31–40 of 65 posts
What a misleading title.Beijing Sinnet is just a shell company of amazon china(The same as Guxiang which is a shell company of google in china).
No. Look at their website http://en.sinnet.com.cn/home/default/index.html
北京光环 was founded in 1999 and run their own ISP and CDN. They are clearly not a 'just a shell company' and are a local partner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why couldn’t they? No/little international pressure to do otherwise and a currency printing press to subsidize back room deals. This is a great strategy for China and it’s utterly insane that we allow this situation to continue.
> it’s utterly insane that we allow this situation to continue. That is the point I am trying to make. How long before everyone says this is insane and tries to start blocking deals? Though China's inflation due to currency printing press might come home to roost before that happens.
I think WSJ misinterpreted this. Sounds like a bit of an ownership shift, but Sinnet will still pay AWS to operate the regions.
It may be worth pointing out that AWS China supports about 10% of the services one may find in other AWS regions--and not even basic features like MFA for root or IAM accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s utterly insane that we allow this situation to continue. That is the point I am trying to make. How long before everyone says this is insane and tries to start blocking deals? Though China's inflation due to currency printing press might come home to roost before that happens.
If giving money for business development ever created inflation, the US would not have enough machines to cut the zeros from its currency. Please understand that creating money for productive purposes cannot generate inflation, this is essentially what banks have been doing since they were ever invented.
Two things I take away from this. 1. Amazon decided that the risk of doing business in China (handing over information & know-how to the government, helping it suppress the human rights of its citizens, etc) was not worth the revenue that it would make. 2. It sold for $300 million. That means its run-rate was probably only $50 million a year or so annually (or maybe less). That's not very much at all, given that AWS'…
Number 1 is especially key, last 2 years US businesses have pulled out of China a lot because of really really sketch actions by the Chinese government. Doesn't hurt to use the totalitarian argument either, but mainly they are losing money. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup sold their stakes last year as well. China will likely start opening up more because Western companies aren't as naive anymore and short term profits for…
Let's not forget that there is an international trend to close down more (to use the same metaphor), including the U.S. and U.K. China could follow that trend too, and certainly the progress of free trade no longer can be assumed.
The President of the U.S. just gave an unprecedented speech at the Asian summit, criticizing institutions of rules-based, cooperative international trade expansion, criticizing trade partners, and arguing in favor of every nation adopting his isolationist, nationalist approach. (China's president followed with a speech favoring international trade cooperation.)
Two things I take away from this. 1. Amazon decided that the risk of doing business in China (handing over information & know-how to the government, helping it suppress the human rights of its citizens, etc) was not worth the revenue that it would make. 2. It sold for $300 million. That means its run-rate was probably only $50 million a year or so annually (or maybe less). That's not very much at all, given that AWS'…
Perhaps the price was based, to a degree, not on financials but on politics. Someone I know told me the story of working for a major international telco in South America, when the host country decided to nationalize their local phone service. The nation's government provided a check for $1 million (IIRC), far below the value of the business, but of course the company took the check without argument.
I have no idea what happened with AWS in China. When corrupt politics intersects with business, it perverts the market and rule of law - something those doing business in the U.S. should keep in mind too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If giving money for business development ever created inflation, the US would not have enough machines to cut the zeros from its currency. Please understand that creating money for productive purposes cannot generate inflation, this is essentially what banks have been doing since they were ever invented.
Adding money to the supply of money causes inflation regardless of the "productive purpose" for which it is used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Number 1 is especially key, last 2 years US businesses have pulled out of China a lot because of really really sketch actions by the Chinese government. Doesn't hurt to use the totalitarian argument either, but mainly they are losing money. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup sold their stakes last year as well. China will likely start opening up more because Western companies aren't as naive anymore and short term profits for…
> China will likely start opening up more ... Let's not forget that there is an international trend to close down more (to use the same metaphor), including the U.S. and U.K. China could follow that trend too, and certainly the progress of free trade no longer can be assumed. The President of the U.S. just gave an unprecedented speech at the Asian summit, criticizing institutions of rules-based, cooperative internati…
American markets are actually open. Americans can invest their money anywhere. Foreigners can buy property and own companies with few restrictions.
China discourages imports by punitively taxing them. Chinese face strict capital controls. Foreigners and their businesses are heavily restricted in what they can buy and what activities they can engage in.