A lot of competitors of various Amazon businesses use AWS. We don't view that as a problem. We very consciously want any company, competitor or not, to use our infrastructure to build their business.
I use Amazon for books. I use Amazon for loads of other things. I regard Amazon as a source, as I think a lot of other people do.
My view is that we should go back to the moon, build up the infrastructure to make flights there commonplace - be comfortable with it - then use that infrastructure to expand and go to Mars.
The reason Netflix chose to use AWS is because they knew they'd be treated as every bit as important a customer as Amazon the retailer is.
Amazon drove Borders out of business, and the vast majority of Borders employees are not qualified to work at Amazon. That's an actual, full-on problem. But should Amazon have been prevented from doing that? In my view, no.
Today, the European Union is busy transferring aid. If they can build infrastructure in Spain, roads, highways ... why do they refuse to use the same aid to build the same infrastructure in our countries?
From the business point of view, always encouraging the people in our company to own stock in the company, and if we're going to build something great, to have a lot of people share in the benefits of that greatness.
Netflix, despite the fact that they compete very aggressively with Prime Video on the Amazon side, they run everything on top of AWS and have for several years - same with Disney, Warner, Fox, HBO and Turner, they all run on AWS.
We don't think at all about how the AWS business complements the Amazon business from a financial overview perspective.
People ask us a lot about the notion of spinning AWS off. We have no plans to do so. I will never say never, but there's no compelling reason. Amazon has been so generous and gracious in aggressively funding AWS that there's no reason to do it.
Endless data show that diverse teams make better decisions. We are building products that people with very diverse backgrounds use, and I think we all want our company makeup to reflect the makeup of the people who use our products. That's not true of any industry really, and we have a long way to go.
The problem with a lot of marketing advice is that the examples they use are not exactly typical. It's hard for businesses, particularly smaller businesses, to relate to the bold innovations of companies like Apple or Tesla.
A competitor will find a way to win. Competitors take bad breaks and use them to drive themselves just that much harder. Quitters take bad breaks and use them as reasons to give up. It's all a matter of pride.
What I see now is the consumerisation of IT. I don't want my company to tell me that I have to use a BlackBerry or I have to use a Windows phone. I just want to use the phone I want and have it all work.
In the early 2000s, we were finding at Amazon that software development projects were taking us longer than we thought they should. We decided to build a set of infrastructure services to allow our retail business to move more quickly.
Our focus in the client group had always been to build products and features that people wanted to use. That we wanted to use. That our moms wanted to use.
In every Indigenous community I've been in, they absolutely do want community infrastructure and they do want development, but they want it on their own terms. They want to be able to use their national resources and their assets in a way that protects and sustains them. Our territories are our wealth, the major assets we have. And Indigenous people use and steward this property so that they can achieve and maintain a livelihood, and achieve and maintain that same livelihood for future generations.