What I read here is a bunch of stuff that Amazon doesn't care about.
So what if AWS doesn't get Walmart's business? e.g. are Walmart's suppliers and vendors actually significant cloud infrastructure users? They're just sellers of physical products that largely don't even have a significant web presences.
The businesses Amazon wants to use AWS, SaaS startups, financial and insurance businesses, healthcare companies, etc, they don't have any opinion about Amazon owning some grocery stores and an online retail store. It's irrelevant.
What the article doesn't talk about is what Amazon as a whole gains from keeping AWS: a diversified, stable business, and a huge Internet empire that runs on their own in-house technology.
In actuality, the article should be criticizing conglomerates like Sony and Samsung in the same breath, but it's treating Amazon as if it's not in that same category, when indeed it is.
Amazon competes in consumer electronics, retail shopping, cloud computing, grocery stores, home security, social networks (Twitch), digital media, pharmacies (PillPack), and probably many more.
Then you look at Samsung or Sony and it's the same kind of story. Samsung is an extreme example, selling everything from insurance to hospital care to computer chips, appliances, and phones. Sony sells game consoles, has a movie studio, consumer electronics, professional A/V equipment, etc.
Why Amazon is not classified as a modern conglomerate is something of a mystery to me. The whole idea of a conglomerate is that the diversity of business leads to stability. Spinning off divisions left and right harms that strategy if you ask me.
> Walmart's suppliers and vendors actually significant cloud infrastructure users?
You'd be surprised at the reach of Walmart. Some former colleagues of mine left for a heavy equipment manufacture which has an IoT fleet management solution. The company spent a solid 18 months migrating their platform to AWS, then had to turn around and migrate to Azure after complaints from Walmart, their largest customer.
Combine that influence with other retailers, and they make a solid business case for companies to avoid AWS. If a company does any significant work in retail, then their executive team is going to push against using AWS unless they offer fair superior services.
FWIW, I'm staking my career on AWS, and I realize that this skill set will not be transferable to a significant amount of the job market because retailers dominate my area.
I don't doubt that this is true. I guess the complete ridiculousness of it astounds me. Maybe that's why my initial reaction was to say "why should Amazon spin it off to satisfy external interests?"
It seems totally unreasonable for someone like Walmart to make that demand. At the same time I don't doubt they have that power.
It's like...if I worked for Sylvania, and I was told not to fly on the Boeing 777 because GE, the lightbulb competitor, made its engine.
The idea that customers shun AWS due to Amazon is very real. Many retailers won’t use it, and some are asking their SAaS providers to host elsewhere. Part of the motivation is mistrust, part is just not funding a competitor.
There's a one thing about this that don't add up for me: the argument is that AWS should separate from AMZN because AMZN is damaging AWS's brand. But the example of WashPo is great! WashPo isn't owned by AMZN. It's owned by Jeff. Amazon still gets it in the neck because of WashPo. If you spun off AWS that wouldn't change - not unless you seriously expect Jeff Bezos to spin off AWS and then sell off his interest in AWS - the most successful part of his business empire.
Amazon probably can't spin off AWS at this point which should be a concern. There is simply too much money and too big a share of the balance sheet involved.
So what if AWS doesn't get Walmart's business? e.g. are Walmart's suppliers and vendors actually significant cloud infrastructure users? They're just sellers of physical products that largely don't even have a significant web presences.
The businesses Amazon wants to use AWS, SaaS startups, financial and insurance businesses, healthcare companies, etc, they don't have any opinion about Amazon owning some grocery stores and an online retail store. It's irrelevant.
What the article doesn't talk about is what Amazon as a whole gains from keeping AWS: a diversified, stable business, and a huge Internet empire that runs on their own in-house technology.
In actuality, the article should be criticizing conglomerates like Sony and Samsung in the same breath, but it's treating Amazon as if it's not in that same category, when indeed it is.
Amazon competes in consumer electronics, retail shopping, cloud computing, grocery stores, home security, social networks (Twitch), digital media, pharmacies (PillPack), and probably many more.
Then you look at Samsung or Sony and it's the same kind of story. Samsung is an extreme example, selling everything from insurance to hospital care to computer chips, appliances, and phones. Sony sells game consoles, has a movie studio, consumer electronics, professional A/V equipment, etc.
Why Amazon is not classified as a modern conglomerate is something of a mystery to me. The whole idea of a conglomerate is that the diversity of business leads to stability. Spinning off divisions left and right harms that strategy if you ask me.