It seems like it. I'm curious as to why would he do this? Some people say that it's for portfolio to get a job. But wouldn't recruiter be able to tell that this is not their work?
That's akin to saying “Construction work is highly exploitative and uncomfortably close to human trafficking — see the case of the Qatar football stadium.”
Obviously providing a single example where it went wrong does not amount to showing a universal criterion, which is what your wording suggested.
He said that there are "porn companies that feature of-age performers" that "are highly exploitative and uncomfortably close to human trafficking", e.g. GDP. Nothing more, nothing less.
> Qatar football stadium
The issue with documented human rights abuses in the construction industry in Qatar is a problem with Qatar, and not with the construction industry. I don't think I have to explain why.
> He said that there are "porn companies that feature of-age performers" that "are highly exploitative and uncomfortably close to human trafficking", e.g. GDP. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, he did not say that; he said “Even porn companies that feature of-age performers are highly exploitative and uncomfortably close to human trafficking”.
> The issue with documented human rights abuses in the construction industry in Qatar is a problem with Qatar, and not with the construction industry. I don't think I have to explain why.
And why do you believe that the specific instance referenced is a problem “with the pornography industry”, rather than one with that specific company?
Because anyone interested enough in this topic to do any cursory research -- as opposed to just being an insufferable fedora on the internet -- will realize it's not limited to just one company.
It's very easy and very free to oppose human trafficking in porn by not visiting the websites. Not to mention the personal gains from squashing the habit of seeing human bodies as objects to use for one's personal pleasure. It's significantly harder to oppose human trafficking in construction, what am I gonna do, not enter buildings? Comparing numbers is irrelevant.
Not a cannabis user, but I hardly ever remember my dreams. Maybe one every 1-2 months if I'm lucky. I wonder if that means that there is something wrong with my sleep.
To be a little crude, and in my opinion, what you are basically saying is that you are glad that the choice and autonomy of other people unrelated to you is restricted so that your vision of what the world should look like can be realized.
Autonomy over my work and how I solve problems. Not having to deal with the customer directly or provide support. Few meetings and business waste. Quiet working conditions with few interruptions.
Though the argument is that it's closed source, there's a level of trust I have for Wickr and team. There's even less meta involved with Wickr since no phone number is collected and the app forensically deletes messages. Nico Sell has a pretty awesome reputation of standing up for privacy.
Maybe you don't like it, and you are fully within your rights to cancel, but it is not abuse. They can or should be able to carry whatever products they damn well please.
Sure, but it flatly contradicts everything Bezos says in this letter, and elsewhere, about Amazon being customer-focused rather than competitor-focused.
A truly customer-focused company would sell the products its customers wanted, even if they competed with the company's own-brand products. And demand for these competing products would be seen as a spur to improve their own.
I personally don't think the Amazon's talk of customer-focus is entirely marketing fluff, but I do think it's unevenly applied. Petty, anti-customer, monopolistic business practices have been a mainstay of the tech industry for years, and it's inevitable that they would infect Amazon to some extent.
Amazon stopped selling players that don't support Amazon Prime Video. That can been seen as first-order customer unfriendly, but second-order customer-centric, if you take the view that Amazon Prime Video is a consumer benefit overall. (I do, but I'm still annoyed that I can't get Apple TV on Amazon.)
Context: I'll admit to being a fairly rabid Amazon fan (no other conflicts, other than as a retail shareholder). I still cross-shop NewEgg (to support anti-patent-trolling), Ebay, Aliexpress and others, but Amazon wins more than its share of my purchase traffic.
Amazon's customer centric nature is generally pretty good, but they toss it aside at times. AIV on Android is one of those times (took them years to release the app and when they did it required a completely screwy install)
nah dog, Apple has said they are free to make an Apple TV app. But they won't for some reason. They don't even have to sell items through the app and incur Apple's cut.
I don't think it does contradict anything he says about being customer focused. In my opinion, and experience, it doesn't mean 'completely ignore your competitors and sell their products on your own store', it means 'Develop your products by listening to what customers tell you and not by watching and copying what your competitors do'.
If you take that as the intent behind the quote then it's kinda parallel to the issue of whether to sell chromecast or not.
I think that was his point, he's critical of Amazon because they lied about their reasoning for not carrying the products, not questioning the legality of not carrying specific products.
I thought that was obvious, and a charitable interpretation of his post would've made this clear, I think.
Yep. Several CSRs told me "Oh it's out of stock" (not explaining the 404, or no "marketplace" vendors). I escalated. Then I was told the Chromecast was not sold due to "too many complaints". A supervisor then flat out denied that, as well as denied there being any ban on any such product.
I asked about the Apple TV. After other lame "stocking" issues, a supervisor said "oh, we don't have licenses to sell Apple TV" and went on about how there's all sorts of legal issues.
It's vile for a company that's supposedly pro-consumer.
Amazon and Apple have had a long patchy history when it comes to selling Apple products.
Primarily it comes down to Apple's need to control the pricing of their products and Amazon's desire to drop prices far into the realms of lossmaking, which in part is due to their customer centricity. I cannot comment on this specific case but it is not always necessarily as clear cut as you think.
As an aside, the customer obsession is not fluff. It is deeply engrained within the business and is taken very seriously. Any decision that is not customer centric (e.g. Halting the sale of Harper Collins titles) is usually escalated to Diego (head of Retail) if not to Jeff himself.
Any business is well within their rights to make money and preserve their self interests, and occasionally strategic decisions may well clash with the culture so not every decision Amazon makes will be perfectly customer centric. With that said, from both the inside and outside I've witnessed really great customer obsession on the whole especially when compared to other businesses.
The problem is that they won't allow third parties to sell them on marketplace. Even if Apple won't sell to Amazon, as long as third parties want to list they should be allowed to and it shouldn't cause problems. (I'm probably missing something; what is it?)
Amazon is big enough that they could be seen as abusing their power as the largest online retailer to suppress competitors in other markets. These are products that consumers would reasonably expect Amazon to carry, but they don't because it competes with Amazon's other businesses.
https://github.com/obaraelijah/redis-proto
From:
https://github.com/dpbriggs/redis-oxide
But Elijah Samson / obaraelijah / elly sam has started removing or making repositories private now that he has been found out.