Live data from Hacker News

Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

eugenewei.com

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#81
post #14

Strangly, this was the business model of cable companies for the longest time. They never turned a profit. When they expanded, they could use the increased income stream to go deeper into debt. The profits and extra capital went into more expansion. Eventually, they ran out of room to expand, and where are they now? Someday, Amazon will need to face the brutal reality of profit.

The whole point of this business model is that once you stop expanding, you don't need to make huge investments anymore and suddenly the same prices&revenue bring in huge amounts of cash.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#82
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly be terrible for the shareholders. The whole point of investing in a company is to share in the profit.

Being a shareholder, you have a share in the ownership of the company. You make money when the value of the company increases. This is especially true with Amazon, which does not pay dividends (a share of profits to investors).

For a static, non-growing company, you can treat its value as equivalent to a bond paying as much interest as that company pays in dividends.

Company can have value w/o giving out money if it's expected that it will give out more money tomorrow; but it can't be expected to keep that way forever.

A stable, static company that brings $0 profit is worth $0 if it's intended to keep running that way; or worth $assets-$liabilities if it's intended to be stopped and dismantled.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#83
post #29

Amazon is the proof that corporations are not all short-term-focused, and the shareholders have amply rewarded Amazon for that with a huge P/E.

Isn't Amazon's P/E negative?

It fluctuates tremendously because the denominator is so close to zero.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#85
post #76
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term. Bezos point is that by pricing everything this way, proposing to compete with Amazon is crazy talk for most people: Their margins are razor thin, so you need to be able to beat them consistently on cost to have a chance of surviving, and beating them on cost will requires economies of scale that are impossible for a lot of people. Apple on the other hand, is marketing high end products with ridicul…

Today there's plenty of competition in the cloud space. But amazon had a pretty long run without serious competition and had managed to create pretty strong ecosystem, and probably lockup on its platform.

There's plenty of competition in the cloud space in part because, apart from being new, the cloud space is different from their physical product sales in that there are any number of possible business models in that space which makes Amazon extremely expensive for a lot of possible customers.

I'd say you are wrong that they had a long run without serious competition. They had serious competition from day one: Other hosting businesses ranging from colo providers to managed hosting providers. They made a splash by carving out a new niche. Some people have done well entering that niche (so far), though many of them were well capitalized existing players taking advantage of their position (existing hosting providers adding cloud features to take advantage of existing as-yet unsold/unrented stock to make it cheap to enter this market for example). But the number of new entrants in this market since Amazon is still vanishingly small compared to the number of people salivating over the smartphone market.

But Amazons strategy still puts them in a situation where going head to head with Amazon in this space now puts you in the situation where if you can't compete on features, they will keep chipping away at your ability to extract a high margin.

At the same time they've gradually carved out a larger and larger niche: Additional products, and ways to improve pricing such as having people pay for reserved instances.

This is similar to the physical object space - there were lots of people that could compete with them early on, when Amazon was still mostly selling books, and selling small enough amounts of books that they could not push the distributors around.

But even then Amazons model is devastating to competitors: If your cost base is lower than Amazons, but your investors have come to expect a 5% return every year, yet Amazon gets away with staying around 0% without getting any flak, you are screwed unless you seriously believe that you can continue to keep your costs sufficiently below Amazon to be able to compete on price and retain your margins.

One by one Amazon competitors have fallen because it is incredibly hard to reduce bloat once it has become part of the way you operate, and incredibly hard to wean yourself off higher margins. When they then go up against an organization whose credo is based on cutting cost everywhere it is possible, and then extracting almost nothing in return for it, a lot of people will be in deep trouble.

I don't think Amazon will ever be as devastating in the hosting space as elsewhere, as there are too many ways to differentiate in the hosting space. But they certainly can keep chipping away at the core, and if I was working in hosting, I'd be spending a lot of my time figuring out 1) how to cut costs, 2) what product categories Amazon are unlikely to want to be in soon and/or which doesn't fit with well with Amazon's model (for example anything where customers wants to pay for a lot of reassuring face time and handholding)

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#86
post #14

Strangly, this was the business model of cable companies for the longest time. They never turned a profit. When they expanded, they could use the increased income stream to go deeper into debt. The profits and extra capital went into more expansion. Eventually, they ran out of room to expand, and where are they now? Someday, Amazon will need to face the brutal reality of profit.

How did cable companies run out of room to expand?

There are very few areas in the developed world that are not covered, and few competitors left to buy out (in the UK, we're down to one major cable provider), so the easy gains where they'd roll into a new area and find a substantial proportion of residents waiting eagerly to be able to get cable service, are gone. Now they have to compete for customers that already have some other service they have actively chosen despite the availability of cable, and similarly face losing customers to those same services, both of which makes continued growth much more difficult.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#88
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm a big fan of Bezos, honestly, but to say that pricing your products in such a way as to make >$100 billion in cash is a "mistake"... that's just crazy talk.

Meanwhile, the iPhone has slowly but steadily been losing mindshare to its amazing competition.

And no one at Apple seems to notice this loss of 'mindshare' because they're too busy figuring out what to do with all the money people are giving them for the iPhone.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#89
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, the iPhone has slowly but steadily been losing mindshare to its amazing competition.

And no one at Apple seems to notice this loss of 'mindshare' because they're too busy figuring out what to do with all the money people are giving them for the iPhone.

You seem to be thinking you're refuting my "loss of mindshare" argument, but you are actually refuting the "iPhone sales are dropping" argument, which nobody here seems to have made.

Re: Amazon and the "profitless business model" fallacy

#90
post #34
post #24

The author may not fully appreciate the long game Bezos has been uniquely blessed to play: the sooner Bezos can effectively expand what's working, without over-expanding, it's bootstrapping on a massive scale: buying speed without diluting ownership to even more money sooner. It's not deficit spending (until it is), it's reinvesting profit to grow assets that are the body of the money monster. (For Starcraft fans out…

Despite losing money as the SEC and GAAP accounted for it, Amazon ended last quarter with about $100 million more cash than it started with.

That's not hard to do in general. Companies undergoing an "orderly liquidation" achieve this, before accounting for payments to creditors.
Post reply on HN