×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon.com Suffers Outage: Nearly $5M Down the Drain?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the what-is-the-richter-scale-for-net-outages? dept.

Businesses 173

First time accepted submitter Brandon Butler writes "Amazon.com, the multi-billion online retail website, experienced an outage of unknown proportions on Thursday afternoon. Rumblings of an Amazon.com outage began popping up on Twitter at about 2:40 PM ET. Multiple attempts to access the site around 3:15 PM ET on Thursday were met with the message: 'Http/1.1 Service Unavailable.' By 3:30 PM ET the site appeared to be back online for at least some users. How big of a deal is an hour-long Amazon outage? Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour." Update: 01/31 22:25 GMT by T : "Hackers claim credit."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

173 comments

Hmm... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755911)

So, if a website is down, and someone goes to buy something, that means they are unable to purchase it later when the site is back up?

The logic behind how they arrived at that number is slightly flawed.

Re:Hmm... (3, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year ago | (#42755961)

Well.. Timothy wrote the headline... what makes you think he has ever used logic? But yes, the amount "lost" is probably a small fraction.

Re:Hmm... (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42756095)

But Brandon Butler wrote the summary, and lifted the calculations directly from Network World, so a lot of people just assume that people try exactly once, then give up and never return.

Its totally silly of course, because Amazon often has the best prices, and people will simply wait. Nothing purchased on line constitutes an emergency to most people.

The cost to Amazon is probably not really that great. There might be some hourly people sitting around doing nothing. Some network staff might have been called in to work overtime.

But averaged over a month, I doubt there will be an actual drop in sales.

Re:Hmm... (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#42756267)

Yeah, but don't discount the number of people who "impulse buy"...and if given time to think about it...they may decide they don't really need it.

With a company doing the volume of business that Amazon is doing, I have to think that would be significant with that segment of the market alone?

Re:Hmm... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#42756381)

On the other hand, some percentage of those impulse buys would have had enough buyer's remorse to cancel or return their order. That would have cost money to process.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756537)

They knocked down the main page. Other inbound links continued to work. The rest of their services continued to work. And it lasted 49 minutes.

I don't know how many purchases on amazon are impulse purchases that are initiated by visits to the main page, but maybe they lost some fraction of those.

But either way, at Amazon.com scale any kind of downtime, anywhere on the site, is bad news. Trying to figure exact dollar figures is a waste of everyone's time unless you're Amazon.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756545)

So they're just window shopping on Amazon for the fuck of it? That sounds terrible. Any impulse buy I make from Amazon has been shoved in my face by Amazon when I've added some other item that I actually need to the cart. So if that is delayed five hours it's either still going to happen or not. I haven't been "thinking about it" for five hours. I've been doing something else entirely and haven't even been exposed to the item yet.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42757001)

Not just impulse buyers. They'll lose everyone who gets angry when everything doesn't go exactly to their liking, and that's millions of Americans.

Re:Hmm... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42756547)

Its totally silly of course, because Amazon often has the best prices, and people will simply wait. Nothing purchased on line constitutes an emergency to most people.

Your definition of "emergency" and mine radically differ. I call it 'Tuesday' when there's five feet of fresh snow on the ground, over my house, my car, and I need to be to work in an hour. I'm more concerned about a broken coffee machine at work than some website going tits up for a few hours. Even if all the websites went tits up for a few hours, or days, it's not an emergency in my book. Emergency for me qualifies as "significant and immediate risk to life and safety," not "I can't order a copy of Call of Duty."

Re:Hmm... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42756589)

Which is exactly why I said:

Nothing purchased on line constitutes an emergency to most people.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756661)

Uhm... technically, what you said is, "Purchasing nothing online constitutes an emergency to most people."

Re:Hmm... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42756707)

Technically, what I said is exactly what I said.
(Nothing purchased on line) (constitutes an emergency).

The verb was constitutes, not purchasing.

Re:Hmm... (1)

sdoca (1225022) | about a year ago | (#42756795)

Although your sentence may be interpreted the way you intended, I too intrepreted it to mean that "Purchasing nothing online constitutes an emergency to most people." It's a poorly worded sentence.

