person:jeff bezos

  • Face aux critiques, Amazon renonce à implanter un nouveau siège à New York
    https://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/2451575-20190214-face-critiques-amazon-renonce-implanter-nouveau-siege-new

    Amazon jette l’éponge. Le géant américain de la vente en ligne a annoncé jeudi qu’il renonçait à implanter un nouveau siège à New York, avec 25.000 emplois à la clé, devant les critiques de personnalités politiques new-yorkaises, hostiles au projet. « Après beaucoup de réflexion et délibérations, nous avons décidé de ne pas aller de l’avant avec nos plans de construire un nouveau siège » à New York, a annoncé l’entreprise fondée par Jeff Bezos sur son blog d’entreprise. « Un certain nombre de personnalités (...)

    #Amazon #domination #urbanisme


  • Le nez de Cléôpatre et les Dick Pics de Jeff Bezos.
    https://www.affordance.info/mon_weblog/2019/02/amazob.html

    L’histoire est à elle seule emblématique de tout ce qu’est devenu internet et l’accès à l’information depuis les 20 dernières années. Elle est aussi la plus formidable métaphore des questions liées aux différents régimes de surveillance qu’inaugure le numérique. Laissez-moi vous expliquer pourquoi. Et commençons par un rapide rappel des faits (pour une version longue, jetez un oeil chez Olivier Tesquet de Télérama) Episode 1 : Dans la foulée du divorce le plus cher de toute l’histoire des divorces chers (...)

    #Amazon #AWS #manipulation #domination #neutralité #surveillance #hacking

    ##neutralité
    https://www.affordance.info/.a/6a00d8341c622e53ef022ad3c0cbde200d-600wi


  • Pourquoi Jeff Bezos publie les lettres de chantage d’un tabloïde proche de Donald Trump
    https://www.numerama.com/politique/462604-pourquoi-jeff-bezos-publie-les-lettres-de-chantage-dun-tabloide-pro

    Jeff Bezos a décidé de publier les lettres de chantage envoyées par un tabloïde américain proche de Donald Trump. Relançant la partie d’échecs qui se joue à Washington. Jeff Bezos, le patron d’Amazon, est souvent considéré dans ses relations publiques comme l’inverse d’Elon Musk. Discret et cherchant très peu les projecteurs, M. Bezos a pris l’habitude de diriger ses nombreuses entreprises dans l’ombre. Ses sorties publiques sont donc rares et le 8 février, Jeff Bezos n’a pas fait dans la demi-mesure en (...)

    #Amazon #manipulation #concurrence

    //c0.lestechnophiles.com/www.numerama.com/content/uploads/2015/11/Jeff-Bezos-Blue-Origin.jpg


  • The World’s Five Largest #ecommerce Companies
    https://hackernoon.com/the-worlds-five-largest-ecommerce-companies-8dd94dc22614?source=rss----3

    The entire landscape of trade has transformed in the last two decades. It had long ago shifted from the grudging offline experience to the easier and comfortable e-commerce experience — where everything could be bought or sold by a click of button.I am quite certain that most of us are pretty much aware of that. It is also safe to assume that almost every one of us might have either heard of or used some of the services of the companies mentioned in this list.The eCommerce landscape is dominated by the worlds’ elite — Billionaire businessmen like Jack Ma, Jeff Bezos, and others, are in a relentless race to dominate the eCommerce realm.After all, the eCommerce industry is without a doubt the most lucrative business of the 21st Century.Now, one might assume that he or she knows pretty much (...)

    #ecommerce-industry #walmart #alibaba #amazon


  • Pourquoi il faut (sérieusement) s’intéresser à Fortnite – Signaux Faibles
    https://signauxfaibles.co/2018/12/26/pourquoi-il-faut-serieusement-sinteresser-a-fortnite

    Pourquoi donc s’intéresser à un jeu vidéo lorsque l’on n’est pas soi-même joueur, ni proche de cet univers qui peut légitimement laisser de marbre ?

    Parce que Fortnite, phénomène de l’année avec plus de 200 millions de joueurs à fin novembre (en hausse de 400% par rapport à janvier), soit plus que le nombre d’habitants qu’un pays comme la Russie, constitue l’un de ces mouvements de fond qui préfigurent demain.

    #jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéos #Fortnite #Sony #Google #Amazon #Epic_Games #socialisation #enfants #ado

    • « Fortnite is not really a game about shooting people. It’s a game about escape. »

      lolz : et HBO is not TV.

      La puissance de Fortnite s’est notamment manifestée cette année avec le rapport de force exercé par son éditeur, Epic Games, face à Sony puis Google.

      Sony d’abord : le géant japonais, fabricant de la console PS4, a toujours eu pour habitude d’interdire la possibilité de jouer à un même jeu sur plusieurs plateformes (possibilité appelée cross-plateforme), dont celles de ses concurrents.

      « Depuis des décennies, des entreprises comme Sony, Nintendo et Microsoft fixent les standards de relations business avec les éditeurs de jeux. Puis Fortnite est arrivé ». (Matthew Gault)

      Suite à de nombreuses protestations de joueurs, mécontents de ne pas pouvoir utiliser leurs personnages sur d’autres plateformes, Epic Games a réussi le tour de force de faire plier Sony, qui a changé son fusil d’épaule fin septembre en autorisant le cross-plateforme pour Fortnite. Début septembre encore, le PDG de Sony lui-même affirmait qu’il n’en serait rien. Mais la pression des joueurs, symbolisée par le hashtag #BlameSony, aura eu raison de sa volonté.

