The absolute claim, aside from being at home in a rant on HN, comes from a cursory glance at https://github.com/amzn, weighted by contributors and popularity, and compared to companies of similar size. Google, Microsoft and Facebook all build and maintain multiple open source projects that are hugely popular with people who use them outside of the company sandboxes. For example, people benefit from React without Facebook gaining much directly. (Facebook! If Facebook has any redeeming qualities, it's their open source contributions to the frontend ecosystem, although I promise you I could ascribe malicious intent to those as well...) Contrast that with Amazon. On their GitHub page, I see a few obscure projects amongst a bulbous array of AWS SDKs.

To the sibling comment that asked about Firecracker -- I think Firecracker is awesome, and I did mention that in my original complaint. They even created it themselves! Well, a team of amazing engineers in Romania did. I have no personal insight into the matter, but it seems like they operate relatively independently from the AWS profit machine. Good for them too, it's incredible software. But I'm sure if they were to tell the story of how they got buy-in at Amazon to open source it, the same themes would come up -- how does Amazon benefit from this? In the case of Firecracker, the more people test it / harden it / run Doom on it, the more value Amazon can provide on its serverless platform. So again, unlikely to be purely altruistic intentions... but that's not to say there's anything wrong with that. I just find it all a bit distasteful in aggregate.