I don't think people are quite willing yet to fathom that Amazon and Facebook are on a rampage.
Amazon copies succesful products and claims them as their own. Facebook looks at SSO authorization numbers to determine what should be the next product area to focus on.
Their endgames are to take over everything, everywhere.
Forums used to exist... now it's FB.
Successful shoe manufacturers, bag manufacturers... decimated by Amazon's copy and paste attitude.
I don't know if it's that kind of world I want to live in.
Consolidation of capital into monopolies is a tale as old as the exchange of goods and services for currency.we just lived through a brief period where the Internet didn't follow those rules so rigidly. Those days are done.
Perhaps it's also time for a new generation of antitrust protections with our newer, expanded understanding about how companies undermine competition: oligpolies that are technically not monopolies, price collusion (rather than explicit price fixing), undercutting to extreme levels to put others out of business, SLAPP lawsuits, etc. If we're going insist on a "free market", then a highly competitive market is in our best interest.
I've been very critical of the Biden reelection campaign, but the thing that has put me at ease is the FTC going full tilt after very obviously anti-competitive behavior.
Is it full-tilt or is it just enough of measures to get through election season and then it's business as usual?
I don't see any FAANGs being broken up by antitrust, even though that point has been well overdue for nearly a decade. It honestly should have been done ever since those CEO emails about poaching talent came out.
Meanwhile they're grifting on collecting information from the entire population of North America, amassing untold wealth and influence.
Perhaps it's time to just admit that monopolies are the inevitable end result of capitalism, its natural state - and all attempts at anti-trust are basically treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
There were thousands of independent bookstores, record stores, hardware stores, you name it.
The oligopolies are criminals, period. Th eUS population is so distracted with the computer in their hand, and regulators so allured to the prospect of the revolving door, that there has been no adequate response...
Capitalism is generally good at the startup scale, to figure out who has the best ideas. Once we have collectively decided (or was forced into) a single or a few implementations, good job, you won! Now you are non-profit / state-owned company / worker coop.
You can extend the blame to anything. Look at reddit or hn. They not only took over all these old tech forums and sites, but their very existence means users who would have been on those would be forums aren’t even available. Maybe even worse is how news orgs like nyt or cnn or fox news have stolen their customer base from local news orgs. Chances are if you don’t live in dc or ny your local news org is a shell of its former self and probably mostly republishes ap wire news, and local issues aren’t well understood by most anyone.
As well as being a pain to search, it's complete black hole for information.
The trend of more and more projects and companies using Discord as their primary forum for support, docs, and discussion boards is probably not one that will be looked back on as having been a good idea.
I worry that there's so much valuable information stored in prior chats that will simply disappear if Discord ever goes away.
In addition to this, this valuable information is not accessible/searchable via the web without a Discord account. Plus there's the 100 server limit for free accounts, which can become a problem depending on how many projects/communities one is involved with.
That being said, Discord is convenient and cheaper to license/host communities than Slack, which I think is part of the allure.
> Maybe even worse is how news orgs like nyt or cnn or fox news have stolen their customer base from local news orgs.
These news orgs didn't kill the locals, or even "steal" their customer base. It was the death of classified ads and other ad revenue. Google and Facebook stole their customers, not the NYT.
That's not true and is part of the problem. Paper ads only have "brand value". Advertising on Google/Facebook allows you to target your ads at males, 35-44 who have expressed interest in cars and are registered republicans.
It is not the same experience, but Discord servers often act as community hubs in the same way private forums did before. I seems to be eating Facebook too.
You're right about Amazon (and would have been onto something about Google or even Apple), but I think you overstate FB.
They're in a quiet, desperate search for a new line of business to justify a trillion dollar valuation as ad tech revenue gets chipped away at by privacy regulation and eyeballs drawn to other networks. They even rebranded their whole identity around a moonshot idea for one.
Poaching little startups is something you might be able to see here and there but isn't something they can or do distract themselves with overall; not nearly to the degree or scale that Amazon does.
For Amazon, it's a top line business stragy. For Facebook, it's something a manager here or there might drive for a little attention.
Come on a dystopian duopoly with corporate wars on the backdrop of draughts and starvation is exactly the future everybody pictures themselves and their kids in. Or as the kids say these days: but for a brief moment in time we created a lot of shareholder value.
The knowing. I definitely don't want to live there. I have successfully unsubscribed my household from the Prime subscription. I haven't ordered anything from them in many years. And never will again if I can help it.
>> Marc Lore, Diapers’ founder, has not forgiven Amazon. He later went on to lead the e-commerce division of Walmart,
Compare Walmart retail to Amazon retail. Who has more revenue? Im going to tell you that it isnt amazon.
AWS and its 30 percent margins are the only thing propping amazon up vs Walmart.
