A lot of what Google does, or fails at, makes a lot more sense when you actually think about what its core competencies are: big data, anything that works best with an exabyte of data, a billion CPU-years, and some crazy machine learning / good ol' fashion statistical elbow-grease.
It's obvious how this relates to their original business, Search, and how it relates to their more successful spin-offs and their failures. Spam filtering and self-driving cars are more big data problems (though spam filtering is less impressive nowadays), and the Cloud and YouTube make a lot more sense when you realize that Google already runs a really efficient data-center. Meanwhile, eg, Google Reader was something that didn't really need a Google to run, and suffered for it.
It's not as obvious to me how AWS grew out of Amazon; it doesn't seem obvious to me that you need that much data center to run Amazon (or at least, Amazon-at-that-time).
I wish I'd said it like that. Surprising, for just that reason.
Your Google point (besides being a contrast to amazon's surprising athena) is an interesting way of describing things.
Youtube, Android and even adwords & web analytics were bought fairly formed, and clearly were quite good already. That's a skill in itself. When you think of examples of ebay, skype and how few buy-outs really do succeed like that.
Google could make the web work too. Remember how slow yahoo a basic webmail service was. The idea that they'd make an excel that worked.. it wasn't trivial.
But I think you're right on the lead skill. If it works best with an exabyte of data, a billion CPU-years... it works best on a google.
I think that is an interesting insight - the majority of Google's offerings are from aquisitions of 'established' implementations, whereas Amazon's are developed in-house to solve a pain-point, that is felt by other businesses, too.
So, is Amazon really more B2B, while Google is B2C?
Is Amazon using e-commerce like a US university looks at undergrads for funding?
Google has bought a number of companies, yes (Google Maps is another piece that started as an acquisition) but I'd note that which acquisitions survive and thrive also relates back to the core competencies.
Stage 1: Railroads are going to be the next big thing. Smart play: Be one of the first with a railroad.
Stage 2: Everyone knows railroads are the next big thing. Tons of people are raising money to build railroads. Smart play: Sell those people the stuff to build railroads.
Stage 2: make it easy for everyone to have a railroad by leasing them yours. Lease yours multiple times over, each time for less than it would cost the customer to build a new one.
Stage 3: everyone has a railroad which they rent from you. Collect rent on all railroad activity forever.
So now - what is Stage 3; once everyone has a railroad - then what?
Then it's a long time after the initial Industrial Revolution, and you're in a fantastic world where it's commonplace for ordinary people to own a steel machine which can travel as fast as a train at "high speed."
I don’t know where the metaphor is supposed to go, but I’d imagine that the next stage for AWS is to move further into SaaS products, and to introduce new products and features that lower the engineering overheads of operating on AWS.
So much this. A commerce company needs peak compute in December and tax companies in March, so why not share server farms? If you extend that idea to a business model, you make a normally internal cost center into an external facing revenue generator.
I recall an episode of Software Engineering Daily where the host, Jeff was interviewing some Microsoft guys and they suggested AWS was the result of Amazon selling it’s own infrastructure. Jeff interrupted him and said that was “not accurate.” Sorry I don’t have link to the episode here but it was not a very good one. The Microsoft guy responded by saying the truth of the story didn’t matter, which is pretty absurd but I think reflects how Amazon came to dominate the public consciousness. The truth just doesn’t matter in advertising or in reputation. We’ve learned how to undermine it with buzz and mediation.
For example, many were sick of Wal-Mart. Was it because of the way they treated their workers? No. If it were, they wouldn’t have ran to Target and Amazon instead. The actual shopping behaviors are guided by convenience but judtified by cultural associations. Target capitalized on the same image appeal without offering anything new at all. Amazon is, culturally, Target + Silicon Valley. Ad agencies all understand this very well. Amazon is neoliberalism in the flesh. There’s nothing a bit surprising about it.
What I assume is being referred to is the story that AWS got started to sell Amazon's spare compute capacity. Werner Vogels has publicly stated that this is a myth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8658383
I've always wondered about how Target can maintain this image as some kind of forward-thinking retailer when they're no better than Walmart is on most of that stuff, but I think the answer is honestly mostly "the Wrong Kind of People shop at Walmart."
They offer better service and selection in many areas than Walmart. This is particularly true outside of the south, where Walmart is just better for some reason. Here in the northeast, Walmart is like DMV especially when benefit checks come in.
They also appeal more to women, and eschew product categories that men and poor folk flock to like car parts, guns, fishing, Jesus books, crafting, etc.
> They also appeal more to women, and eschew product categories that men and poor folk flock to like car parts, guns, fishing, Jesus books, crafting, etc.
Target does not eschew most of those categories (guns and car parts are the only ones I think they consistently don't carry). Also, as an aside, crafting isn't a “men and poor people” category, anyway, but a famously huge interest for middle class women.
I live in Massachusetts. My experience is that the selection is smaller and more expensive but the goods are not of a higher quality (especially if you have a Walmart Super Center). But I think the "especially when the benefit checks come in" aside illustrates exactly what I am talking about.
For me it's as simple as making it so the stores don't look like they've been through a looting riot recently. I still go to Walmart sometimes, but I'm generally not happy about it.
> Jeff interrupted him and said that was “not accurate.”
Not accurate to say that Amazon is selling its own infrastructure, or not accurate to say that they had the internal competencies to launch AWS due to building their own infrastructure? I've always assumed it's the latter -- AWS is an abstraction of tools they needed to build anyway -- rather than literally sharing compute etc. with Amazon services.
I think this was some lazy paraphrasing on my part. I’m pretty sure the latter is what they meant. Personally, to me, it sounds like ones of those business idea myths that may have some bit of truth but it’s mostly a viral spin.
Surprising or not, AWS makes a lot of sense when you look at Amazons core competency. Logistics.
Look at any individual AWS service by itself, none of them are all that groundbreaking or innovative. What is groundbreaking is that Amazon has managed to take all of these services, and distribute them through a massively complex and infinitely scaling ecosystem. That’s logistics.
This is very true. I remember around 2005-06 when they publicized black Friday as a proof by fire of their technology, pretty much daring the internet to bring their site down with huge deals all at the same time. And it was amazing that their website kept working. After that it seems like they realized they could sell the idea of automatically, infinitely scaling infrastructure, but it wasn't at all obvious from the outside.
A lot of what Google does, or fails at, makes a lot more sense when you actually think about what its core competencies are: big data, anything that works best with an exabyte of data, a billion CPU-years, and some crazy machine learning / good ol' fashion statistical elbow-grease.
It's obvious how this relates to their original business, Search, and how it relates to their more successful spin-offs and their failures. Spam filtering and self-driving cars are more big data problems (though spam filtering is less impressive nowadays), and the Cloud and YouTube make a lot more sense when you realize that Google already runs a really efficient data-center. Meanwhile, eg, Google Reader was something that didn't really need a Google to run, and suffered for it.
It's not as obvious to me how AWS grew out of Amazon; it doesn't seem obvious to me that you need that much data center to run Amazon (or at least, Amazon-at-that-time).