I see a buncha folks complaining about how the high end macbook laptops don't have color -- for what it's worth there's plenty of fun colors to be had from buying case covers and skins, but yeah they add bulk or interfere with heat dissipation...
(Have a MBP with fun case covers that I take off when I do a work presentation.)
I audibly LOLed mid-standup call, and now my entire team is playing with this and it looks like this is eating up what little productivity we have on Friday.
-The old kindles are great products that last a long time
-I don't expect Amazon to support them forever, but kindasorta bricking them on their way out is a dick move
-Jailbreaking is straightforward but this probably hits older people who are not very tech-savvy the most. Like quite a few others here, I too have an elderly family member who I had to help resolve this
I feel there's gotta be some compromise between letting old electronics age gracefully so they don't occupy landfill and a company's need to support aging products over a long time... though I'm not sure what's a good model.
Long-time Amazon seller/brand here, so here's the crux of the case:
1. Amazon is a search engine for product
2. It values being the cheapest destination for products (MFN most favored nation clause to sell on their website), and basically will suppress your listings from search if they can find you selling it cheaper elsewhere.
3. Amazon is def one of the more expensive ecom channels to sell, BUT they've got a huge audience as well due to decades of consumer-first policies, so sellers still go there because even if they have loyal customers with strong brand loyalty, you still end up with at least 30% of customers going to Amazon first after seeing your ads elsewhere + the lure of NTB new-to-brand customers you can acquire there.
So the crux of the case is dependent on whether they can do #2 with impunity -- which Amazon considers "consumer friendly" (but obviously it's win-win for them too).
I order from Amazon because of their logistics. For some reason Amazon can ship for free at the same price as the producer's Shopify page that wants to charge me insane shipping because I live in a remote location.
Yes, I understand the price fixing is why they aren't selling for less on their own site, but Amazon's superpower is logistics, not years of goodwill and brand loyalty.
Along that line: I know that Lowe's, Home Depot, Chewy etc ship to me with speed matching or beating Amazon's (at least above a minimum purchase), so if what I'm buying is sold by those companies, Amazon does not get that sale.
Amazon is hugely anti-competitive, but their moat can be surprisingly shallow in some areas.
What Amazon has shown the rest of the industry is that shipping matters. Others are learning, at their own pace.
I mean, 1-2 day shipping is a huge part of their consumer-first policy, which is why every seller has got to do FBA -- for the longest time until COVID, the algorithm heavily penalized FBM fulfilled by merchant from ranking in the search results.
Once FBA started failing during COVID due to warehouse restrictions + sellers and 3PL third party logistics centers really stepped up did FBM even become a thing (and Amazon smartly gave access to Prime badges for FBM sellers who could deal with stringent shipping times).
IMHO the other big superpower Amazon has is to force sellers to eat returns and provide retroactive refunds when a product gets recalled.
It can be 1 or 2 day shipping. That's normally what I get at my house in Ohio. But it can also be a lot faster.
I took a trip to Tampa not so long ago for a few days to hang out with an old friend who I don't see very often, and also to help him with a long list of technical stuff around his house. I flew down in cattle class with no luggage, which meant that I didn't get to bring anything in terms of tools or materials. That left me a bit out-of-sorts -- I'm used to having a work truck with me that is full of the tools and stuff that I find useful.
And we got into all kinds of projects. We got a lot actually-finished, and we had a great time doing that stuff together.
But there was a recurring theme: We'd need to buy some widget or other to move forward. So I'd fire up my pocket supercomputer and start looking to see if Home Depot or Best Buy or Wal-Mart or whoever had it locally, and then start to figure out some ideal factor of best price and travel time.
Because that's just what I know how to do. In my life, when I want to get things done today and doing that requires more widgets, then I have to get in the car and drive to the store to get them -- ideally, with a good plan in place first.
And he wasn't having any of that. Over and over again, he'd shut me down and say "No, look. Just order it on Amazon. They'll probably bring it over today."
And over and over again, I'd look on Amazon and: Sure enough. They brought it over today. Sometimes, with 3 different deliveries in a single day as projects progressed and our need for widgets changed shape. Sometimes, late at night.
I don't think we drove anywhere at all while I was down there except to tool around the neighborhood to find some yard sales one morning, and another trip to pick up more liquor and some Chilean sea bass from Costco.
I didn't address that specifically, but the prices were OK. They were within a sensible range of what local shops were charging for the same/similar widgets.
Sometimes Amazon was a bit more expensive (and they brought it over today). Sometimes, it was even a bit cheaper (and they still brought it over today).
The price was fine. It certainly wasn't 2x or 3x. It was always an OK price.
