Amazon profits fall and its share price follows

Internet giant Amazon announced strong sales growth but that didn’t translate into profit after it invested heavily in one-day shipping.

The consequent significant year-on-year rise in operating expenses, combined with shrinking margin at AWS, where most of Amazon’s profit comes from, resulted in quarterly operating income declining for the first time in a while. While investors had been warned about the increased overheads, they were apparently even greater than expected, because Amazon’s share price declined 6% on the news.

“We are ramping up to make our 25th holiday season the best ever for Prime customers — with millions of products available for free one-day delivery,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “Customers love the transition of Prime from two days to one day — they’ve already ordered billions of items with free one-day delivery this year.

“It’s a big investment, and it’s the right long-term decision for customers. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fastest delivery speeds generate the least carbon emissions because these products ship from fulfillment centers very close to the customer — it simply becomes impractical to use air or long ground routes. Huge thanks to all the teams helping deliver for customers this holiday.”

As you can see from the table below, Amazon’s total overheads were 14 billion bucks higher in the most recent quarter than they were a year ago. North America is still where most of its sales are and thus where most of the overheads come from too. Profits disproportionality come from its AWS cloud services division, but even there margins are significantly reduced year-on-year.

Amazon has spent its entire history sacrificing profit on the altar of investment, and that seems to have paid off. So it’s hard to read too much into the share price fall other than a realisation among investors that Amazon is serious about this one-day delivery stuff. That will probably pay off in the long term too, and we expect Bezos isn’t very bothered about the short term reaction to his grand plan.

Study suggests its quite easy to hack smart speakers

German security research consultancy Security Research Labs has dropped a security bomb on Amazon and Google, questioning the competence of security features and reviews.

As with all these revelations, the vulnerabilities were shared with the two companies prior to being made public. The hacks which have been discussed this week have now been addressed by Amazon and Google, though it does demonstrate the awareness consumers need to acquire should these devices maintain their presence in the living room.

“Alexa and Google Home are powerful, and often useful, listening devices in private environments,” the firm said in a blog entry.

“The privacy implications of an internet-connected microphone listening in to what you say are further reaching than previously understood. Users need to be more aware of the potential of malicious voice apps that abuse their smart speakers. Using a new voice app should be approached with a similar level of caution as installing a new app on your smartphone.”

Although there is no such thing as 100% secure anymore, the competency of Amazon and Google has been called into question here. Vulnerabilities are nothing new in the digital economy, though the simplicity of some of these hacks are a little bit embarrassing for the internet economy’s poster boys.

The first hack is quite remarkable in the sense it is so simple. Security Research Lab created an application using the normal means and even submitted the application for review by the Amazon and Google security teams. Once the application had been green lit, the team went back in and changed the functionality, which did not prompt a second review from either of the review teams.

In this example, Security Research Lab created a fake error message to replace the welcome message to make the user think the application had not started properly, for example ‘this application is not available in this country’. After forcing the speaker to remain silent for an extended period of time, another message is introduced requesting permission for a security update. During this second message, the user is prompted to change his/her password, which is then captured and sent back to the Security Research Lab.

It is often said the simplest ideas are usually the best, and this is the same in the hacking world. Phishing is one of the most simplistic means to hack an individuals account via email, and this approach from Security Research Lab is effectively a phishing campaign translated to the voice user interface.

Amazon or Google would of course never ask a user for their password in this manner, but we suspect there are many users who would simply go with the flow. According to a Symantec security report, 71.4% of targeted attacks involved the use of spear-phishing emails so the approach clearly works. And now it can be applied to the voice interface.

While losing your password is a worry, the second hack unveiled by Security Research Lab is a bit more nefarious.

Once again, the application designed for the smart speakers are altered after the review from the security teams at Amazon and Google, however it is to do with when the speakers actually stop listening to the user. By introducing a second ‘intent’ which is linked to a command for the smart speaker to halt all functionality, the session can be extended.

In short, the device continues to listen and record its surrounding, before sending the data back to the attacker. This is obviously a very simplistic explanation, for more detail we would suggest following this link to the Security Research Lab blog.

Both of these examples are remarkably simple to introduce as the security review function of both Amazon and Google looked to be nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. Changes are seemingly ignored once the application has been passed the first time, offering a lot of freedom to the hacker. Both Amazon and Google will now have introduced new processes to block such attacks and improve the security review system, though it does appear to be a massive oversight.

Aside from the inadequacies shown here by Amazon and Google, Security Research Lab is perhaps demonstrating some of the biggest dangers of the digital economy; a lack of awareness by the general public. Most people download apps without checking the security credentials or reputation of the developer, and the same assumption could be made for growing ecosystem for smart speakers.

Amazon taunts Oracle over database switch

Amazon’s consumer division has completed the switch of its databases from Oracle to AWS, which took to opportunity to publicly gloat.

