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

Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#191

Post by sitkack »

wutbrodo wrote: post #140
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Autonomous Driving hype train is slowing down, so this is the perfect opportunity for this move. Zoox in particular was a LARP of an autonomous driving company. Until any of these companies start manufacturing, they’re literally LARPing. At least Tesla shipped an actual product.

Tangentially, it seems like calling people LARPers has very rapidly become a universally-used cliche. Has anyone else noticed that? I've seen it used for months, sparingly, but in the last couple of weeks it's everywhere (I've seen it literally three times this morning, on different fora about vastly different topics).

It has mostly hit the internet mind-brain because of tacticool cops larping has gun toting heros.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#192

Post by fuvkthisguy »

s17n wrote: post #188
taway912 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees do get their wages, but most were probably working on depressed wages in lieu of equity compensation -- which will now be zero. Further, if anyone left/laidoff, and they forcibly exercised options due to windows, they are underwater.

I'm assuming that Amazon is offering retention packages to the employees, otherwise, why would they bother acquiring the company? Early employees who were dreaming of a windfall aren't going to get one I guess, and anyone who left the company or was fired and exercised is totally screwed.

Right, but how great are those packages gonna be when Amazon (renowned for their stunning committment to worker's rights and freedoms, /s) knows that anyone who doesn't take their offer will join the ranks of the 'totally screwed'?

The typical result of M&As is, by and large, that the workers lose.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#194

Post by 1024core »

Self driving cars will fit in well with Amazon's quest for last-mile delivery.

Take a look at how long it takes to deliver a package today. The driver drives up, parks. Gets out, goes to the back and finds your package. Grabs it, walks over to your door, drops it off (and takes a pic), then walks back, closes the door, straps on the seat belt, looks up directions to the next stop, and then drives off.

With an automated truck, you wouldn't have a driver; you'd just have a delivery person. While the truck is driving, the delivery person (DP) would grab the next package. As soon as the truck stops, s/he hops out with the package and drops it off. Then, the moment s/he climbs back on and and sits down, the truck is off to the next stop.

By my estimate, it would cut down the delivery time to half of what it is currently. IOW, a DP + truck could deliver 2x as many packages. You can expect the tech to pay for itself in just a few years.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#195

Post by s17n »

fuvkthisguy wrote: post #192
s17n wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming that Amazon is offering retention packages to the employees, otherwise, why would they bother acquiring the company? Early employees who were dreaming of a windfall aren't going to get one I guess, and anyone who left the company or was fired and exercised is totally screwed.

Right, but how great are those packages gonna be when Amazon (renowned for their stunning committment to worker's rights and freedoms, /s) knows that anyone who doesn't take their offer will join the ranks of the 'totally screwed'? The typical result of M&As is, by and large, that the workers lose.

If you're buying an established business, then yeah most likely it's not gonna go well for the employees, since your whole thesis is that you can extract more profit post acquisition then pre acquisition.

That's not what's happening here, though - Zoox's assets are worthless without their employees, so its in Amazon's interest to not screw them over completely.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#196

Post by Retric »

Spivak wrote: post #189
Retric wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon’s “losses” have mostly been a tax dodge. They would for example invest in software R&D without presenting it as an investment from profits but rather an operating expense.

Losses are negative income. If I paid you $100k and then paid you -$50k you would be rightfully upset if you were taxed like you made 100k

Companies losses are just spending.

If I pay you 100k then you spend 50k buying land that’s not a “loss”. When a company spends 50k on R&D that’s generally an investment not an operating expense. Plenty of other dodges exist for physical assets via depreciation games etc. Even just buying more brand averting is an option to increase capital without being taxed on it’s creation.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#197

Post by anon102010 »

pedalpete wrote: post #30
anon102010 wrote: post #12

Interesting. These guys are supposedly launching their ride hailing fleet this year on public roads. "unorthodox entrepreneurial zeal of Kentley-Klay, an Australian native with no prior automotive experience." was the key mover on all this and "touted Zoox’s strategy of building its own vehicles for full autonomy as wiser than the standard approach of retrofitting existing cars that Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo and others a…

And yet, everything you seen on the street from Zoox is a retro-fitted Toyota. I don't think their own vehicle ever made it onto the street.

That's kind of funny. Have they decided where they will be building their cars? Normally those types of announcements (new car plant) will get big coverage.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#198

Post by Spivak »

Retric wrote: post #196
Spivak wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losses are negative income. If I paid you $100k and then paid you -$50k you would be rightfully upset if you were taxed like you made 100k

Companies losses are just spending. If I pay you 100k then you spend 50k buying land that’s not a “loss”. When a company spends 50k on R&D that’s generally an investment not an operating expense. Plenty of other dodges exist for physical assets via depreciation games etc. Even just buying more brand averting is an option to increase capital without being taxed on it’s creation.

Buying land would technically be a capital expenditure where you can only claim a deduction if the land becomes less valuable. If you're talking about more "normal" business purchases like computers or equipment you get to deduct a portion of the expense every year as it depreciates. So if you buy a $2k laptop for a developer and in 1 year it's now worth $1500 then you can deduct $500.

For a business that really doesn't make a difference. If you have $1 billion in revenue but spent $999,999,999 in order to generate the revenue then your business income is $1.

Or the complete logical extreme. If I sell a dollar bill for $1 that's not income that should be taxed.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#199

Post by Retric »

Spivak wrote: post #198
Retric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies losses are just spending. If I pay you 100k then you spend 50k buying land that’s not a “loss”. When a company spends 50k on R&D that’s generally an investment not an operating expense. Plenty of other dodges exist for physical assets via depreciation games etc. Even just buying more brand averting is an option to increase capital without being taxed on it’s creation.

Buying land would technically be a capital expenditure where you can only claim a deduction if the land becomes less valuable. If you're talking about more "normal" business purchases like computers or equipment you get to deduct a portion of the expense every year as it depreciates. So if you buy a $2k laptop for a developer and in 1 year it's now worth $1500 then you can deduct $500. For a business that really does…

> If I sell a dollar bill for $1 that's not income that should be taxed.

You always have overhead so you can’t actually sell 1$ for 1$. Breaking even requires selling assets for more than their worth to cover transaction fees. We let companies deduct those fees, but what’s a fee and what’s an investment gets blurred. Especially when most companies don’t suddenly get destroyed after a single transaction. The classic razor and blade model being a prime example for hiding profits.

Sure, cash flow may make it seem minimally profitable, but that’s only relevant in this quarter or if you run out of cash. Spend X million on software development or brand advertising and can have a tax free transfer from income to capital. Leverage that for a few decades and suddenly your business is worth 10x as much without any apparent profit. Clearly an asset was being invested in.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#200

Post by strgcmc »

bkanber wrote: post #175
strgcmc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no mandate that I'm aware of (not that I know everything about everything), but it's definitely the case that projects with "externalization potential" (making up a phrase out of thin air) will generally be more likely to get funded and prioritized (of course, why wouldn't they be preferred?). So, even without a mandate, the market forces at play in terms of proposing roadmap projects and choosing what to in…

Here is Bezos' mandate from 2002. Quite prescient: https://jesusgilhernandez.com/2012/10/18/jeff-bezos-mandate-...

It's a little different from the idea of "all services must be something we can turn around and sell to customers", but yes it was a good idea to enforce service interfaces and forbid tight coupling at a architectural level.
Post reply on HN