      Pour Daniel Joseph, auteur de multiples études sur l’économie des plateformes de jeux, Fortnite établit une nouvelle tendance parmi les concepteurs de jeux vidéo : « c’est un nouveau business model qui émerge. Sony était jusqu’ici la plateforme. Maintenant, c’est la plateforme qui laisse une autre plateforme opérer par-dessus elle, avec sa propre économie interne. Je pense que ça les a surpris, et qu’ils sont maintenant obligés de suivre ces changements ».

      Le coup de maître le plus impressionnant d’Epic Games n’est pourtant pas celui-ci : il est surtout d’avoir réussi à outrepasser Google.

      D’ordinaire, tout éditeur passe par le magasin d’applications de Google (Google Play) pour permettre aux utilisateurs de smartphones sur Android d’accéder à ses applications : en contrepartie d’être listée et de pouvoir être téléchargée sur Google Play, l’application doit s’acquitter d’une commission de 30% sur chaque achat.

      Epic Games a décidé de ne pas faire lister Fortnite sur Google Play et d’inviter les utilisateurs désirant télécharger le jeu à se rendre directement sur son site, contournant ainsi Google et sa commission de 30%, jugée disproportionnée. Ce choix a constitué un pari commercial considérable mais a été permis par la puissance acquise par Fortnite en seulement quelques mois. Ce pari s’est avéré payant.

      Anyway c’est très intéressant parce que ça accrédite la thèse selon laquelle l’avenir du secteur se jouera hors des supports physiques type console. Là aussi les #plate-formes et le #streaming vont accélérer la dématérialisation des #jeux_vidéo.

      Cf. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/12/16/jeux-video-la-revolution-du-streaming_5398439_3234.html

      Fortnite : une plate-forme qui fait la nique à Sony et aux GAFA, ça me rappelle Netflix faisant la nique à… Sony et autres majors du #divertissement. Même si les GAFA n’ont pas dit leur dernier mot en matière de #SVOD : Amazon Prime Video est bien engagé, Facebook Watch, Youtube Originals, Apple TV vont grandir. (Mais je suis ptet obsédé, quand on travaille sur un sujet on a tendance à le voir partout.)

      En l’occurrence, en tout cas : Fortnite se la joue cross-plate-formes, mais à la fin ça profite à Epic Games, soit un éditeur de jeux vidéo qui veut lancer son propre magasin d’applications, c’est-à-dire… une plate-forme, pour faire la nique à une autre — Steam —, avec pour seule ambition de proposer une meilleure rémunération des auteurs, ce qui est déjà ça me direz-vous.

      Enfin :

      Le visionnage de jeux vidéo en tant que contenus concurrents de programmes TV, vidéos et films connaît une croissance qui ne devrait que s’accélérer. Par le passé, le spectateur regardait la #télévision ; aujourd’hui, les nouvelles générations regardent #Netflix et YouTube ; les générations suivantes se tourneront vers les plateformes comme #Twitch, leader actuel du streaming de compétitions d’#esport.

      Il n’est pas anodin que dans sa dernière lettre aux actionnaires, Netflix ait écrit : « We compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO. »

      NB. Sur quoi repose la fluidité cross-plate-formes de Fortnite ? #AWS d’Amazon (comme Netflix). Et qui a racheté Twitch en 2014 ? #Amazon.

      Bref, à la fin c’est toujours Jeff Bezos qui gagne.



  • The 14 Core Business Values of a Trillion Dollar Company
    https://hackernoon.com/how-jeff-bezos-built-a-trillion-dollar-company-on-14-core-values-8ce2315

    Learn from Jeff Bezos’ ApproachWe’re all familiar with #amazon’s dominance in the online space. By 2021, Amazon is expected to own 50% of the world’s market share in the online retail. But how did the company, founded in 1994, grow to such epic proportions so fast? Amazon’s founder and CEO Jeff Bezos attributes his company’s success to the firmly held core values at the center of Amazon’s work culture.In a recent interview, Bezos discussed how important core values were when running a business. Asked whether he worried that Amazon might be expanding in too many directions when venturing into new technological areas, he responded that as long as the same values were applied to every business venture, he wasn’t afraid of taking bold bets.And his bets have payed off, big time. In 2018, Bezos became (...)

    #core-business-values #amazons-values #jeff-bezos #trillion-dollar-company


  • Amazon devient l’entreprise la plus chère du monde
    https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/amazon-devient-lentreprise-la-plus-chere-du-monde

    Avec “seulement” 796 milliards de dollars, la valeur boursière du géant du commerce en ligne est aujourd’hui supérieure à celle de Microsoft, qui avait dépassé celle d’Apple fin novembre.

    Nos services “Amazon.com Inc. est le dernier titan technologique en date à revendiquer la couronne de la plus importante valorisation boursière du monde”, note le Wall Street Journal. Lundi 7 janvier à Wall Street, l’action du groupe dirigé par Jeff Bezos a terminé la séance à 1 629,51 dollars, portant la capitalisation (...)