In a blog post Chief Evangelist for AWS Jeff Barr did his job and banged on about how great AWS is. The pretext was the completion of the lengthy process of migrating the databases of Amazon’s massive consumer division from Oracle to AWS. According to Barr it has resulted in a 60% reduction in the costs of running Amazon’s databases. He also said other customers have reported a 90% saving, which makes you wonder what Amazon is doing wrong.

“Over the years we realized that we were spending too much time managing and scaling thousands of legacy Oracle databases,” evangelised Barr. “Instead of focusing on high-value differentiated work, our database administrators spent a lot of time simply keeping the lights on while transaction rates climbed and the overall amount of stored data mounted. This included time spent dealing with complex & inefficient hardware provisioning, license management, and many other issues that are now best handled by modern, managed database services.”

What a nightmare eh? Thankfully the migration of 75 petabytes of data went without a hitch, according to Barr, which must be true because he definitely would have evangelised about the problems if there had been any. In case there was any remaining doubt about how rubbish Oracle is compared to AWS he provided this handy graphic.

aws oracle

While we wouldn’t suggest for one second that an Amazon evangelist might in any way favour Amazon, it’s hard to gauge the significance of this moment. Under normal circumstances the loss of one of the biggest companies in the world would have been fairly disastrous news for Oracle. But since Amazon got into the database game it was just a matter of time, so Oracle’s probably not too bothered.

US lawmakers want to look at private emails from tech execs

Scrutiny of the US tech giants has been taken up another level after members of the US House Judiciary Committee have demanded they expose their internal workings.

The move has been widely reported in the US, including by the Washington Post. It seems there is already a congressional antitrust investigation underway into Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, which is presumably related to the actions taken against Google and Facebook earlier this week. They want to know whether the companies have abused their dominant positions to corrupt markets for digital products and services in their favour.

One of the fun things about getting legislators and lawyers involved in scrutinizing the activities of companies is that they have the power to demand access to a bunch of information that would normally be kept locked in a dark cellar, to which only the CEO has a key. The stuff this committee would like financial data about includes their products and services, and private discussions about potential merger targets, we’re told.

Having said that the letters sent apparently don’t have any legal weight behind them right now, so the companies could theoretically refuse. This is a dangerous game to play, however, as they would have to refuse in a way that didn’t imply they had something to hide. Perhaps they could just chuck over some light-hearted Friday afternoon email banter while whistling nonchalantly.

What seems unavoidable is that the state machinery in the US and elsewhere has the tech giants in its sights and seems to have decided the lot of them have far too much power by half. Since they are undeniably dominant their execs and legal departments would be well advised to buckle in for the long haul. They could also do worse than speak to grizzled campaigners from companies like Microsoft and Intel to get some top tips.

FTC Chair kicks off race to tackle big tech before it’s too late

A race seems to be heating up in the US. On one side, government officials are looking to tackle the influence of big tech, and on the other, Silicon Valley is trying to make it as difficult as possible.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Chairman of the FTC Joseph Simons has stated he believes efforts from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to more intrinsically integrate the different platforms could seriously complicate his own investigation. Back in July, it was unveiled the FTC was conducting a probe to understand whether competition has been negatively impacted by the social media giant.

However, Facebook has gone on the offensive and Simons is clearly not thrilled about it.

“If they’re maintaining separate business structures and infrastructure, it’s much easier to have a divestiture in that circumstance than in where they’re completely enmeshed, and all the eggs are scrambled,” said Simons.

This is the issue which the FTC is facing; Facebook is more closely integrating the separate brands. From a commercial perspective, this will allow the social media giant to cross-pollinate the platforms, potentially increasing revenues and enhancing the data-analytics machine, though it will also make divestments much more difficult to enforce.

Looking across the big names in Silicon Valley, this is a common business practice. The commercial benefits are of course very obvious, but it could be viewed as a defensive strategy in preparation for any snooping from government agencies.

At Google, with the benefit of hindsight, some regulators and politicians might have wanted to have block the acquisitions of Android, YouTube or artificial intelligence firm DeepMind. These acquisitions have led Google to become one of the most influential companies on the planet, though it does appear regulators at the time did not have the vision to understand the long-term impact. Now the services are so deeply embedded and inter-twined it is perhaps unfeasible to consider divestments.

Amazon is another company some of these politicians would love to tackle, but how do you go about breaking-up such a complex business, where the moving parts are becoming increasingly reliant on each-other?

Going back almost two decades, this is not the first-time regulators have attempted to tackle an overly influential player. Thanks to dominance in the PC arena, Microsoft was deemed to be negatively influencing competition when it came to software and applications. Despite Microsoft being forced to settle the case with the Department of Justice in 2001, the concessions stopped far short of a company break-up.