Re:Hmm... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42756853)

As soon as you stop parsing english as if it were math you'll be fine.

The structure I used has been around for hundreds of years.
Google the quoted phrase "nothing constitutes" to see hundreds of examples.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42757021)

In this case you can not reject reality and substitute your own.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42757163)

No it can't. Your grammar is at fault here, as well your reading comprehension.

Re:Hmm... (4, Interesting)

eWarz (610883) | about a year ago | (#42757089)

I happen to be IT for a large (nowhere near as large as amazon, but big enough...) eCommerce site and I can tell you, people don't buy later. A lot of those sales disappear. Users try to buy it on amazon, if that doesn't work they hit up buy.com or newegg or some other site.

Re:Hmm... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42757117)

How the fuck could you POSSIBLY know this?

Your site is down, you have no idea how many tried and went elsewhere.

Re:Hmm... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#42757177)

This. For me and mine, purchasing through a leviathan retailer like Solimoes gives a little bit of security in an insecure Networld. I am under the impression Amazon would make things right were I to be dissatisfied with a purchase, which has never happened when I order through them. And they have everything....it's like Willey's Store in Greenboro.

Re:Hmm... (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#42757151)

But how many will just go somewhere else instead? i know that I frequently shop at Amazon, Tigerdirect, and Newegg and if one was down I'd just go to the next one, not like they all don't sell tech stuff.

So while its true that some might come back later one of the nice things about doing your shopping on the web is that you aren't stuck doing your shopping in one place and i have a feeling that many would do just like me and go "oh well" and just go to the next site.

Re:Hmm... (2)

WeatherServo9 (1393327) | about a year ago | (#42756025)

No, people can purchase items once the site is back up, and I would agree that the number provided isn't accurate. But it may have still cost a lot of sales; some people will not go back to the site once it is up. They may buy from another site that is up (I've done this before when a retail site was down), go to a brick and mortar store, or just forget to go back later because what they were looking for wasn't terribly important.

Re:Hmm... (5, Interesting)

xevioso (598654) | about a year ago | (#42756143)

Some people will go back, some people will not. The point is there does not seem to be any indication that this number was taken into account when the 4.9$ million number was estimated. Perhaps the first hour it's offline they "lose" 4.9$million, but the next hour it comes back on they make 8$million when they normally would have only made 4.9$million. There's no way to know.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756467)

There's no way to know.

Amazon knows. You know they're doing exactly that analysis and they'll keep the results a trade secret.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756111)

For me, Amazon is usually last resort, so I would go back and try again. Many people go to Amazon first as it is generally quick and easy, they will likely look elsewhere.

Re:Hmm... (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#42756211)

Not to mention that the $10.8B number is sales revenue, not earnings. So it's NOT how much they make in a quarter.

They actually only earned $97M last quarter. Or $7.5M per week or $1M per day. Or $41,000 per hour.

Re:Hmm... (2)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#42756249)

Exactly what I just thought lol.. They didn't make 4.9 that hour they made 9.8million the hour later lol.. All about averages.

Re:Hmm... (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year ago | (#42756315)

I'm in perfect agreement with this comment. Some lost sales are inevitable from this downtime, but the $4.9 million number is based on unwarranted assumptions.

We'll know better what the impact is at their next quarterly statement (if they're honest)

Re:Hmm... (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | about a year ago | (#42756745)

Also, were all of Amazon's services down?

The country-specific sites (e.g. Amazon.co.de)?
Zappos.com?
Audible.com?
How about the cloud services (Amazon makes money on those, also)?

Also, why should we believe Thursday afternoon at the end of January represents an average shopping hour for Amazon?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42757091)

Employees are told at other online retailers that the customer will buy elsewhere... not later...
Whether this is always true is debatable

How is this even news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755915)

???

Re:How is this even news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42757029)

yeah, like...how is this news for nerds? ...or something...

I'd hate to be... (1)

programmerar (915654) | about a year ago | (#42755921)

I'd hate to be the one developer responsible for that bug...