    #Apple #Microsoft #Amazon #bénéfices

    • #résistance - Je suis toujours en train de me demander comment nous pourrions lutter contre la puissance Amazon. Il est impossible que ce soit pas (ou plus) possible, il doit nécessairement y avoir des solutions alternatives (mais il faudrait sans doute convaincre un très très large collectif de personne pour y arriver). Tout·e seul·e ça parait compliqué.

      Un exemple : une des institutions qui assurent mes frais de voiyages pour une mission en Asie me propose de dormir à l’hotel Ibis à Roissy pour attraper une connexion un dimanche matin très tôt. Je viens de refuser en arguant que je boycotte la chaine du fait que l’Ibis de Roissy loue un étage aux flics pour servir de prisons à migrant (en terme administratif une « zone d’attente »). Ce qui me déprime, c’est que ça ne sert à rien si je fais ça tout seul...


  • Amazon devient l’entreprise privée la plus chère au monde
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/01/08/amazon-devient-l-entreprise-privee-la-plus-chere-au-monde_5406077_3234.html

    Microsoft, avec ses 783 milliards de dollars de valorisation boursière, perd ainsi la couronne qu’il avait lui-même dérobée à Apple fin novembre 2018. Le géant américain du commerce en ligne Amazon est devenu, lundi 7 janvier, l’entreprise privée la plus chère au monde en ravissant à Microsoft la première place à Wall Street. Sans actualité particulière mais en profitant d’un regain d’optimisme sur la place new-yorkaise, l’action du groupe dirigé par Jeff Bezos s’est appréciée de 3,44 % lundi, faisant (...)

    #Apple #Microsoft #Amazon #bénéfices


  • #Amazon devient la plus grosse société cotée du monde, détrônant Microsoft
    https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/internet/amazon-devient-la-plus-grosse-societe-cotee-du-monde-detronant-microsoft-8

    Le géant américain du commerce en ligne Amazon est devenu l’entreprise privée la plus chère au monde en ravissant à Microsoft la première place à Wall Street. À la clôture des marchés le 7 janvier au soir, la société valait 797 milliards de dollars.

    Lundi soir, la société de Jeff Bezos est devenue pour la première fois le numéro un mondial en termes de capitalisation boursière, devançant Microsoft. Sans actualité particulière mais en profitant d’un regain d’optimisme à Wall Street, l’action d’Amazon s’est appréciée de 3,44% lundi, faisant grimper sa valeur boursière à 797 milliards de dollars. Microsoft, avec ses 783 milliards de dollars, perd ainsi la couronne qu’il avait lui-même dérobée à Apple fin novembre.
    […]
    Grâce à ce succès, Jeff Bezos est devenu l’homme le plus riche au monde selon le classement établi par le magazine Forbes. Sa fortune était estimée lundi à 135 milliards de dollars.


  • Bezos & #bitcoin
    https://hackernoon.com/bezos-bitcoin-1baa8383518d?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---4

    What do they have in common?? RMFThis is not a post about FOMO. It’s a post about opportunity, and the seizing of said opportunity. It’s a post about RMF.3 things very much worth betting on.Life, especially in the more privileged parts of the world where we don’t have to worry about the basic necessities, is abound with opportunities. Every day, every hour, every minute.The challenge is knowing which to choose, and then more importantly, how to execute.Some will pan out great, others won’t; and if you’re wise, you’ll take solace in the knowledge that those which did not, still offered lessons a-plenty.This is also not a post about how I found out that “Jeff Bezos bought Bitcoin” or that he’s actually Satoshi, or that he even gives a shit right now.It’s a post about two potential letters your future (...)

    #blockchain #cryptocurrency #internet #investing


  • L’irrésistible ascension d’Amazon
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/058375-000-A/l-irresistible-ascension-d-amazon

    Géant devenu incontrôlable du commerce en ligne, Amazon a transformé en moins d’un quart de siècle la société. Fondée à l’aube de l’explosion des affaires sur Internet par Jeff Bezos, – lui-même grandi dans l’ombre de David Elliott Shaw, un génie de la finance et de l’informatique –, l’entreprise commence modestement dans un pavillon des faubourgs de Seattle : l’aube d’un rêve américain. Car la petite plate-forme de vente en ligne ne tarde pas à être capitalisée par des investisseurs auxquels le très pressé (...)

    #Amazon #domination #bénéfices #travail #marketing


  • New Yorkers won’t give up the fight to stop Amazon colonising our city
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/30/new-yorkers-wont-give-up-the-fight-to-stop-amazon-colonising-our-city

    Why is Jeff Bezos getting subsidies for his new HQ when one in 10 public school children is homeless and the transit system is crumbling ? I have come up with a cunning way to save money on my taxes. This year, I will simply tell New York’s tax authorities they should consider it a privilege to have me in the state – one they should jolly well pay for. After all, if I hadn’t moved to New York, they wouldn’t be getting a dime out of me. My decision to base my personal headquarters in NYC and (...)

