Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

tech.newstatesman.com

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#11
Wondering if anyone in these comments actually read the post.

They are making a legitimate point about an unfair public procurement process that the president interfered in for personal reasons.

> There is a recurring pattern to the way President Trump behaves when he’s called out for doing something egregious: first he denies doing it, then he looks for ways to push it off to the side, to distract attention from it and delay efforts to investigate it (so people get bored and forget about it). And then he ends up doubling down on the egregious act anyway. On JEDI, President Trump reportedly ordered former Secretary Mattis to “screw’” Amazon, blatantly interfered in an active procurement, directed his subordinate to conduct an unorthodox “review” prior to a contract award announcement and then stonewalled an investigation into his own political interference. “Corrective action” was used as a way to halt our litigation, delay further investigations and incorrectly give the appearance that only one issue needed to be fixed while giving the impression that the DoD was actually going to fix something. While corrective action can be used to efficiently resolve protests, in reality, this corrective action changed nothing, wasted five months that could have been spent getting to the bottom of these serious concerns, and was designed solely to distract from our broader concerns and reaffirm a decision that was corrupted by the President’s self-interest

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#12
From the AWS blog post [0].

> This time, AWS offered a lower cost by several tens of millions of dollars.

On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference?

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-c...

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#13
post #6

What an unbelievably transparent appeal to peoples' emotions. It's a "dangerous precedent" to use somebody other than AWS? And this is all Trump's fault somehow? I mean my god. Is Russia involved somehow?

yes this action was taken by trump

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#14

From the AWS blog post [0]. > This time, AWS offered a lower cost by several tens of millions of dollars. On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference? [0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-c...

That is probably the weakest and least-relevant argument in the entire post.

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#16
Can someone tell me if I’ve summed this up right?

- Amazon colludes behind the scenes to get a contract proposal that on paper only Amazon can fill (e.g. memory sizing options exactly matching things only AWS provides)

- There is a competitive bidding process without prices revealed and Microsoft wins

- Amazon cries no fair and demands to be allowed to bid again now that they know how much Microsoft bid

- Government re-evaluates the deal and picks Microsoft again

- Amazon decides to make whiny posts about how aggrieved they, as a >1.5T company, are

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#17

From the AWS blog post [0]. > This time, AWS offered a lower cost by several tens of millions of dollars. On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference? [0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-c...

Yes. If two proposals both of the same exact technical level and Amazon was a cheaper price, then the government is supposed to go with the one that saves the taxpayer money.

The government should provide detailed evidence to the taxpayers as to why it needs to go with a more expensive options.

I am all for having competition in the space, but if Microsoft is not giving a clearly superior product for the money then why should the taxpayers spend extra money on it? Although, I am willing to listen to the case that the government needs to have the competition in the space to ensure its own future interests and that is worth an extra cost. But that is not the case that is being presented. At least not that I have seen.

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#18
You've set a truly dangerous precedent of not giving me billions of dollars. I wasn't aware that AWS executives were whiny babies.

I know HN doesn't like a non-serious tone, but do these clearly massively self-interested guys really deserve more than mockery? They're not trying to alert the public to the horrors of a bloated military-industrial complex. They're trying to get their beak wet and crying when they didn't get any.

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#19

Can someone tell me if I’ve summed this up right? - Amazon colludes behind the scenes to get a contract proposal that on paper only Amazon can fill (e.g. memory sizing options exactly matching things only AWS provides) - There is a competitive bidding process without prices revealed and Microsoft wins - Amazon cries no fair and demands to be allowed to bid again now that they know how much Microsoft bid - Government…

Did you read the AWS blog post? [1]

You are missing a massive part of the story. They are accusing the president of interfering in a public procurement process because of his personal dislike of Bezos/Amazon.

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-c...

Re: Microsoft’s $10bn Jedi cloud contract “sets dangerous precedent”, says AWS

#20
>> Amazon called the single-supplier framework award “politically corrupted”

I wonder when corporations will start taking the place of governments, when they will wage war against each other and kidnap each other's executives? This is the world we're heading towards. There can only be one winner.

If they keep asking for more legal privileges for corporations, this is what we're going to get.

The government should completely cut corporations out of all contracts before it's too late.

Post reply on HN