Re:I'd hate to be... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755993)

The $5M figure assumes that 100% of the people that would have shopped at Amazon that hour purchased what they wanted elsewhere, rather than just trying back later, which I would bet a vast majority did.

Re:I'd hate to be... (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#42756089)

Don't work. Jeff Bezos is known as a very understanding, forgiving and easy to work for boss.

Re:I'd hate to be... (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about a year ago | (#42756151)

Actually, it seems it was a DDoS, as admitted by the people claiming responsibility:

we used a 7kbotnet running hoic 100 threads each. 80servers in botnet and a 16gbps booter

(From the update link in the summary: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/31/amazoncom-website-offline/?test=latestnews [foxnews.com])

Re:I'd hate to be... (1)

penix1 (722987) | about a year ago | (#42757025)

And you want to tell me why again ISPs can't cut off botnet infected machines and warn the customers to clean their crap before allowing them back on the net? If ISPs really cared so much about their networks as they claim they do (the reason they give for usage caps and throttling) then you would think they would want to rid themselves of useless and destructive network chatter such as infected machines. You can't tell me they can't detect a machine sending thousands of page requests a second. You can't tell me they can't detect the command and control server connections.

Call the Waaaahmbulance? (5, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year ago | (#42755935)

Sounds more like that was 5 million in potential dollars not earned, not 5 million lost. You can't lose what you do not yet have.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755959)

Tell that to the RIAA and MPAA

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756403)

Tell that to the RIAA and MPAA

We are, but they seem not to listen... Surrounded by too much "music/movie noise" (dollar bills) I guess.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about a year ago | (#42755967)

Sounds more like that was 5 million in potential dollars not earned, not 5 million lost. You can't lose what you do not yet have.

I'm glad you aren't in charge of payroll.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42756509)

Because a company pays people with speculative or borrowed money does not mean that they should pay them on speculative borrowed money. Many of the financial practices we see being used today were illegal in the past. Of those that were not, taking loans to pay people was not a practice by healthy companies. It was done in desperate times sure, but today people think your crazy if you don't borrow money to pay your employees. That is beyond baffling. Not only do you pay your employee wages and taxes, but you pay interest charges to do so? Even if you take those interest charges can be used for a small write off, it's additional expense. (The real reason it's done is to cook the books, not because it's financially responsible)

To the person's point, did you read Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour."?

An outage is not the same thing as a percentage of total revenue for a company. It's not logical to draw such a conclusion. First you have the obvious truth that Amazon makes money from sources other than the internet. The second is that they don't know how much connectivity was lost. It may have been gardener Bob ordering a packet of Sunflowers that could not get on to buy a 1.99 pack of seeds, and nobody else was impacted.

Lastly, it draws a false conclusion that anyone attempting to buy something while the service was down never buys the product. That is absolute nonsense. If I try to buy a book from Amazon and I'm interrupted for any reason I don't abandon Amazon. I go later and buy what I needed. The majority of consumers delay a purchase, which means very little gets lost when a site goes down.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year ago | (#42756609)

To the person's point, did you read Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour."

Another little point that may be of note here...

If, when those quarterly reports come out it shows that Amazon had less than $10.8 billion in costs, then they made a profit and not a loss. Sure, it may have been 4.9 million less than expected, but is was still a profit and not a loss despite what the methods of Hollywood Accounting or Bistromathematics or whatever ethically challenged system they may use shows.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42756789)

yeah, I actually missed that until I saw it pointed out. Makes the "issue" even more of a non-issue as you look at the claim in detail.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (0)

54mc (897170) | about a year ago | (#42755985)

You can't lose what you do not yet have.

Unless you're the RIAA/MPAA

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year ago | (#42756051)

You can't lose what you do not yet have.

Unless you're the RIAA/MPAA

Yeah, I thought that when posting originally, but figured that goes without saying. And when something goes without saying, I don't say it (unless I am dealing with the Knights Who Until Recently Say Nee, then I will say it.)