As part of the settlement, Microsoft agreed to make it easier competitors to get their software more closely integrated with the Windows OS, by breaking the company into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components. This was a tough pill for Microsoft to swallow, but it was a favourable outcome for the internet giant.

One view on this outcome is that Microsoft managed to structure its business in such a way it became almost impossible to split-up. If the technology giants of today can learn some lessons from Microsoft, they might well be able to circumnavigate any aggression from the US government.

Although the FTC is stealing the headlines here, it is not the only party looking to tackle the influence of Silicon Valley.

The House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee that deals with antitrust has already summoned Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google to testify. This investigation is also looking at the potential negative impact these monstrously large companies are having on competition. A couple of weeks later, the Department of Justice also opened its own probe.

Of course, there are also posturing politicians who are aiming to plug for PR points by slamming Silicon Valley. This is a very popular strategy, with the likes of Virginia Senator Mark Warner and Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren taking a firm stance. President Trump has rarely been a friend of Silicon Valley either.

Another interest element to consider are the lawyers. Reports have emerged this morning to suggest as many as 20 State Attorney Generals will also be launching their own investigation. The threat of legal action could be very worrying for Silicon Valley, with a number of the lawyers already suggesting they do not like the way the digital economy is evolving, with the concentration of power one of the biggest problems.

The US has generally tolerated monopolies or an unreasonable concentration of power in economic verticals to a point, generally until infrastructure has been sorted, though the pain threshold might be getting to close. This has been seen with a break-up of Standard Oil’s monopoly, as well as splitting the Bell System, a corporation which was a monopoly in some regions for more than a century, into the Baby Bells across North America in the 1980s.

The internet giants will never publicly state they are participating in strategies which in-effect act as a hindrance to government agencies, but it must be a pleasant by-product. First and foremost, the internet giants will want to integrate different products and services for commercial reasons, operational efficiencies or increased revenues for example, however one eye will be cast on these investigations.

It does appear there is an arms race emerging. Government agencies and ambitious politicians are collecting ammunition for an assault on Silicon Valley, and the internet giants are shoring up defences to ensure a continuation of the status quo. This is a battle for power, and its one the US Government could very feasibly lose.

Amazon has managed to bottle fear, but recognition debate remains

While facial recognition technologies are becoming increasingly controversial, it is always worth paying homage to innovation in this field and the real-world applications, when deployed responsibly.

We suspect people aren’t necessarily objecting to the concept of facial recognition technologies, but more to the application and lack of public consultation. You only have to look at some of world’s less appetizing governments to see the negative implications to privacy and human rights, but there are of course some significant benefits should it be applied in an ethically sound and transparent manner.

Over in the AWS labs, engineers have managed to do something quite remarkable; they have managed to bottle the concept of fear and teach its AI programmes to recognise it.

“Amazon Rekognition provides a comprehensive set of face detection, analysis, and recognition features for image and video analysis,” the company stated on its blog. “Today, we are launching accuracy and functionality improvements to our face analysis features.

“With this release, we have further improved the accuracy of gender identification. In addition, we have improved accuracy for emotion detection (for all 7 emotions: Happy, Sad, Angry, Surprised, Disgusted, Calm and Confused) and added a new emotion: Fear.”

When applied correctly, these technologies have an incredibly power to help society. You only have to think about some of the atrocities which have plagued major cities, but also the on-going problems. Human eyes can only see so much, with police and security forces often relying on reports from the general public. With cameras able to recognise emotions such as fear, crimes could be identified while they are taking process, allowing speedier reactions from the relevant parties.

However, there are of course significant risks with the application of this technology. We have seen in China such programmes are being used to track certain individuals and races, while certain forces and agencies in the US are constantly rumoured to be considering the implementation of AI for facial recognition, profiling and tracking of individuals. Some of these projects are incredibly worrying, and a violation of privacy rights granted to the general public.

This is where governments are betraying the promise they have made to the general public. Rules and regulations have not been written for such technologies, therefore the agencies and forces involved are acting in a monstrously large grey area. There of course need to be rules in place to govern surveillance practices, but a public conversation should be considered imperative.

Any time the right to privacy is being compromised, irrelevant as to whether there are noble goals in mind, the public should be consulted. The voters should choose whether they are happy to sacrifice certain privacy rights and freedoms in the pursuit of safety. This is what transparency means and this is exactly what has been disregarded to date.

Third-parties are next battleground in video streaming war

Securing a partnership with the likes of Netflix and Amazon might be the golden-ticket for the telcos, but no-one should forget they have as much negotiating power as the OTTs.

For the telcos, convergence is an oasis of profit in the barren desert of the connectivity industry. As traditional means of generating cash are either destroyed (SMS and voice tariffs) or increasingly squeezed (CAPEX investments for 5G), many telcos are searching for differentiation to charge more and prove they can add value beyond the utilitised connectivity column. Content is a very popular route for many to take.