    #Amazon #domination #urbanisme


  • Amazon est la nouvelle FIAT
    https://www.cetri.be/Amazon-est-la-nouvelle-FIAT

    Tandis qu’Amazon dépasse le chiffre d’affaires de 170 milliards de dollars et que son fondateur, principal actionnaire et président-directeur général Jeff Bezos, compte au nombre des personnes les pus riches du globe [avec quelque 130 à 150 milliards de dollars de fortune personnelle, selon la source, et 17% des actions d’Amazon], que se passe-t-il dans les entrepôts de cette entreprise ? Entre nos commandes on line et le chiffre d’affaires de Bezos se trouve un système bâti sur une plate-forme qui (...)

    #Le_Sud_en_mouvement

    / #Le_Sud_en_mouvement, #Néolibéralisme, #Syndicalisme, #Travail, #A_l'Encontre



  • Cheap Words | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/17/cheap-words

    Amazon is a global superstore, like Walmart. It’s also a hardware manufacturer, like Apple, and a utility, like Con Edison, and a video distributor, like Netflix, and a book publisher, like Random House, and a production studio, like Paramount, and a literary magazine, like The Paris Review, and a grocery deliverer, like FreshDirect, and someday it might be a package service, like U.P.S. Its founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, also owns a major newspaper, the Washington Post. All these streams and tributaries make Amazon something radically new in the history of American business.

    Recently, Amazon even started creating its own “content”—publishing books. The results have been decidedly mixed. A monopoly is dangerous because it concentrates so much economic power, but in the book business the prospect of a single owner of both the means of production and the modes of distribution is especially worrisome: it would give Amazon more control over the exchange of ideas than any company in U.S. history. Even in the iPhone age, books remain central to American intellectual life, and perhaps to democracy. And so the big question is not just whether Amazon is bad for the book industry; it’s whether Amazon is bad for books.

    According to Marcus, Amazon executives considered publishing people “antediluvian losers with rotary phones and inventory systems designed in 1968 and warehouses full of crap.” Publishers kept no data on customers, making their bets on books a matter of instinct rather than metrics. They were full of inefficiences, starting with overpriced Manhattan offices. There was “a general feeling that the New York publishing business was just this cloistered, Gilded Age antique just barely getting by in a sort of Colonial Williamsburg of commerce, but when Amazon waded into this they would show publishing how it was done.”

    During the 1999 holiday season, Amazon tried publishing books, leasing the rights to a defunct imprint called Weathervane and putting out a few titles. “These were not incipient best-sellers,” Marcus writes. “They were creatures from the black lagoon of the remainder table”—Christmas recipes and the like, selected with no apparent thought. Employees with publishing experience, like Fried, were not consulted. Weathervane fell into an oblivion so complete that there’s no trace of it on the Internet. (Representatives at the company today claim never to have heard of it.) Nobody at Amazon seemed to absorb any lessons from the failure. A decade later, the company would try again.

    Around this time, a group called the “personalization team,” or P13N, started to replace editorial suggestions for readers with algorithms that used customers’ history to make recommendations for future purchases. At Amazon, “personalization” meant data analytics and statistical probability. Author interviews became less frequent, and in-house essays were subsumed by customer reviews, which cost the company nothing. Tim Appelo, the entertainment editor at the time, said, “You could be the Platonic ideal of the reviewer, and you would not beat even those rather crude early algorithms.” Amazon’s departments competed with one another almost as fiercely as they did with other companies. According to Brad Stone, a trash-talking sign was hung on a wall in the P13N office: “people forget that john henry died in the end.” Machines defeated human beings.

    In December, 1999, at the height of the dot-com mania, Time named Bezos its Person of the Year. “Amazon isn’t about technology or even commerce,” the breathless cover article announced. “Amazon is, like every other site on the Web, a content play.” Yet this was the moment, Marcus said, when “content” people were “on the way out.” Although the writers and the editors made the site more interesting, and easier to navigate, they didn’t bring more customers.

    The fact that Amazon once devoted significant space on its site to editorial judgments—to thinking and writing—would be an obscure footnote if not for certain turns in the company’s more recent history. According to one insider, around 2008—when the company was selling far more than books, and was making twenty billion dollars a year in revenue, more than the combined sales of all other American bookstores—Amazon began thinking of content as central to its business. Authors started to be considered among the company’s most important customers. By then, Amazon had lost much of the market in selling music and videos to Apple and Netflix, and its relations with publishers were deteriorating. These difficulties offended Bezos’s ideal of “seamless” commerce. “The company despises friction in the marketplace,” the Amazon insider said. “It’s easier for us to sell books and make books happen if we do it our way and not deal with others. It’s a tech-industry thing: ‘We think we can do it better.’ ” If you could control the content, you controlled everything.

    Many publishers had come to regard Amazon as a heavy in khakis and oxford shirts. In its drive for profitability, Amazon did not raise retail prices; it simply squeezed its suppliers harder, much as Walmart had done with manufacturers. Amazon demanded ever-larger co-op fees and better shipping terms; publishers knew that they would stop being favored by the site’s recommendation algorithms if they didn’t comply. Eventually, they all did. (Few customers realize that the results generated by Amazon’s search engine are partly determined by promotional fees.)

