At an estimated loss of $31,000 per minute http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962010-7.html?tag=nefd.to... I'm blown away that I see Amazon goes down so often. That certainly, in my mind, doesn't bode well for the brand of AWS.
Dividing income for time doesn't necessarily give you loss, especially this seems to have no weighting for time of day and season. I doubt an outage right now has anywhere near the same effect it would have during lunch break two weeks before Christmas.
Conversely, when AWS had issues, Amazon.com was not impacted.
Amazon.com != AWS. I'm curious to know when AWS or Amazon.com innovations impact each other, or which one leads. I'd rather it be Amazon.com.
If they can't keep their own server up, how can you trust them with yours?
An unfair argument, perhaps, but one that impacts them all the same.
Anyone with an ounce of server knowledge would know it's impossible to keep a website up for 100% of the time, so downtime at Amazon is understandable, but maybe the average Joe Manager is deciding between Rackspace and AWS and happens to visit amazon.com during this downtime. "If Amazon can't even keep their bread-and-butter running, how can I trust them with something like AWS?" he might say.
As far as I know Google has 100% uptime, so it's not impossible. May not be 100% for every geographical location but that's partly because of things Google cannot control nor make redundant.
It went down once in the last couple weeks as well, if I remember right.
Most of those are surely done later, perhaps they lose some impulsive buys though.
Not all of amazon runs on AWS though, since they use a service oriented architecture, but many of the services also run on AWS.