(Remember: Over and over again, I kept checking local stores. I didn't make that part of the story up. I didn't make any other part up, either.)
correct, amazon's policies made it impossible for local stores to offer a deal, making sure you pay the 2-3x inflated sum no matter where you go, instead of what the real cost would be if fair competition were allowed
I'm not sure if your point is that Amazon's price is too high (as you previously stated), or if your point is that Amazon's price is too low (as you've now stated).
But I am sure that I cannot accept both of these things being true at the same time.
>IMHO the other big superpower Amazon has is to force sellers to eat returns and provide retroactive refunds when a product gets recalled.
I value free and easy returns above lowest price, especially in this day and age of rampant mis and disinformation. Which basically means I almost always buy from the big box stores (including Amazon).
Long-time seller/distributor here -- the main reason for this is mandated by brands, who want to make sure their MAP (minimum advertised price) is respected across all channels.
Basically different distribution channels (speciality shops, big box marketplaces, and ecom stores) have very different levels of overhead, so if each channel was allowed to set their own price, you'd end up with brick and mortar stores doing a lot of showrooming and then online stores gaining the bulk of sales because they're cheaper (because their overhead is low).
This pretty much happened in the early 2000s-2010s so over time brands became VERY particular about enforcing MAP.
> you'd end up with brick and mortar stores doing a lot of showrooming and then online stores gaining the bulk of sales because they're cheaper (because their overhead is low)
This is what I see happen in Poland with clothes and electronics stores, but I don't exactly understand what MAP is supposed to be solving here, given that the brick&mortar and on-line stores are literally the same entity/brand, and in case of clothing, they're also the manufacturer brand?
From my short experience with this - manufacturers want to ensure this internationally too. So then same product would cost around the same in Germany and in Poland. Otherwise Germans will check fit of shoes in German B&M store, then go buy it online from some Polish store for X% cheaper.
Manufacturer does not want that, because then it will lose most of it's distributors in Germany.
NB: Though I am not debating if it's right, fair or best for consumer. Just mentioning, what I've experienced.
So game-theoretically: if I know the price for an item is the same everywhere, I'll buy it at the place where I see it first (one of the big values of brick and mortar stores).
If I know I can go online and it'll be some % cheaper, I'll wait and order it online, defer my gratification for a few days, and end up with a cheaper product.
Not sure about Poland, but most B&M brick and mortar stores in the US are distributors/resellers of the brand, they buy for $4 and sell for $10, and their rent/labor/etc costs $3 and they profit $3. Another distributor let's say is an e-commerce website, they can setup a warehouse in a rural area with cheap labor so it costs them $1 and they profit $5... so they can afford to discount it to $7 and make $2... which the B&M store can't do because they won't profit at all.
I believe that it prevents the price from being indexed (by dumb crawlers).
I remember hearing our marketing folks talking about enforcing MAP, at the company I used to work for. That company didn’t have the clout of Amazon, but we did sell premium kit.
For us, it wasn’t about money, as much as we didn’t want to ever be forced to reduce Quality; which included the shopping experience. We were concerned that outlets selling lower-priced kit, also had a worse shopping (and support) experience, which we believed (probably correctly) would reflect on us, and our most favored retailers.
Premium brands are often driven by factors other than just money. Brand reinforcement is a really big deal.
> if each channel was allowed to set their own price, you'd end up with brick and mortar stores doing a lot of showrooming and then online stores gaining the bulk of sales because they're cheaper (because their overhead is low).
Um... and? That's quite literally "the market working as intended" and while I am not a free-market apologist by any stretch, that seems to be a rather benign effect.
What makes MAP especially suspicious in my eyes is that it's the manufacturers that seem to be overly concerned over well-being of one specific kind of their downstream buyers/distributors/resellers, not those distributors/resellers themselves. I understand that if B&M stores would try to impose that, then the FTC would (hopefully) smack it down pretty quickly but apparently when a manufacturer mandates the price to the resellers, it's perfectly fine? Somehow? Isn't there collusion somewhere in there, probably?
The problem with "the market working as intended" is you get unfortunate second-order effects. The brick-and-mortar is providing a valuable service by letting you browse, try things on for fit and style, feel the material, and hypothetically by curating products and trying to engender trust in their curation, only selling things of at least passable quality (some more than others).
Historically, you only paid for that service when you bought something, since most stores can't convince you to pay an entrance fee. When you go to the store to select products and then buy online, you're leeching on that service and putting the entire business model at risk. If everyone did that, brick-and-mortars would go out of business and you wouldn't have access to that service, which sucks for everyone.
+1 to this. I was around for the 90s and early 2000s to see when MAP wasn't tightly controlled by the brands; the B&M stores got destroyed because they simply couldn't price-compete because their footprint was way more expensive.
I do think that by not having physical stores, it directly/indirectly promoted a decline of product quality as well as misrepresentation of product, with Wish and Temu kinda exemplifying that to an extreme. Price differentiation is way greater now which I guess is a net positive to the consumer.