    In late 2007, at a press conference in New York, Bezos unveiled the Kindle, a simple, lightweight device that—in a crucial improvement over previous e-readers—could store as many as two hundred books, downloaded from Amazon’s 3G network. Bezos announced that the price of best-sellers and new titles would be nine-ninety-nine, regardless of length or quality—a figure that Bezos, inspired by Apple’s sale of songs on iTunes for ninety-nine cents, basically pulled out of thin air. Amazon had carefully concealed the number from publishers. “We didn’t want to let that cat out of the bag,” Steele said.

    The price was below wholesale in some cases, and so low that it represented a serious threat to the market in twenty-six-dollar hardcovers. Bookstores that depended on hardcover sales—from Barnes & Noble and Borders (which liquidated its business in 2011) to Rainy Day Books in Kansas City—glimpsed their possible doom. If reading went entirely digital, what purpose would they serve? The next year, 2008, which brought the financial crisis, was disastrous for bookstores and publishers alike, with widespread layoffs.

    By 2010, Amazon controlled ninety per cent of the market in digital books—a dominance that almost no company, in any industry, could claim. Its prohibitively low prices warded off competition.

    Publishers looked around for a competitor to Amazon, and they found one in Apple, which was getting ready to introduce the iPad, and the iBooks Store. Apple wanted a deal with each of the Big Six houses (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) that would allow the publishers to set the retail price of titles on iBooks, with Apple taking a thirty-per-cent commission on each sale. This was known as the “agency model,” and, in some ways, it offered the publishers a worse deal than selling wholesale to Amazon. But it gave publishers control over pricing and a way to challenge Amazon’s grip on the market. Apple’s terms included the provision that it could match the price of any rival, which induced the publishers to impose the agency model on all digital retailers, including Amazon.

    Five of the Big Six went along with Apple. (Random House was the holdout.) Most of the executives let Amazon know of the change by phone or e-mail, but John Sargent flew out to Seattle to meet with four Amazon executives, including Russ Grandinetti, the vice-president of Kindle content. In an e-mail to a friend, Sargent wrote, “Am on my way out to Seattle to get my ass kicked by Amazon.”

    Sargent’s gesture didn’t seem to matter much to the Amazon executives, who were used to imposing their own terms. Seated at a table in a small conference room, Sargent said that Macmillan wanted to switch to the agency model for e-books, and that if Amazon refused Macmillan would withhold digital editions until seven months after print publication. The discussion was angry and brief. After twenty minutes, Grandinetti escorted Sargent out of the building. The next day, Amazon removed the buy buttons from Macmillan’s print and digital titles on its site, only to restore them a week later, under heavy criticism. Amazon unwillingly accepted the agency model, and within a couple of months e-books were selling for as much as fourteen dollars and ninety-nine cents.

    Amazon filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. In April, 2012, the Justice Department sued Apple and the five publishers for conspiring to raise prices and restrain competition. Eventually, all the publishers settled with the government. (Macmillan was the last, after Sargent learned that potential damages could far exceed the equity value of the company.) Macmillan was obliged to pay twenty million dollars, and Penguin seventy-five million—enormous sums in a business that has always struggled to maintain respectable profit margins.

    Apple fought the charges, and the case went to trial last June. Grandinetti, Sargent, and others testified in the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan. As proof of collusion, the government presented evidence of e-mails, phone calls, and dinners among the Big Six publishers during their negotiations with Apple. Sargent and other executives acknowledged that they wanted higher prices for e-books, but they argued that the evidence showed them only to be competitors in an incestuous business, not conspirators. On July 10th, Judge Denise Cote ruled in the government’s favor.

    Apple, facing up to eight hundred and forty million dollars in damages, has appealed. As Apple and the publishers see it, the ruling ignored the context of the case: when the key events occurred, Amazon effectively had a monopoly in digital books and was selling them so cheaply that it resembled predatory pricing—a barrier to entry for potential competitors. Since then, Amazon’s share of the e-book market has dropped, levelling off at about sixty-five per cent, with the rest going largely to Apple and to Barnes & Noble, which sells the Nook e-reader. In other words, before the feds stepped in, the agency model introduced competition to the market. But the court’s decision reflected a trend in legal thinking among liberals and conservatives alike, going back to the seventies, that looks at antitrust cases from the perspective of consumers, not producers: what matters is lowering prices, even if that goal comes at the expense of competition.

    With Amazon’s patented 1-Click shopping, which already knows your address and credit-card information, there’s just you and the buy button; transactions are as quick and thoughtless as scratching an itch. “It’s sort of a masturbatory culture,” the marketing executive said. If you pay seventy-nine dollars annually to become an Amazon Prime member, a box with the Amazon smile appears at your door two days after you click, with free shipping. Amazon’s next frontier is same-day delivery: first in certain American cities, then throughout the U.S., then the world. In December, the company patented “anticipatory shipping,” which will use your shopping data to put items that you don’t yet know you want to buy, but will soon enough, on a truck or in a warehouse near you.

    Amazon employs or subcontracts tens of thousands of warehouse workers, with seasonal variation, often building its fulfillment centers in areas with high unemployment and low wages. Accounts from inside the centers describe the work of picking, boxing, and shipping books and dog food and beard trimmers as a high-tech version of the dehumanized factory floor satirized in Chaplin’s “Modern Times.” Pickers holding computerized handsets are perpetually timed and measured as they fast-walk up to eleven miles per shift around a million-square-foot warehouse, expected to collect orders in as little as thirty-three seconds. After watching footage taken by an undercover BBC reporter, a stress expert said, “The evidence shows increased risk of mental illness and physical illness.” The company says that its warehouse jobs are “similar to jobs in many other industries.”

