Thread by @swardley

X : Do you think Amazon should be broken up by the US Gov?
Me : That depends on what the Gov wants. If the US wants to sacrifice future technological position to China in order to save a bunch of execs who can't adapt, gameplay or perform their role then it makes sense.

... personally, rather than handing the future to China, I would argue for execs of competitors learning to adapt, up their gameplay and perform their role rather than some Gov helping hand.

X : Can Amazon be defeated?
Me : Hmmm, I'm not keen on the defeat concept but certainly Amazon is vulnerable to better gameplay, better doctrine and unexpected consequences ... the same as anyone else.

X : What sort of gameplay, doctrine?
Me : For gameplay, I would look at Alibaba. For doctrine, I would look at Netflix.
X : What about Microsoft?
Me : They're not doing bad.
X : Can you give me examples of how to defeat ...
Me : No. Why would I?

X : It would demonstrate how effective your mapping is.
Me : Ah, ok. You want me to work out how to defeat Amazon to demonstrate how effecting map is?
X : Yes
Me : Do these cheap psychological tricks often work for you? Is this how you get dates or sell private clouds?

X : So, you're saying you can't do this?
Me : Bejezzus. Passive aggressive much? Look, I'm not going to show you how to do this. You're going to have to work it out for yourself. All I will say, is a map might help you. But yes, of course, Amazon can be "defeated"

X : Surely, Gov regulation is part of that.
Me : Again, that depends upon what the Gov wants. If the US wants to sacrifice future technological position to China in order to save a bunch of execs who can't adapt, gameplay or perform their role then it makes sense.

X : Why do you always blame execs?
Me : I don't blame anyone. All I'm saying is that if you're competing then it is upto the executive layer to ensure they have the awareness, gameplay and doctrine to compete.

... the desire to break up a competitor through Gov action because you can't compete does not solve the underlying reasons of why you can't compete and simply puts the entire system at a disadvantage to other actors who can (e.g. China / Alibaba).

... you only break up a company when there are clear examples of market failure due to abuse of position. You never break up a company because they're too good a competitor and other execs are failing to adapt.

X : But Amazon doesn't pay Federal tax.
Me : You mean Amazon exploits the system to its advantage. What that tells you to do is ... to fix the tax system. Now ask yourself, why aren't competitors demanding the tax system is fixed? That shouldn't take long to work out.

X : What about workers in their warehouses?
Me : You mean improve labour laws? It doesn't strike you as obvious why some aren't arguing to fix labour laws and the tax system but are arguing to break up a competitor. Naked self interest.