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756041)

I don't think it's even that bad. You'd have to assume that everyone who tried to access Amazon during that hour either went somewhere else, or decided not to buy at all. Most likely, they just waited an hour and bought the product anyway...Amazon probably did much more business in the few hours after the site was restored than normal.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756175)

I can't see that Amazon lost an actual 5 million in profit without looking over their logs and doing some historical statics. If I could I would probably find that Amazon had more orders following the outage which made up for around 75%% of the expected income for that time of day. And it's not like a closed restaurant or food store where people will just move on to the next store because they need the item NOW. But Amazon could have lost more money in future sales due to poeple looking else where and finding better (cheaper) online stores to buy things at. Obviously once you find and have ordered from another store you are more likely to order from them in the future. So it's really up to how good amazons prices are vs the competitors and also how many spur of the moment purchases where missed where people realized they really did want/need the item or simply forget about it.

Re:Call the Waaaahmbulance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756419)

I don't know, there are plenty of WoW players who lose their lives every year.

Not just Amazon.com webservers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755947)

The Amazon EC2 cloud hosting system was experiencing partial downtime simultaneously, cloud hosted server instances were still accessible from the outside network but were unable to communicate on the internal EC2 network - either there was something pretty serious affecting Amazon's network, or they keep their cloud hosting servers on the same specific network where they host the entire Amazon.com operation... ...Neither sounds particularly great to me?

Re:Not just Amazon.com webservers... (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42756195)

Amazon has multiple data-centers. [amazon.com]

There is no one place where any specific service is hosted.
For more then one of their offerings to be down from inside, and not from the outside, it might have been something like internal routers or switch gear, or perhaps an internal route advertising accident.

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755969)

Just because they average about $5M per hour doesnt mean that they lose that much in one hour of downtime. How many people will just order anyway after the site comes back up? Maybe the hour that service is restored they might earn $9M ...

or maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42755973)

they didn't lose that much and people decided their spatula purchase could wait a few hours

Re:or maybe (5, Funny)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#42756207)

they didn't lose that much and people decided their spatula purchase could wait a few hours

Amazon? Spatulas? Everyone knows to get your spatulas at Spatula City.

Phone Home ET...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756001)

PM ET mean nothing to MANY slashdot readers. Some of us are from - you know - "there be dragons" lands.

Can we just stick to UTC please?

Re:Phone Home ET...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756581)

No, get off our Internet. Next, you ingrates are going to demanding absurd things like the metric system.

Re:Phone Home ET...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756951)

You can stick UTC all the way up yer arse.

Assumptions... (5, Insightful)

Anubis350 (772791) | about a year ago | (#42756015)

This assumes that amazon makes a constant amount every hour, as opposed to peak vs. off-peak business hours. This also assumes that the bulk of their business took their purchases elsewhere while Amazon was done, which I'm not inclined to believe is necessarily true.
Amazon probably lost money, I'm in doubt that it's anywhere close to 5M

Re:Assumptions... (1)

dslauson (914147) | about a year ago | (#42756055)

This also assumes that a person wanting to make a purchase on Amazon will not just wait an hour for Amazon to come back up, and will instead make the purchase elsewhere. In some cases that's probably true, but if it were me I'd probably just try again when Amazon came back up. I shop at Amazon out of laziness as much as anything else.

Re:Assumptions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756255)

I planned to buy a new television on Amazon. Since there was an outage, I decided I will never buy a television again!

Re:Assumptions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756085)

This assumes that amazon makes a constant amount every hour, as opposed to peak vs. off-peak business hours. This also assumes that the bulk of their business took their purchases elsewhere while Amazon was done, which I'm not inclined to believe is necessarily true.

Amazon probably lost money, I'm in doubt that it's anywhere close to 5M

Yeah, you're right. It'll be a 20M "disaster" loss on the tax report.

Yes, that's what they said in the article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756579)

Amazon.com averages $100,000 per minute in sales according to the Seattle Times.

OTOH, while the site was down, they still had they're overhead - the meter was running to keep the business going. For an operation that size, it wouldn't surprise me if it cost a few million corporate wide. Don't forget, while those orders weren't coming in, folks didn't have the work load that their position entails. Or another way, they're productivity would decline because of less or lack of work. I doubt there were guys sitting on their asses in the distribution centers; then again, if they're supposed be moving X packages per minute and were only doing Y, then their particular profitability drops. And if they have to move Z amount of packages to break even and Y At the end of the year, though, this will amount to nothing because the folks who couldn't order their stuff just waited and came back.