    When I spoke with Grandinetti, he expressed sympathy for publishers faced with upheaval. “The move to people reading digitally and buying books digitally is the single biggest change that any of us in the book business will experience in our time,” he said. “Because the change is particularly big in size, and because we happen to be a leader in making it, a lot of that fear gets projected onto us.” Bezos also argues that Amazon’s role is simply to usher in inevitable change. After giving “60 Minutes” a first glimpse of Amazon drone delivery, Bezos told Charlie Rose, “Amazon is not happening to bookselling. The future is happening to bookselling.”

    In Grandinetti’s view, the Kindle “has helped the book business make a more orderly transition to a mixed print and digital world than perhaps any other medium.” Compared with people who work in music, movies, and newspapers, he said, authors are well positioned to thrive. The old print world of scarcity—with a limited number of publishers and editors selecting which manuscripts to publish, and a limited number of bookstores selecting which titles to carry—is yielding to a world of digital abundance. Grandinetti told me that, in these new circumstances, a publisher’s job “is to build a megaphone.”

    After the Kindle came out, the company established Amazon Publishing, which is now a profitable empire of digital works: in addition to Kindle Singles, it has mystery, thriller, romance, and Christian lines; it publishes translations and reprints; it has a self-service fan-fiction platform; and it offers an extremely popular self-publishing platform. Authors become Amazon partners, earning up to seventy per cent in royalties, as opposed to the fifteen per cent that authors typically make on hardcovers. Bezos touts the biggest successes, such as Theresa Ragan, whose self-published thrillers and romances have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But one survey found that half of all self-published authors make less than five hundred dollars a year.

    Every year, Fine distributes grants of twenty-five thousand dollars, on average, to dozens of hard-up literary organizations. Beneficiaries include the pen American Center, the Loft Literary Center, in Minneapolis, and the magazine Poets & Writers. “For Amazon, it’s the cost of doing business, like criminal penalties for banks,” the arts manager said, suggesting that the money keeps potential critics quiet. Like liberal Democrats taking Wall Street campaign contributions, the nonprofits don’t advertise the grants. When the Best Translated Book Award received money from Amazon, Dennis Johnson, of Melville House, which had received the prize that year, announced that his firm would no longer compete for it. “Every translator in America wrote me saying I was a son of a bitch,” Johnson said. A few nonprofit heads privately told him, “I wanted to speak out, but I might have taken four thousand dollars from them, too.” A year later, at the Associated Writing Programs conference, Fine shook Johnson’s hand, saying, “I just wanted to thank you—that was the best publicity we could have had.” (Fine denies this.)

    By producing its own original work, Amazon can sell more devices and sign up more Prime members—a major source of revenue. While the company was building the Kindle, it started a digital store for streaming music and videos, and, around the same time it launched Amazon Publishing, it created Amazon Studios.

    The division pursued an unusual way of producing television series, using its strength in data collection. Amazon invited writers to submit scripts on its Web site—“an open platform for content creators,” as Bill Carr, the vice-president for digital music and video, put it. Five thousand scripts poured in, and Amazon chose to develop fourteen into pilots. Last spring, Amazon put the pilots on its site, where customers could review them and answer a detailed questionnaire. (“Please rate the following aspects of this show: The humor, the characters . . . ”) More than a million customers watched. Engineers also developed software, called Amazon Storyteller, which scriptwriters can use to create a “storyboard animatic”—a cartoon rendition of a script’s plot—allowing pilots to be visualized without the expense of filming. The difficulty, according to Carr, is to “get the right feedback and the right data, and, of the many, many data points that I can collect from customers, which ones can tell you, ‘This is the one’?”

    Bezos applying his “take no prisoners” pragmatism to the Post: “There are conflicts of interest with Amazon’s many contracts with the government, and he’s got so many policy issues going, like sales tax.” One ex-employee who worked closely with Bezos warned, “At Amazon, drawing a distinction between content people and business people is a foreign concept.”

    Perhaps buying the Post was meant to be a good civic deed. Bezos has a family foundation, but he has hardly involved himself in philanthropy. In 2010, Charlie Rose asked him what he thought of Bill Gates’s challenge to other billionaires to give away most of their wealth. Bezos didn’t answer. Instead, he launched into a monologue on the virtue of markets in solving social problems, and somehow ended up touting the Kindle.

    Bezos bought a newspaper for much the same reason that he has invested money in a project for commercial space travel: the intellectual challenge. With the Post, the challenge is to turn around a money-losing enterprise in a damaged industry, and perhaps to show a way for newspapers to thrive again.

    Lately, digital titles have levelled off at about thirty per cent of book sales. Whatever the temporary fluctuations in publishers’ profits, the long-term outlook is discouraging. This is partly because Americans don’t read as many books as they used to—they are too busy doing other things with their devices—but also because of the relentless downward pressure on prices that Amazon enforces. The digital market is awash with millions of barely edited titles, most of it dreck, while readers are being conditioned to think that books are worth as little as a sandwich. “Amazon has successfully fostered the idea that a book is a thing of minimal value,” Johnson said. “It’s a widget.”