As a brand owner of midtier kitchen products (cheaper versions of designer OXOish products, but more expensive than your baseline Walmart stuff), our products look visually similar enough to both ends of quality, but shines more when a person gets to interact with the items themselves, feel the product texture, press the lever action, etc. So I do value B&M for their place in the economy and want to make sure they can have some margin (even though I'm selling the same thing in my Amazon store and Shopify and can make more money there).
Social dancer here -- without hyperbole this was a lifechanging hobby for the better, and while I haven't been able to "meaningfully contribute to" as a criteria, I am a much better person for it.
I'm primarily a salsa dancer (~18 years), but spent a few years doing a buncha other dances to get an understanding of the music and movement so I'm pretty much beginner-intermediate in a buncha other dances (equiv of 1-2 year level dancer) -- Bachata, West Coast Swing, Fusion, and a splash of a ton of other dances.
The best I can explain to most people is that dance is a conversation to a topic (music) through the language of motion instead of sound, and that just like rewarding conversations we can have through verbal language and text, some of the most resonant conversations can be had through connection and touch.
For the subset of folks who happen to be gamers here, this is a massively multiplayer co-op music game with a very high skill curve.
I started dancing due to taking a popular social dance series at college by Richard Powers, and that was the gateway for my lifelong dance practice. It allowed me to indulge in another side of collaborative music, gave me a good relationship with interpersonal connection and physical touch, and provided me with a fairly active and healthy hobby for my life.
Can't say enough good things about it, just that the skill curve for beginners is high -- the first year is known as beginner's hell, but once you establish a basic vocabulary in the dance it becomes so much more artistic and creative.
I want to put extra emphasis on how technically demanding salsa is and how appealing it can be to autists (and how many of them you'll find at the average social/class). Your body, the music, and the people are all puzzles you could spend lifetimes learning to solve. I think about salsa almost as much as I think about software. How to make a lead work, how to improve my alignment, how to interpret instruments.
Id like to recommend that even a bit more, maybe from a different perspective. I took a salsa course back in university because a girl asked me, her boyfriend wasnt interested. That lead to dancing a bit more, bachata was just part of the course especially. But also not just one course: It turned out there were tons of opportunities later to join these dance evenings organized in bars. So doing that one first step enabled so many more.
I never got good, but: It is still a useful skill to even just know a little bit. To have the option to join instead of having to stay put at the table when your group decides to go dance. I wound up meeting people from latin america later, so that was way more often than was reasonable to expect. Im pretty sure having some basic ability helped me win someone over - to be able to show interest in that hobby -, and even just feeling better when showing my child now how to dance is nice.
Especially when you otherwise are mainly interested in technical stuff it is a good counter point.
Love tango as a dance form... but the scene is limited and not very accessible, which limits its popularity.
As an ex-organizer of the salsa scene, IMHO a scene is defined by its ecosystem of newbies converting into regulars, the regulars improving the dance quality over time, and the oldies aging out due to life, family, and what not. The best enduring dance scenes have good feeder intro classes, a dance that doesn't get stale, and a way to handle dancer attrition. IMHO tango just doesn't quite have the feeders into the regular scene, which may be a lack of intro instructors or a lack of accessibility for new learners of the dance.
(For people picking up dance in 2026, even Salsa's not that accessible now... Bachata and Country Swing are the new gateway dances, though I have plenty of reservations for both which is its own nerdy conversation.)
Part of what settled me into salsa vs other dances where I preferred the connection OR the musicality more was that it had critical mass in terms of dancers of all levels and ages -- which meant that it had dancers I hang out with socially for non-dancing things.
My loose understanding as someone adjacent to the AI model space is that you have good models that are costly and cheap models that are decent, so a lot of the publicly visible fights where Claude and ChatGPT leapfrog each other is the companies doing cost-benefit of how much optimization to do on the models before your userbase revolts because the agent "used to be great and now kinda sucks".
As a small business owner whose team is entirely in Google Workspace (Drive, Gmail, Chat -- so inbuilt RAG right there), I wonder if Gemini will be the darkhorse. As a user Gemini's a distinct third in "AI smarts", but most business owners aren't power users who are gonna setup Codex or Code to slurp up their work emails and internal docs/SOPs.
The article feels a touch clickbait-y since people love a good fight between the top players and OAI's lost a buncha public goodwill over the past year.
As a government based person who has witnessed multiple states (not in the US) move all operations off GCP because Google doesnt address sovereign risk, local data and hosting privacy requirements,and contracts well at all, where Microsoft and AWS do, I doubt Gemini will have as large a dark horse moment as it could. Copilot Enterprise can span across similar domains, and whilst it is very expensive per user it has the benefit of having existing contracts in place which it can bolt in to.
