←back to thread

Amazon-Stripe partnership

(stripe.com)
258 points polyrand | 3 comments | 23 Jan 23 15:38 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vishnugupta ◴[23 Jan 23 17:17 UTC] No.34491814[source]▶
I worked on Amazon Payments systems for quite some time back in the day. We took pride in being the best payment processors. Had direct connections with card networks, banks and what not. We even launched a PayPal competitor[1]. They launched a Square like device for physical retailers[2]. They invested some serious money in building and maintaining all of that.

However going by this news seems like Amazon has more or less given up on their payments ambitions. Could be also due to recent layoffs. This is a big news. Maybe Amazon wants to focus on being good at few things instead of running hundreds of experiments.

Edit: References.

[1] https://pay.amazon.com

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/10/30/amazon-kills...

replies(13): >>34492285 #>>34492424 #>>34492477 #>>34492540 #>>34492858 #>>34493001 #>>34493308 #>>34493477 #>>34494414 #>>34494441 #>>34495105 #>>34495487 #>>34496533 #
MuffinFlavored ◴[23 Jan 23 19:12 UTC] No.34493477[source]▶
> Could be also due to recent layoffs.

Just a quick guess I am pulling out of my ass.

Did somebody high up do a cost analysis/breakdown that said: is this entire business org making the company money or can we just use Stripe for less money?

Does it boil down to that gross oversimplification or not?

I'm sure it isn't easy to quantify the intangibles (if there were any) on what edges Amazon had over Stripe and benefitted from by choosing to do it in house. I'm sure it might not seem like an apples-to-apples comparison, but I guess when you zoom out high enough (company spending $X money in, getting Y out) it's comparable to any other purchasable good/service?

replies(2): >>34493753 #>>34494274 #
1. ethbr0 ◴[23 Jan 23 20:11 UTC] No.34494274[source]▶
Good note when talking about large businesses and org-wide initiatives.

It's easy to forget (looking from the bottom-up) that when you're surveying from the top-down, there are always alternative places to spend $1.

So it isn't enough to make >$1 in return for every $1 invested, you have to offer better return than the other things the company could be doing with that capital.

F.ex. in retail, there's an everpresent alternative of investing in logistics and warehouse automation, which saves the business a LOT of money

replies(2): >>34494517 #>>34499727 #
2. MuffinFlavored ◴[23 Jan 23 20:28 UTC] No.34494517[source]▶
> So it isn't enough to make >$1 in return for every $1 invested, you have to offer better return than the other things the company could be doing with that capital.

And the big thing now (at least I think it is, although I don't have any proof that companies are actually doing this) is...

https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-compa...

I don't think every one of these corporations is going to take 100% of their cash on hand and stash it into 10 year bonds overnight...

But I'm lead to believe some variation of this is happening. Corporations can make 3-4% risk free + short term. If you work on a project that doesn't bring the company at least 3-4% ROI after it's all said and done (you, your managers, all expenses, etc.)... why are you owed a job?

Very cruel and mean reality, right?

3. vishnugupta ◴[24 Jan 23 05:25 UTC] No.34499727[source]▶
> alternative of investing in logistics and warehouse automation, which saves the business a LOT of money

That was my best educated guess. For long, Amazon invested in payments believing it to be a differentiator and also to spin it off into its own business unit. The payments division at Amazon is huge. But after two decades of not going anywhere with payments business they seem to have thrown in the towel and focus instead on physical logistics side of e-commerce.