    There are two ways to think about this. Amazon believes that its approach encourages ever more people to tell their stories to ever more people, and turns writers into entrepreneurs; the price per unit might be cheap, but the higher number of units sold, and the accompanying royalties, will make authors wealthier. Jane Friedman, of Open Road, is unfazed by the prospect that Amazon might destroy the old model of publishing. “They are practicing the American Dream—competition is good!” she told me. Publishers, meanwhile, “have been banks for authors. Advances have been very high.” In Friedman’s view, selling digital books at low prices will democratize reading: “What do you want as an author—to sell books to as few people as possible for as much as possible, or for as little as possible to as many readers as possible?”

    The answer seems self-evident, but there is a more skeptical view. Several editors, agents, and authors told me that the money for serious fiction and nonfiction has eroded dramatically in recent years; advances on mid-list titles—books that are expected to sell modestly but whose quality gives them a strong chance of enduring—have declined by a quarter.

    #Amazon


  • Opinion | New York’s Amazon Deal Is a Bad Bargain - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/opinion/new-yorks-amazon-deal.html

    The city has what the company wants, talent. Why pay them $1.5 billion to come?

    Amazon wants to develop a four-million-square-foot campus by the East River because of the talent that resides in New York. Lots of it. According to the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, New York has more than 320,000 tech workers in the labor pool, the most in the nation. (Washington is second.) That talent commands high salaries, great benefits and won’t move to Pittsburgh or Austin or any other of the perfectly nice cities that tried to woo the online giant.

    Which raises the question: If New York has what Amazon wants, why is it paying the company so much to make the move? Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who offered to replace his given name with the company’s to land the deal, are doing a victory dance.

    But the plan calls for the state to dispense $1.525 billion to the company, including $1.2 billion from its Excelsior program, which will reimburse Amazon $48,000 for every job. Another state agency, Empire State Development, will offer $325 million to the Amazonians tied to real estate projects. As for the city, Amazon can apply for tax credits that could be worth north of $1 billion from programs known as ICAP and REAP that reward companies for job creation generally, and outside Manhattan specifically. (And the campus is in a federal redevelopment area that qualifies for corporate tax breaks, letting the company’s major stockholder, the world’s richest man, keep more of his wealth.)

    Oh, and Amazon wants a helipad for its chief executive, Jeff Bezos. No problem.

    The prospect of handing Long Island City over to a company recently valued at $1 trillion seems distorted to some Queens politicians. They sense gentrification by fiat — another neighborhood sacrificed to the tech elite.

    “I welcome the jobs if it means Amazon investment in L.I.C. infrastructure, without us having to pay a ransom for them to be here,” said the neighborhood’s state senator, Michael Gianaris.

    That is, rather than the state and the city paying off Amazon, Amazon should be required to invest in the subways, schools and affordable housing. It could also be required to include job guarantees for lower-income residents of Long Island City, not just flimsy promises of job training.

    #Amazon #New_York #Strategie_economique


  • MIT and Harvard reconsidering Saudi ties after Khashoggi murder | World news | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/saudi-arabia-mit-harvard-funding-mohammed-bin-salman-reconsidering-khas

    Last March, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, came to the United States with a mission: to boost his image as a moderniser, liberaliser and reformer at a time when he stood accused of war crimes in Yemen and had recently consolidated power by jailing rivals, critics, rights activists and even family members.
    Saudi Arabia says it is a beacon of light fighting ‘dark’ Iran
    Read more

    Over the course of his three-week trip he appeared alongside American giants of government, business and entertainment, inking lucrative business deals while letting the celebrity and reputation of people such as Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Dwayne Johnson rub off on him.

    #mit #boston #arabie_saoudite


  • To Become a #space Faring Civilization, We need to Move Beyond Rockets, including #spacex and Blue…
    https://hackernoon.com/to-become-a-space-faring-civilization-we-need-to-move-beyond-rockets-inc

    To Become a Space Faring Civilization, We need to Move Beyond Rockets, including SpaceX and Blue Origin“It’s not rocket science. Or at least It shouldn’t be!”Recently, the idea of humanity becoming a space faring civilization has gotten lots of attention, particularly from billionaires like Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’ with his Blue Origin, and Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic. Along with this increased interest has been the mega-trend of the privatization of space, showing that our space-based future may not rely on governments at all but private companies.The short term goals that are most talked about are launching smaller satellites more cheaply, space tourism, ferrying to space stations, missions to and around the moon, and eventually, settling on Mars.Since (...)

    #space-exploration #nasa #science-fiction


  • Amazon cède à la pression et augmente le salaire minimum
    https://www.numerama.com/business/424400-amazon-cede-a-la-pression-et-augmente-le-salaire-minimum.html

    C’est un pas énorme que vient de faire Amazon : souvent pointé du doigt pour ses conditions de travail déplorables, le géant du commerce électronique annonce la hausse du salaire minimum. Mais aux États-Unis. Si Amazon est devenu le géant du commerce électronique, ce n’est pas par hasard : la société fondée au milieu des années 1990 par l’Américain Jeff Bezos est à bien des égards extrêmement performante sur son créneau. Mais derrière l’indéniable qualité du service fourni, les coulisses sont beaucoup plus (...)