Walmart drove every small retailer out of business. They gutted America an then when there was no money they left communities with NO retail. Walmart moving out of areas creates massive food deserts in relatively urban areas.
How ruthless is amazon, not as ruthless as Walmart.
Walmart was honing and perfecting this devour-everything strategy long before Amazon was a glimmer in Bezos's eye. They moved into every rural area in the country like a vampire, sucked out every drop of value, undercut to the point where they were the only game in town, converted the previous small business staff into mid- and low-level WalMart drones, and in some cases, skedaddled when the store couldn't make obscene enough profits, leaving the area stripped barren.
>AWS and its 30 percent margins are the only thing propping amazon up vs Walmart.
In 2023, AWS had 27% margins while North American retail had 4% margins for Amazon, but that still meant $15 billion in income from North American retail versus $25 billion in income from AWS. By comparison, Walmart US is operating at a 5% margin with about $22 billion in income. Both companies have worse margins internationally.
I agree those numbers make AWS look a bit more attractive, but it doesn't mean they're "the only thing propping amazon up vs Walmart". Walmart is running a bit larger and at slightly better margins, but the difference isn't as stark as you're making it out to be.
All numbers were hastily pulled from recent earnings reports, so apologies if I made any sloppy mistakes.
It's helpful to think of Corporate America as one gigantic factory that produces "billionaires and millionaires" as product. The raw materials that come in are investor capital and workers, and the waste that gets discarded are communities and the shells of people that are used up to the point where they can no longer produce viable economic surplus.
> They gutted America an then when there was no money they left communities with NO retail.
Evidence of this? Because I mean, the obvious retort would seem to be, "well then the retail could come back then?"
Like, destroying mom and pop shops so that you can just leave seems pointless? Is the idea that people in the community will just shop at a Wal-mart further away then?
In theory, a small general type store serving a small community could make a lot of sense. In practice however, they tend to be fairly depressing to shop in because they're just barely maintained by the one employee who's harried to stock shelves and clean between ringing up customers.
There are other issues with Dollar General too. For one thing, profits don't stay in the local community as they would if you were shopping at a mom and pop. And, just like Walmart, they can easily undermine competition by lowering their prices temporarily.
What's the point? Are you saying that not restraining Amazon's market manipulation is some sort of revenge for the fact that we also don't restrain Walmart's market manipulation? I remember some people celebrating that all of the big box book warehouses like Borders and Barnes & Noble were dying because of Amazon, because they had been allowed to kill local bookstores.
Bitterness can drive people into severe error when they lose sight of what they actually wanted in the first place. People end up cheering on the second step in the consolidation of markets as schadenfreude against the players in the initial step in the consolidation of markets. What we need is a government that is interested in maintaining competition.
It's this great PR piece about a woman running a Walmart location.
PR.
Walmart is the bigger retail business (amazon - AWS is 30 percent smaller). This article, from the very start makes Walmart look like NOT the villain. It's a pure PR piece.
Are you saying that we should be talking about amazons market manipulation and NOT Walmarts? Why are we talking about the number 2 when the number one is still running around scott free?
The article is not very well written imho but I love it when conversations about free markets come up because I certainly do not understand the free market ideology. Some people really love free markets and blame regulations for their inefficiency and inequality (or just say that inequality is a normal product of efficiency). But I have never been able to see that. Accumulation of wealth on the scale of Amazon allows them to squelch any semblance of enterprise with ease which seems to defeat the original point of free enterprise. One could argue that this level of inequality is better for everybody, and it probably is for material quality of life, but is that a permanent thing and is it OK to have large chunks of our lives be at the mercy of one or two giant monopolies?
EDIT: I love enterprise by the way, in case that is lost in the argument, but it seems to me like growth and enterprise are at odds with each other.
> I certainly do not understand the free market ideology.
You aren't expected to understand it, you are being asked to accept it as true without questioning.
If an idea can be clearly understood, say like "you need clouds to get rain" then you don't need an ideology to sustain the idea. But if you are selling "rain dances make rain", relying mere rational thinking to propel the idea into the mainstream isn't going get you very far.
Free market ideology has a lot in common with religion. Ignore all data and common sense and just embrace the idea that its true. All will make sense once the goal is achieved and until then you just have to have faith.
The idea that competition is the holy grail of progress is a similar situation. Cooperation is far superior. When two lions compete, both get covered in scratches and bites and they die of infection. When they work together they can hunt and raise a family. We are always expecting companies to compete when one look at an actual megacorp will show you how much effort they spend on avoiding competition. It's all mergers and acquisitions. Buy your competitors before they are a challenge and add them to your empire (cooperation). Why does every industry merge into a monopoly? Because its far easier to cooperate as a single unit than as separate entities sniping at each other
The pursuit of the ideal free market forces us to adopt such unnatural beliefs and behaviors, and we have to pretend they are just fine.
