[ObserverNeutral]

Amazon simply can't afford rockets blowing up publicly like Tesla can.

This is all there is to it.

Bezos stepping down and distancing himself from Amazon should provide new lift (no pun intended) and much more risk taking to Blue Origin.

We should all remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not like the frentic months of the software wars where Apple put together the iPhone and its app ecosystem in 48 months and others never caught it.

This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).

Bezos should learn from Google and understand that there is no shame in killing a project....but I suspect the ego wars against Musk are too big now.

Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.

[nickik]

Pretty much everything you said is wrong.

Tesla and Amazon have nothing to do with it.

BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does, in fact they are spending just as much or more. Go look at the launch pad BlueOrigin build in Florida and compare it to the one SpaceX build in Texas.

> This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).

Based on all objective measures they are not.

> Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.

Gates was commenting on Musk and his companies before Musk ever said anything.

And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.

[ObserverNeutral]

> BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does

No amount of money can give BlueOrigin the freedom which SpaceX has to blow up rockets and telecast failure globally every week like it has happened for the last 5 years.

The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.

For Musk Tesla and SpaceX were parallel efforts, they were never such thing for Bezos, in 2015 when he got serious about Blue Origin , Amazon was already a bigger company than Tesla is now and will ever be.

He simply didn't have that freedom.

> Based on all objective measures they are not.

Q: "How can you become a millionaire mr. Branson?"

A: "Be a billionaire and start and aerospace comapany"

These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.

> And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.

Gates can pick up the phone and occupy a week long of Biden time if he wants, same goes for Xi Jin Ping, the WHO director and the climate workgroups at the UN.

This is what happens when you do what others would never do: donate money to philantropic efforts way beyond the marginal PR utility returns of such donations. You get politicians lining up because they know they'd be able to take credit and do vitcory laps after a job well done which Gates would never claim ownership of, that is beyond the occasional Bloomberg conference which only policy nerds attend.

Stark difference with Musk who doesn't do philantropy and frankly scans for causes to inject himself in the loudest possible manner such as the Thai soccer team trapped in the caves.

Musk should thank that Gates is magnanimous enough not bring up the mess which Tesla is when he talks with Biden and John Kerry about climate policy. And Musk attacked him first, because he committed the sin of buying a Porsche so that he'd be able to lap Laguna Seca without the car overheating and exploding such as Teslas.

[nickik]

> The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.

I see no reason for this. I think the opposite is true, having high profile test would actually improve the image of the public figure.

Maybe if it was Amazon himself you would have a point, but a totally separate company? Sorry, not buying it.

It seems to me you are just making up excuses to explain away Bezos failure.

> These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.

So first of all Branson is a terrible source.

Second of all, of course they don't get software margin. They are capital intensive business. But that is just terrible analysis, based on this logic no company before 1960 could ever be a good business because its not software?

So I guess anybody not selling software should just go home and start drinking because apparently its not worth it. If the market is large and you compare favorably in terms of competition they are good business by literally any objective measure.

That is other then haters who clearly have personal dislike for the CEO.