[nostromo]

I'm ex-Amazon and no, I'm not being sarcastic.

It's an open question if Amazon will ever be able to raise prices and reap those promised profits without losing marketshare to the many players that would love to take them down.

Right now I view Amazon as a very profitable web hosting company and a retail non-profit.

Google and Microsoft, for comparison, were both much faster to get to monopoly-level marketshare. Amazon, at 24 years old, still isn't there.

[CamTin]

But a Monopoly on "stuff" and "moving stuff around" is a much more valuable Monopoly (pretty much by definition) than one in "eyeballs to advertise stuff to". Ultimately, the majority of Google's and Facebooks profits are from the advertisement of retail, services, and digital goods, which Amazon is trying (and doing very well) to monopolize. Sure, it may be harder to get there but the rewards are much better if you do.

Would you rather be Pullitzer (advertising magnate) or Vanderbilt (transportation)? I'll take the latter every time from a pure $$$ standpoint. Bezos is actually trying to be both.

[01100011]

Please explain how Amazon will gain a monopoly on stuff and moving stuff around.

I stopped buying shit from Amazon and haven't had a problem finding things elsewhere. Yeah, I pay 1% more... big deal. Fuck those guys.

[fesoliveira]

You are in a minority when it comes to that. Most people still go to Amazon (me included) because it is far easier to find what you want there for a lower or at least more fair price. Convenience is what dictates this kind of stuff, and Amazon, work practices apart, is know to deliver stuff really fast and cheaper than most, being the most convenient choice the same way Google is the most convenient choice when it comes to web searches.

[tryptophan]

So because people are too lazy to go to a different website we must destroy the company of a very skilled businessman who's services millions of people use and enjoy? Amazon is #1 because they are the best, not because they are evil. Google is #1 because they are also the best, not because they are evil.

[kickopotomus]

That's what they have been focusing on for the last few years. A lot of the money they have reinvested has gone towards physical infrastructure (data centers, fulfillment centers, courier vehicles). Not only are they gaining a monopoly in moving physical goods from A to B but also information through AWS. You may not use their services but an increasing number of people are using them regularly.

[trocadero]

Amazon (probably) makes about as much money from advertising as they do from their retail operations. When the margins for advertising is ~50% and retail is ~5% a little bit of ad revenue can go farther than a lot of retail revenue.

Of course that analysis ignores that the retail business is what allows Amazon to have an advertising business. But the GP is largely accurate. Amazon is most well known for their retail but it's not really what makes them the money. AWS is their cash cow and advertising is becoming their second.

[sjg007]

Transportation is going to be uberized. And in the worst case you just ship USPS.

[CamTin]

I wonder if the USPS would or has considered running an FBA competitor (ship your items in bulk to a USPS facility, pay for the space, and then to have them packed and shipped via an API). Even operating at a loss, it might make sense from a tax receipt perspective if it spurs economic activity far enough above the subsidy.

[delecti]

> will ever be able to raise prices and reap those promised profits

That's mischaracterizing the situation. They're not unprofitable because they're charging less than they could, they're unprofitable because they pour their profits immediately back into growing other business avenues. If Amazon spent a quarter or two slowing/halting the development of new business ventures they'd immediately be profitable. If they spent a year doing that and also trimming prior unsuccessful ventures they'd be quite profitable.

[justicezyx]

Control is more valuable