Free markets require lots of small players that aggressively compete. In capitalism, what you actually get is a few large actors that aggressively collude. Thus, capitalism is anti-free-market. This is free market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism
The ideology that you're talking about should be more properly called "laissez faire", although even that is a misnomer because there's nothing hands-off about the property rights enforcement that underlies all of it.
I’m a pretty big critic of what FAANG has become. The mix of them and lobbying makes Wall St. and lobbying look like a ballet.
Outside of a few islands like FAIR, parts of MSFT (MSR still rules, and dev tooling and Azure, there’s stuff), and whatever Jeff Dean is currently doing with a blank check, I look to younger companies for technical excellence: TailScale, Anduril, a few names like that on the bigger end, but also buf and flox and Greplin and Linear and so much great seed and even pre-seed stuff.
But I’m starting to doubt the utility of calling out this or that crime of the Cartel: privatizing the Labs was a bad idea.
I’m looking forward to this book, but do we really need to debate all these little issues and angles as a society? Or can we just say these companies are too big and need to be split up and face fair competition? I feel like our response is always to waste years on some small aspect in courts instead of making a meaningful broad change to antitrust law.
I worked at a startup that (despite my protests) had a 5-figure AWS bill, when we could have fit the whole company on a $50/mo dedicated server. Maybe you're falling into the same trap?
I once had a contract where they spent a decent chunk of money for me to get them running on AWS but set up in prep to do a zero downtime migration to Google, and then to Hetzner, in order to first milk AWS and Google credits... It worked well, but the savings from moving to Hetzner were so large they could've just set things up there from day one (they had massive egress relative to compute, and at the time the reduction in egress fees vs AWS alone was more than their total cost at Hetzner)
You should avoid most of their offerings because of vendor lock-in.
My two cents is to build something that could be deployed anywhere else also.
Maybe you are fine staying on AWS forever but maybe you could save a lot of money by migrating somewhere else later.
AWS fees could cost more than your startup makes, depending on how you build your service, who knows what the future brings.
So it's better to make your deployment flexible enough that you can ditch AWS and migrate to dedicated servers easily. It's something to think about from the start.
It really depends on your needs and your staff, but 3x $50/mo servers in 3 different data centers will give you excellent uptime and performance. You could host millions of page loads a month with that.
The answer depends on where you would like to spend your time on. If you believe your customers will be yours because yourygreat at operating poatgress datbase - do it, if your value in something else, go with AWS RDs postgress.
Younwill save a ton of time in exchange of delegating database management to aws. Use this time to develop features your customera are looking for. If you would like to leave aws eventually it still be the same postgress that you can run anywhere you like
I love RDS, but it really does not save all that much time beyond initial setup that's trivially contracted out. A low retainer to someone who knows how to do this will be far cheaper than RDS. By all means use RDS when you can justify the cost - if it's a rounding error of your total cost base there's no point finding someone to do a proper setup. But it doesn't all that large or complex a setup before there are huge savings to make even at inflated contractor rates from having someone manage it for you. More so if you do it outside of AWS entirely, though.
Presumably, you know your cost base, and how large a percentage of your cost is hosting.
If that percentage is low, AWS is fine. It's expensive, but it's not worth your time optimizing a small proportion of your cost in an early-stage startup.
My current (not a startup) employer is on AWS and it makes sense for us as it's not a big deal relative to what customers are paying us, and it's an easier sell at the kind of deal size we deal with and our customers often require specific providers.
If it's a high percentage, but you're still at bootstrap level costs, it's fine to stick around for a while - just keep an eye on it and avoid AWS-specific services/lockin.
If it's high, and your costs in absolute terms are starting to bite, then look at your options. AWS is expensive, especially if egress bandwidth makes up a lot of your AWS bill. But you also need to consider your customer base. If it's a B2C business, then nobody cares. If it's a B2B SaaS or similar where your customers are businesses that might assign a lot of trust to AWS or have their own infra on AWS, you need to understand whether or not they care, because worst case any savings will be eaten up by lost business.
In the past, I've worked somewhere that was nicely profitable on cheaper hosting but where the margins meant using AWS would have been certain bankruptcy. And many other places where we made significant savings.
You need to understand your costs well, and whether optimizing hosting is even worth it, in other words, and even if it is worth it at some point, it might not be worth it now.
Amazon copies succesful products and claims them as their own. Facebook looks at SSO authorization numbers to determine what should be the next product area to focus on.
Their endgames are to take over everything, everywhere.
Forums used to exist... now it's FB.
Successful shoe manufacturers, bag manufacturers... decimated by Amazon's copy and paste attitude.
I don't know if it's that kind of world I want to live in.