So no one is going to talk about how the Model is a mathematical model which follows Bayes Theorem in it's core. It updates it's priors based on new evidence presented every day.
The whole point of the Model is to detect things which are uncertain by nature. Being wrong is not bad, it's good TBH.
Did some Program Manager needed a promotion at Google? Looks like it.
I personally dislike such changes, which no one asks for.
Either people are just pushing their BS through Google higher ranks or they have no clue how their users actually feel and use their core product.
The amount of wastage I see in online store returns is mind boggling.
I recently ordered something from a manufacturer on Amazon. After couple of days, they dropped price on product by $20. So I called up Amazon for price adjustment. I was politely asked to return it to manufacturer and order a new one.
Seriously, Amazon cannot work with manufacturers to just refund price difference instead of returning the product and ordering it again. It is wasteful at so many levels.
Price adjustments are actually a fascinating area.
Because on the one hand, anyone can get a "de facto" price adjustment by buying a new one, keeping the old one, and returning the new one as the old one.
Now if consumers all actually did this and shipping were offered free for consumers, you'd see every company offering price adjustments within the return window, just so they could save on the shipping and handling they'd otherwise be paying for.
But in reality, a lot of consumers won't go through the hassle because it's not worth it in the end, or just too annoying. In that case, a company can save a lot more money by not offering price adjustments -- clearly Amazon's strategy here.
The most profitable strategy for any particular company on any particular product category can be either of these or somewhere in the middle. Which is why, even for companies that offer price adjustments, they're often predicated on a shorter time window (1 week instead of 60 days), only being on merchandise that was originally full-price (so you can go from 0% discount to 40%, but not 20% to 40%), or other exclusions which result in the most profitable overall balance.
Lululemon, Nike, and Away all sell aspiration, hope, and a lifestyle, which get them to valuations higher than shoe, yoga pants, and luggage companies do. There are of course variations on design and differentiation in technology in each of those, but the value is in the brand.
A lot of people travel and need luggage as well. I’m not suggesting Away would ever be worth anything close to Nike but is it realistic to think it could be worth several billion? Sure.
Trump wanted to personally screw over Amazon in this. He even tweeted about it. I’m not sure what’s left there to speculate but okay.
The cost effective argument doesn’t mean much - there’s something here that makes AWS competitive, including cost, or everyone would just use their competitors.
Disclaimer: I have about equal investments (greater than 1MM) in both companies, so I’m personally not biased for one vs the other.
I’ve been reading Jeff’s letters to the shareholders since the early 2000s. He basically says - we don’t care about optimizing for today. We’re in it for the marathon. Agree with him or not, but I doubt Amazon tried to give expensive pricing to the US government. I would wager they might even offer services at a loss - the profit would come from the long term lock in, not to mention all the government contractors who’d have to follow and use AWS.
Smart local students go to in state public schools to avoid crippling debt.