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

391–400 of 410 posts

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

#391

Post by TulliusCicero »

fragmede wrote: post #195
bedhead wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of hyperbole is absolutely and demonstrably absurd. What a disgrace that this is the top comment.

Simon Head wrote "Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers" back in 2014, and if anything, it's gotten worse since then. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_... It's not limited to warehouse workers, either. In 2015 Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld of the New York times published an expose of the hard-charging environment at Amazon, wit…

The whole "people crying at their desks" thing was exaggerated and it varies a lot by team. I've worked there and now at Google, Google is much nicer obviously, but Amazon wasn't some dystopian nightmare as sometimes portrayed.

I'm also a mod at /r/cscareerquestions, Amazonians would chime in back when this was big news, but the vast majority were always like "yeah it exists but not my team".

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

#392

Post by Asooka »

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.

The only way you can prevent feudalism is by preventing accretion of power. Otherwise, it's a positive feedback loop through and through - the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful. How exactly to do that is up for debate, and I see socialist democracy plus regulated capitalism as the most practical current answer. Unfortunately it's not a stable position and is prone to failing if any one side can't be kept in check by the others.

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

#393

Post by droopyEyelids »

rlpb wrote: post #286
__d__ wrote: 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…

This kind of abuse is apparently common enough that there's an EU directive that limits this abuse in the EU: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2... In the UK, for example, even before the EU directive, unpaid commercial debts accrue interest and late payment penalties and can be claimed retrospectively for up to six years. This means that you can quite legally wait until you've stopped doing…

This is the first concrete example I've read of the EU being drastically more pro-business than the USA. Very interesting.

And for someone who wants to point out the lack of that regulation in the USA is still "pro-business" I'd say it's pro-monopoly, and against the 'culture of business' that was traditionally a large part of the US.

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

#394

Post by JPKab »

__d__ wrote: 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…

Just to be clear, there is nothing new here.

I did retail data analytics on behalf of large CPG companies with their Walmart, Target, Costco data for a few years. Walmart made it very, very clear for several years now that their sales/inventory data, and any apps the vendors build using it, couldn't be on AWS.

It made things very challenging for us, because Azure is too expensive and Google Cloud (especially at the time) lacked support that wasn't absolute shit.

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

#395

Post by refurb »

s73ver wrote: post #302
refurb wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than any business that has one large customer? And if you're creating a valuable product at a good price, then you have leverage over Walmart. If you're selling a commodity, then be prepared to get squeezed. That's how it should work.

No, that's not how it should work at all.

Really? So if someone else charges a lower price for the same product, I should be protected from a loss of business?

That goes against our entire economic system. We'd still be driving shitty expensive cars if that were true.

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

#396

Post by zaccus »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #350
zaccus wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. 1) Walmart doesn't pass savings to consumers, it passes them to shareholders, as they have a fiduciary obligation to do. The "lower prices" thing is just marketing; WM's prices aren't particularly low once they've driven away their competition. 2) If drug companies want to charge a R&D premium for bleeding-edge innovative products, that's fine. What's not fine is price gouging consumers for drugs they depend on…

Walmart does not in any way, shape, or form have an obligation to pass savings directly onto shareholders instead of reinvesting it in customer satisfaction.

As a publicly traded company, yes they do. Customer satisfaction only matters to the extent that it increases shareholder value.

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

#397

Post by Dylan16807 »

zaccus wrote: post #396
Dylan16807 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart does not in any way, shape, or form have an obligation to pass savings directly onto shareholders instead of reinvesting it in customer satisfaction.

As a publicly traded company, yes they do. Customer satisfaction only matters to the extent that it increases shareholder value.

> Customer satisfaction only matters to the extent that it increases shareholder value.

Which it does, so it is a completely valid option.

There is absolutely nothing forcing them to pick any particular use for the money. Both uses benefit the company in some way. Both uses are fine. It's not like they're burning it.

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

#398

Post by throwawaymanbot »

emodendroket wrote: post #388
throwawaymanbot wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to see if we were right or wrong, I found this article. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77398

Here are stand out ones from the article. For just small business alone. I actually thought middle size business would have had figures like this.

* Small businesses create 75 percent of the net new jobs in our economy. * Small businesses pay more than 44 percent of the nation's private payroll. * More than 50 percent of the U.S. private gross domestic product is generated by small businesses. * Almost 97 percent of exporters are small businesses.

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

#399

Post by wibbleywobbley »

swiley wrote: post #184
bubblethink wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd just like to point out, Amazon forking android is probably a good thing. You wouldn't be able to run quite a few apps like tinder without google play if it weren't for what amazon did.

Oh no, not Tinder! What would we ever do without Tinder?

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

#400

Post by astrodust »

emodendroket wrote: post #386
astrodust wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lawsuits are expensive and utterly pointless if you can't see them through to completion.
Post reply on HN