Aside from impulse shoppers, I don't think there would be much sales that were lost permanently.

tl;dr - this will have very little effect on Amazon's profitability.

Because people only want to buy things NOW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756029)

If I want to go to Amazon to buy something and the site is down, I'll wait an hour and check again. I'm not going to suddenly not want to buy things that I want because the site went down for a little bit.

First Order Approximation (1)

SillyHamster (538384) | about a year ago | (#42756037)

Interesting statistic, though that assumes that a one hour wait is sufficient to make $5 million worth of sales redirect to a competitor. Amazon has some level of brand loyalty and reputation compared to others, and I'd bet that Amazon sales are not equally distributed throughout the day.

I guess "Amazon might have suffered $5 million in losses" doesn't sound as interesting as claiming they actually did.

Ahhh (1)

delta98 (619010) | about a year ago | (#42756047)

to have a Sears catolog again.I could call and just place an order to a live operator..sigh.

Re:Ahhh (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#42756233)

to have a Sears catolog again.I could call and just place an order to a live operator..sigh.

How long did you have to wait to talk to an operator? What if a bunch of modems automatically dialed their sales number and flooded their systems?

It's all relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756071)

After many years writing software that runs most of the semiconductor fabs around the world I can say that $5M per hour lost income is nothing compared what it costs a semiconductor manufacturer to have a fab down for an hour. In that case, it STARTS at $10M in lost PROFITS, not raw income! Needless to say, they get cranky if a software bug takes the system down!

But all I did was ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756099)

one click and it broke. Just one damn click....................

Re:But all I did was ... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42756281)

one click and it broke. Just one damn click....................

Signed,
Grandma's everywhere

Somewhere, hundreds of thousands of grandsons and daughters are receiving frantic phone calls informing them that the family matriarch has just broken the internets... Oh, excuse me a second, my celly's ringing...

Editors haven't taken Econ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756105)

The $5mm of revenue is not ALL automatically lost. The vast majority of customers will probably wait a couple of hours and then try again. Also, that number is revenue, not profit. Amazon's profit margins are thin, and sometimes even negative.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756137)

*update from foxnews*
Youserious.jpg

This also assumes another thing... (1)

ChrisC1234 (953285) | about a year ago | (#42756145)

This assumes that people who couldn't order something from Amazon right at that moment will immediately go order it somewhere else. I'd bet that most people would just try again later and order what they want.

Yawn. Just waited for later (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756189)

I was going to buy something during that period. I waited until Amazon came back, and bought it later. Problem solved. I'm not going to take my ecommerce business elsewhere because elsewhere doesn't have prime.

Never Down Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756205)

My job keeps me on Amazon's system constantly switching between the customer frontend and the vendor backend to make sure product pages are functional and complete. We haven't had a second of downtime today.

Just the Front Page (1)

koolguy442 (888336) | about a year ago | (#42756235)

Just the front page was down, though. I was able to access various pages within, including product pages, but www.amazon.com itself was unavailable. Didn't try to buy anything, though.

Brandon Butler (networkworld.com) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756321)

First time accepted submitter (and networkworld.com staff writer [networkworld.com]) Brandon Butler writes overblown and hyperbolic article, gets it on the /. front page. Nearly 5 quadrillion bucks earned from ad clicks. Slashdot down the drain? Business as usual.

"the company makes about 10.8 billion per quarter" (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#42756337)

In what universe?

Here's Amazon's latest financial release:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1779049&highlight= [corporate-ir.net]

Here's the important bit:

Net income decreased 45% to $97 million in the fourth quarter

Amazon is barely breaking even. Whether or not this is an intentional strategy is another discussion, but it sure as hell ain't making 10.8 billion a quarter. It's not even making ONE HUNDREDTH of that.

Re:"the company makes about 10.8 billion per quart (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756503)

That would be because they spent a bunch of money building new facilities for their "all shipping is overnight shipping" push.

