117
Alexa had “no profit timeline,” cost Amazon $25 billion in 4 years
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
117 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40979 readers
219 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
$25 BILLION dollars wasted. Imagine how many people that could have helped. Fucking travesty.
I'm not against private commerce, but these companies sure are working hard to change my mind.
Amazon sold at a loss, but I don’t imagine the employees or suppliers and their employees feel like being paid was a waste.
Well, sure, but I'm sure most coal miners don't feel super great about their specific job and profession generally. It's a waste of resources and capital generally, not at a zoomed in level
If you think coal mines are bad, wait till you see the conditions in the Alexa mines!
I wouldn't describe it as wasted, even at a stretch. Alexa drives tonnes of money Amazon's way.
Not according to the article:
Think of it like Chrome. Doesn't directly generate money, but generates a lot of money
Except Chrome doesn't lose a ton of money, energy, etc.
I agree. Plus, right now Alexa is somewhat integrated with my life. I'm constantly interacting with Amazon's ecosystem. Take that away, and it becomes another online retailer (a hugely important one, but nonetheless...) and movie rental service. I could easily step away from Amazon in a way that is more difficult today.
Multiply that across their customers and is the value 6 billion per year? I don't know, that's a lot of money, but it's not a simple cost analysis.
Amazon claims to have Alexa on 100 million devices, so $6 billion/year would be $60/user/year.
It's not peanuts, but... Amazon Prime has 230 million subscribers worldwide, that is $140/user/year.
Sounds like one could be financing the other.
Hey, bud?
Maybe you should think about how they could possibly waste all that money while turning a profit. Then ask yourself what other industries are doing the same thing?
Is it, maybe, just maybe, all of them?
Is that why you're expected to work a job you hate until the day you die despite productivity being higher than it's ever been?
Like, absurdly so. Maybe ask yourself why society could function reasonably well when a farmer could feed five people but things are more or less the same but with cellphones when they feed 150 instead.
It could've helped 0 people... because people with the $25 billion want to say "Alexa, do this", instead of sitting on their sofas an reveling on how they sent $60/year to help someone they don't know, out of which 90% went to finance the people helping, not the helped ones.
Consumers didn't themselves have, or pay Amazon, the $25b. Amazon had it.
It wasn't an investment round, Amazon got it from customers. Then, from among the options of:
...Amazon decided that people would give it even more money, if it did the Alexa thing.