Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

So say it was separated, and the first order effect is that AWS inc is wildly profitable, and Amazon retail is not, and they have to raise prices or lose market share to others. Is that going to result in a better outcome?

I don't think I've formed an opinion on whether breaking them up is better. On one hand, amazon driving competitors out of business seems bad, on the other, you could think of it as subsidizing innovation in retail with profits that otherwise would just go to the shareholders. I don't entirely buy that either, but neither do I buy the idea that we should break them up so those maintaining the status quo can be competitive

View on HN

Yes, that is better because it is more competitive and gives other ecommerce a better chance to grow.

But do you want to pay for their learning curve? More competitors is only helpful if the price goes down or more products are available. If prices go up as a result the consumer pays.

Yes, I do. I could move to China any moment I wanted, if I wanted to live in an economy where the people who were previously in power remain in power and get nice things and promise everything works out in your favor.

I plan to live and purchase products for at least half a century more. In that time, it is pretty unlikely that Amazon will continue to be better than competitors, in much the same way that Sears-Roebuck isn't better than competitors today. I would like there to be good competitors, on a level playing field, as fast as possible.

In other words - the choice is between short-term inefficiencies and long-term inefficiencies. It seems fairly clear that it's better to have short-term inefficiencies.

Is there any difference between Amazon, Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Staples, Best Buy, Costco, etc?

Amazon is better for small electronics and other knick knacks, and has an aliexpress with 2 day shipping bolted on, but I do not understand the fear of Amazon retail.

All the other stores have better pricing, product curation, and local availability. They all ship to you in the same time Amazon does.

If anything, having Amazon retail as a competitor to these other retail stores gives customers one more option.

Do you want to be stuck in a local minima forever? Increased competition will lower prices in the long term.

> More competitors

... are helpful to workers and producers.

I'd be OK with it losing share to others. Currently the situation sucks: you have very few alternatives when shopping online. That is not a normal situation in any kind of a "competitive" economy. I'd go further, and break up Amazon's retail into two companies as well. 2 Amazons, 2 AWS-es, fighting each other to the death would be the ideal outcome.

No problem. It's already atleast 3+ vs. 3+. Amazon vs. Walmart vs. Home Depot, AWS vs. Azure vs. GCP. Market cap doesn't really lie too much.

Notably, there's a cartel-like coordinated pricing situation between the big three cloud providers, which manifests in the lack of price competition, and which we need to bust somehow.

Usually the victims of coordinated pricing are unsophisticated consumers. In contrast, the customers of the big 3 cloud providers are organizations employing specialists in cloud computing. So I am surprised to hear this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com