If you look at how much profit they made before investments in facilities, you'd realize they are "barely breaking even" in the same sense that buying saleable inventory makes you "broke".

Why are submitters morons but commentors smart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756351)

nt

Quick! Update The Terms Of Service! (0)

TheSwift (2714953) | about a year ago | (#42756361)

ATTN Amazon.com customers:

Terms of Service Update:

In the unfortunate circumstance when our website is hacked and all of our customers' login information and credit card information is stolen... it's not our fault.

Thanks for using Amazon.com!

An hour relative (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about a year ago | (#42756433)

People need to quit looking at whole numbers and think about this in real terms.

One hour. That's all, they lost business for one hour, they're still up for many thousands (maybe millions) of other hours incurring the revenues consistently.

As for everyone who says "but it's so much money!" you're missing the point, absolutely no reasonable business anywhere is spending so much on just running their business that one hour of lost revenues is actually going to cause so much as a blip on their books.

Think of it like this, if one day to another can fluctuate 5% just through pure randomness not even counting cyclicalness, their revenues fluctuate 1.2 hours worth at random. Do you think to any company 5% less business on one day is enough to stir any real bother? That's .7% of the business they do in one week.

Suddenly losing one hour of business among the countless in uptime they've had doesn't seem like such a big deal, if you want to report "wow amazing amazon makes X hourly" great maybe it's interesting to somebody, but "amazing amazon was down for an hour and lost X" is just dumb because one hours loss doesn't mean anything in real terms to the business or it's shareholders.

Re:An hour relative (1)

Gertlex (722812) | about a year ago | (#42756923)

People need to quit looking at whole numbers and think about this in real terms.

Ok.

One hour. That's all, they lost business for one hour, they're still up for many thousands (maybe millions) of other hours incurring the revenues consistently.

Wut? Amazon hasn't been around for multiple centuries. If we're going to talk real terms, skip the hyperbole that results from vague statements :)

Other than that, you're preaching to the choir, I'd say.

It rained again in dc it's normal 4 the 3rd world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756439)

Rain in dc

Hackers claim credit (4, Funny)

new death barbie (240326) | about a year ago | (#42756475)

Good luck with that. First you have to pack it up in the ORIGINAL packaging, then fill out a Return For Credit form, and then wait at least 10 days for processing...

THEN maybe you can claim your credit.

Re:Hackers claim credit (1)

pbjones (315127) | about a year ago | (#42756507)

I hope they do better than I did, the cost of return mail was worth more than the book, bah.

Re:Hackers claim credit (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year ago | (#42756939)

Not to mention, adding to the funny aspect of the claim, the group deems itself as Nazis and got reported by Fox News.

Conspiracy 101: people who believe in conspiracy theories are usually very, very, very, very, very thick people.

Nothing works flawlessly 100% of the time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756485)

I dont see why this is even worth mentioning. Its a website, a website like EVERYTHING ELSE doesnt work 100% of the time. So amazon is down for a bit? Big deal, you come back in a little while and make your purchase there.

If amazon was down for days on end, or constantly going down over a long period of time it would be worth mentioning then.

I highly doubt they lost 5 million dollars. THats the stupidest comment Ive seen today. Sure they lost it if that was a static number. It just means the hour following the outage they will make 10 million because people will come back and buy what they original intended to. Its not lost money, its slightly delayed money and that is it.

Re:Nothing works flawlessly 100% of the time. (1)

Gertlex (722812) | about a year ago | (#42756947)

I dont see why this is even worth mentioning. Its a website, --

No, no. The proper comparison [xkcd.com] is with the Amazon river. When was the last time the Amazon river stopped flowing?

Round 23: Advantage: Amazon river.

What a load of bull (1)

dnaumov (453672) | about a year ago | (#42756881)

"Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour."

No they don't, Amazon makes barely any profit at all. They do have high (and growing) revenues though.

How did they find where the outage came from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42756987)

I am surprised they figured it out so quickly considering the fact they claim they don't know where most of their items come from. Good luck getting an RMA on that faulty equipment Amazon since you claim most of what is stocked comes from a mystery location with no return policy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...