Maybe Amazon Doesn't Want To Be The Web Platform
from the internal-divisions dept
For some time, Amazon has been trying to position itself as not just a web retailer, but a web platform as well. The company has come out with a number of services that allow third parties to rent out storage and computing power, which is something the company should be commended for. But apparently this strategy isn't pervasive throughout the company. Amazon's Alexa unit, which tries (poorly, some might argue) to track web traffic, has been embroiled in a spat with the site Statsaholic, which until recently was called Alexaholic. Statsaholic's strategy was to take Alexa's data and present it in a matter that's far more usable than the way Alexa presents it. TechCrunch has a nice writeup of the history between the two parties, but the gist is that Amazon seemed to tolerate, or even encourage, Alexaholic, until it built all of Alexaholic's functionality into its own site, at which point it went on the attack. First it went after the company's domain name, Alexaholic.com, which was arguably infringing on Alexa's trademark. Then Amazon blocked off access to its graphs and data, effectively disabling the renamed Statsaholic. While Amazon may have felt that it was in its legal rights to block off third-party use of its graphs, it's still not clear how it benefits from the move. Hasn't Amazon seen the success of other companies that allow their data and content to be repurposed on other sites? It's a particularly perplexing move from a company that claims to want to be the web platform. Instead of blocking off Statsaholic, it ought to have figured out a way to profit from this arrangement. But when lawyers are guiding a company's strategy, it can't expect much in the way of creative solutions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dumb
Actually, haven't they already done this with Mechanical Turk? Maybe it doesn't matter cause the Turk thing isn't doing as well as EC2 to S3.
Dumb Dumb Dumb strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, S3 is contractually unsafe
Remember that as an S3 user you have no rights at all: Amazon have the right to censor your content and demand that you decrypt anything that you have encrypted, so that they can decide whether to censor it. Or they may not bother to demand: "If your Application is determined (for any reason or no reason at all, in our sole discretion) to be unsuitable for Amazon Web Services, we may suspend your access to Amazon Web Services or terminate this Agreement at any time, without notice."
See this blog entry in the Tunesafe blog series for more details of why no serious business can risk basing itself on Amazon S3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]