Out of curiosity, have you compared the relative effectiveness of ChatGPT and Claude vs Copilot? Given your existing enterprise contract, does copilot have a monopoly on your AI usage due to its superior compliance?
In the handful of contexts Ive seen across departments and states, no, ive not seen such a comparison. Ive seen state custom implementations of GPT (eg 4o), and Copilot, but not Claude. Claude is likely out there for the same reason Google is - navigating those same localisation / legal issues is complex for government departments.
Copilot has a far easier path to monopoly because it can be pushed down existing Microsoft contracts, MS has put in the work for international jurisdictions in terms of data compliance in existing products and thus can extend upon that with Copilot, and they have a foothold in a good many places. One thing that is interesting with Copilot is that if you set it to Work mode, it can treat your organisational SharePoint sites and OneDrive locations as sources, but do so in a manner that respects what you as a user has access to.
So if I understand this correctly, Medvi is basically a frontend to white label telehealth services, with wildly successful targeting on an exact niche (GLP-1 served online).
So the 1.8B is effectively sales on a lead-generation opportunity where he gets to capture 20% of the sale (assuming that since his net profits are 16%), and then the backend guys do all the work and probably profit the remaining bit, assuming this line of business has ~50% margins, to these companies doing the actual work they're basically spending 20% on sales and marketing to Medvi. Because this is subscription-based, most of the costs are acquisition, and preventing churn (which is why he hired 7 contractors).
As another poster mentioned - basically this guy is dropshipping GLP1 with no moat, and my guess is that he was keeping quiet and making money till the market got saturated and now he gets to use his success as a puff piece to parlay into a bunch of other verticals like supplements, mealprep, and all that.
This guy's success is basically predicated upon him managing the branding and experience -- so good for him, but this is a middleman opportunity that is likely already going away due to me-toos (and that's why he's milking it one last time on NYT).
Amazon third party seller (low 8s) here: last time this happened was during COVID and it ended up being a permanent FBA shipping price increase.
Practically speaking shipping accounts for 10-20% of the sale price, so realistically it's the seller who will absorb it and maybe pass on costs to the buyers, but we're talking about 3.5% of 10-20%, which is really a 1% price increase, so a noticeable but not make-or-break issue in the death-by-1000-cuts.
The Andy-led Amazon is less forgiving than the Jeff "your margin is my opportunity"-led Amazon on profitability so price shocks have passed through to sellers much more immediately than prior years where Amazon would just move slowly and stably.
The bigger Amazon news recently is on DD+7 and how Amazon basically increased their float and delayed payments on all sellers, and that's been kinda a pain to navigate.
Amazon still charges ebook publishers the same “delivery fee” for each sold digital copy (US$0.15/megabyte) as it did in the mid 2000s when Kindles came with 3g chips.
Maybe the technical requirements at the time were a good excuse but as soon as you demonstrate the market will tolerate that why on earth would you remove it?
To turn around the famous quote: "Amazon's margin is someone else's opportunity". :)
The Amazon flywheel is all about reducing costs to consumers. The moment that stops happening, consumers can get caught by offers elsewhere, and the flywheel can start to go backwards.
That's not exactly true, they expanded the free tier from 1 to 100GB/mo (1TB/mo out of CloudFront) and dropped egress from ~20c/GB to ~9c/GB. This was due to pressure from the Bandwidth Alliance formed by all the other Clouds and spearheaded by Cloudflare.
It may or may not be anyone of scale (I haven't been keeping track of the seller names), but there sure are a LOT of sellers who do that. Practically every search result I've looked for on Amazon in the past few years is flooded with people reselling Chinese brand goods or Chinese no-name brand goods. Even when I search for a specific US -brand product, the results are filled with similar (or similar-ish) Chinese goods that are all selling the same few product variations.
Glad to hear that's not you, though. Amazon definitely doesn't need any more people reselling like that. And good luck! I used to sell used books on Amazon (both seller-fulfilled and FBA) when I worked at a book store and year after year it became more and more of a nightmare until it simply wasn't worth our time anymore.
It's prob the other way around -- for almost a decade, Amazon's made it incredibly accessible for any Chinese factory, trading company, and middleman to spin up new brands on Amazon to reduce American brands and resellers' pricing powers. So the guys on Temu are selling their stuff rebranded on Amazon because it's fairly easy to spin up new stores and brands, while making it difficult for US sellers to do likewise.
Even worse (this actually happened to us a couple years back), Chinese companies outright steal our images/assets and then put them on other channels like Temu or Aliexpress, selling their knockoffs there pretending to be us. We were only made aware of this when we noticed products asking to be RMA'd from our support email, but with order receipts coming in from Aliexpress.
I digress, but the beatings will continue until morale improves...
(Have a MBP with fun case covers that I take off when I do a work presentation.)
reply