor is a great way to succeed in business.

If you're liquidating the business, as the OP describes, I doubt that's your biggest concern.

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

#387

Post by emodendroket »

tomsthumb wrote: post #333
stephenhuey wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone close to me related the story of when they almost put one of their products in Wal-Mart's stores in Canada about 2 decades ago. One big showstopper was that they were asking for the quality to be reduced so that the price could be lower. The vendor I know refused, saying that their product lasts a long time and they are proud of it and they wouldn't sign unless that stipulation was removed. A few months later…

There's a great writeup on a company that experience similar: https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart

As I understand it he later gave in and now they sell the lawnmowers. https://www.walmart.com/browse/patio-garden/lawn-mowers/snap...

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

#388

Post by emodendroket »

throwawaymanbot wrote: post #199
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wal-Mart have always been pure bastards to their supply chain. My family had a small manufacturing business that went bankrupt years ago. At one point we were making a part that ultimately ended up on a WM product. Periodically WM's folks would come around and do a strong arm routine trying to renegotiate the contract. It got bad enough my dad adopted the habit of bringing a couple of the very burly folks that worked…

This is how Wal-Mart maintains its position, and grows to where it is today. Thats Business at their level. I sympathize however. Strong Arming small and middle sized businesses, which are the bedrock of American Capitalist Power is just egregiously scummy. This is also what I think is currently gone wrong with the American Capitalism, but thats another comment, somewhere, sometime I guess :)

I'm not sure small and medium businesses are really the "bedrock of American capitalist power." Maybe you could argue they're the bedrock of American values or something like that.

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

#389

Post by emodendroket »

bassman9000 wrote: post #295
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…

vendor is free to enter in a relationship with WalMart. WalMart is free to dictate their terms, vendor too. No agreement, no deal, part ways. Explain how this is wrong.

The "freedom" is purely notional if your other option is to go out of business.

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

#390

Post by TulliusCicero »

KirinDave wrote: post #119
cholantesh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Amazon is a massive immoral monster devouring the US economy and replacing it with something vaguely worse, year by year Hasn't the same thing been said about Walmart?

Yes. And I'd agree. To wax metaphorical, I'd rather the monsters devour each other while we race for a super-weapon to defeat all monsters and protect real people. This situation where corporations are effectively replacing the state is not exactly what I had in mind when I said the world would be a better place with a diminished role of the State in individual life.

Counterpoint: I like shopping at Amazon. I used to work there too, but I liked it prior to working there, and continued to like it after I quit.

And I think it would be very difficult for a company to offer the level of convenience and good UX that Amazon does at a much smaller scale. For example, part of why they can get very fast shipping down to a reasonable price is their huge network of distribution centers + their size giving them leverage in negotiations with UPS/Fedex/et al.

If you split Amazon into a dozen smaller companies, the overall customer experience would likely be worse.

Post reply on HN