    #Amazon #travail #bénéfices #lobbying


  • Amazon Will Consider Opening Up to 3,000 Cashierless Stores by 2021
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/amazon-is-said-to-plan-up-to-3-000-cashierless-stores-by-2021

    Amazon.com Inc. is considering a plan to open as many as 3,000 new AmazonGo cashierless stores in the next few years, according to people familiar with matter, an aggressive and costly expansion that would threaten convenience chains like 7-Eleven Inc., quick-service sandwich shops like Subway and Panera Bread, and mom-and-pop pizzerias and taco trucks. Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos sees eliminating meal-time logjams in busy cities as the best way for Amazon to reinvent the (...)

    #Amazon #CCTV #reconnaissance #facial #surveillance #vidéo-surveillance


  • Les cinq chiffres fous de l’empire Amazon
    https://www.lesechos.fr/19/04/2018/lesechos.fr/0301585525195_les-cinq-chiffres-fous-de-l-empire-amazon.htm

    Le géant américain du e-commerce, fondé en 1994 par Jeff Bezos, séduit toujours plus de clients avec son service « prime ». C’est le plus grand magasin virtuel au monde. Et il fait la richesse de son créateur, Jeff Bezos, qui pèse 112 milliards de dollars, selon le magazine Forbes. De sa création en 1994 à aujourd’hui, l’ancienne petite librairie en ligne a fait du chemin et s’est transformée en empire du e-commerce. Dans sa dernière lettre annuelle aux actionnaires, le PDG d’Amazon a révélé le nombre (...)

    #Amazon #Amazon's_Prime #domination #bénéfices #profiling



  • The Washington Post: „Defending the Public Sphere Itself Is a Huge Challenge in Journalism“ | ZEIT ONLINE
    https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-08/jay-rosen-washington-post-jeff-bezos-donald-trump-journalism-right-wing-populism/komplettansicht
    Cette interview résume les résultats du séjours en Allemagne du professeur pour les étude de journalisme Jay Rosen. Il y également a une version allemande.
    https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-08/jay-rosen-washington-post-jeff-bezos-donald-trump-journalismus-rechtspopulismus

    Jay Rosen: The first thing that strikes me as an American in Germany is the enormous importance of the public broadcasting system. The games of the biggest sporting event of the year are all on the public stations. To an American, that is incredible.

    ZEIT ONLINE: Butthere’s also a lot of criticism about that in Germany. The fact that billions of the license fee budget are spent on the rights to sporting events.

    Jay Rosen: I understand that there are political tensions around the broadcasting system, that there is criticism. But if the biggest games of the year are on public TV, that has a huge effect on the perception of public broadcasting’s value to society. It’s not a perfect system, I get that. But it is very solid, it is taking up this cultural space, it is securely financed, committed to public service, preventing hyper commercialization. The second thing that really struck me was: no Fox News. You have Bild, you have the tabloid press, you have the exploitation of rising sentiment against immigrants, but you have nothing like Fox News. In the U.S., 25 to 30 percent of the electorate are isolated in an information world of its own that Fox News provides.

    I will be studying German pressthink in Berlin this summer. - PressThink
    http://pressthink.org/2018/05/will-studying-german-pressthink-berlin-summer

    I will be studying German pressthink in Berlin this summer.
    What are the common sense ideas about the role of the press that almost all German journalists take for granted?

    „The Washington Post“: „Journalisten werden die Öffentlichkeit selbst verteidigen müssen“ | ZEIT ONLINE
    https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-08/jay-rosen-washington-post-jeff-bezos-donald-trump-journalismus-rechtspopulismus/komplettansicht

    Seit fünf Jahren gehört die „Washington Post“ dem Amazon-Chef Jeff Bezos. Ist das gut? Ein Gespräch mit dem US-Medienwissenschaftler Jay Rosen über Journalismus heute

    Robert Bosch Academy - News
    http://www.robertboschacademy.de/content/language2/html/51775_57358.asp

    Fake News, Political Extremism and Prejudice: 6 Warnings to German Political Journalism – by Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow Jay Rosen

    „First We Take Manhattan... Then We Take Berlin“ - DaybyDay ISSN 1860-2967
    http://www.daybyday.press/article6348.html

    http://www.daybyday.press/article6331.html
    http://www.daybyday.press/article6346.html
    http://www.daybyday.press/article6337.html

    #médias #presse #journalime #USA #Allemagne


  • Jeff Bezos to fund schools where ’child will be the customer’ with new charity
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/13/amazon-jeff-bezos-philanthropy-day-one-fund

    Amazon CEO will launch $2bn fund to help homeless families and low-income communities Amazon chief Jeff Bezos is launching a $2bn fund to help homeless families and build a network of preschools, saying the “child will be the customer” in his philanthropy announcement. The tech founder and the world’s richest man unveiled the Bezos Day One Fund on Thursday. He said he would fund existing organizations that aid homeless people and pledged to build new not-for-profit schools to serve (...)

    #Amazon #Amazon's_Prime #travail #bénéfices #marketing