Aside from attempting to create content platforms, more telcos are seeking third-party relationships to move into the aggregator business model. This is a very sensible approach to business, the telcos can add a lot of value to the OTTs and securing a partnership with one of the more prominent streaming players is a key cog to their own ambitions. However, despite the desperation of the telcos, they should consider themselves on equal terms to the OTTs.

“Every telco is fighting to become an aggregator, but there is also a battle between the streaming OTTs to gain visibility,” said Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight.

As Pescatore notes, outside of the two major players in the streaming world (Amazon Prime and Netflix), achieving visibility and scale can be very difficult. This is and will continue to be an incredibly congested field, therefore the relationship between telcos and OTTs could add an edge for any challenger.

Looking at the growth opportunities for the OTTs, there is plenty of cheddar left on the table, though in the developed markets, there are only crumbs left. Take the US for example, here Netflix subscriber growth has slowed, suggesting the glass ceiling for direct customer acquisition has been reached, or will be in the near future. The question is how these final customers can be engaged? Third-party relationships are key here.

At IBC last year, Maria Ferreras, VP of EMEA Business Development at Netflix highlighted that partnerships with telcos were an important cog as the streaming giant continues to evolve. At the time, the discussion was primarily from a billing relationship, though there are plenty of other opportunities.

Partners with their own content platform offer Netflix and Amazon something incredibly important; real-estate. Whoever can secure the most prominent position on the content platform will gain additional visibility and engagement with customers. It is evidence the OTTs are buying into the convergence strategies employed by the telcos, but also the value of the telco relationship with the customer.

Looking around the world, these partnerships are becoming much more common. Netflix has been embedded in the Sky platform in the UK, while Amazon Prime has been integrated into the Virgin Media platform. Mexico’s Totalplay has become the first operator in LATAM to add Amazon Prime to its TV service, while Vodafone Spain has secured partnerships with Netflix, HBO Spain and Amazon Prime.

There are of course numerous ways in which these partnerships can develop. Some are simply billing relationships, allowing the streaming service to be added onto the monthly bill, while some can have the OTT experience embedded into the content platform offered by the partner. What is clear, however, is this is an arms race from the OTTs.

The more partnerships which are in place, the more opportunity there is to engage potential customers and increase subscriptions. These partnerships are not only about securing visibility or accessing billing systems, but also leaning on another brands credibility to engage customers who wouldn’t have been previously accessible.

Interestingly enough, there aren’t many telcos or content providers who have relationships with more than one of the streaming giants. This might be a coincidence, or there might well be a desire from the OTTs to secure exclusivity through the platform of choice, even if it is not made official or public.

The challenge which many will face is going toe-to-toe with Amazon and Netflix. If these partners are securing the best relationships with the telcos, they will gain the most eyeballs on their services. Disney is company which will certainly want to lean on relationships with third-parties, but it will have to move sharpish to ensure it is not shut out.

Although Disney is one of the most prominent brands on the planet, it is almost unknown in the content world. This will present a challenge in two ways. Firstly, cutting through the background noise to educate the user on its offering, and secondly, the billing relationship.

For both of these challenges, third-party relationships with telcos and content platform owners can help. A direct line of communication is already in place, visibility can be offered through apps, billing relationships already exist, and third-parties are looking for partners to help build bundling options.

If Disney is going to be successful in its pursuit of streaming fortunes, it will need more than engaging content. It already has the content, and the ambitions for original content creation do look promising. The challenges will be in terms of securing visibility and credibility in the eyes of the consumer.

Telcos should realise sooner rather than later that they are an equal partner to the OTTs in this context, as they are just as desperate to secure favourable partnerships as the telcos. This is the next battleground in the streaming race; partners mean prizes.

Apple and Google suspend some of their eavesdropping

Two of the world’s leading voice assistant makers pulled the plug on their respective analytics programmes of Siri and Google Assistant after private information including confidential conversations were leaked.

Apple decided to suspend its outsourced programme to “grade” Siri, by which it assesses the voice assistant’s response accuracy, following reports that private conversations are being listened to by its contractors without the users’ explicit consent. The company committed to add an opt-out option for users in a future update of Siri. It also promised that the programme would not be restarted until it had completed a thorough review.

“We are committed to delivering a great Siri experience while protecting user privacy. While we conduct a thorough review, we are suspending Siri grading globally,” the Cupertino-based iPhone maker told The Guardian. “Additionally, as part of a future software update, users will have the ability to choose to participate in grading.”

This is in response to the leak that was first reported by the British broadsheet, which received tipoff from whistle-blowers. The paper learned that contractors regularly hear private conversations ranging from dialogues between patients and doctors, to communications between drug dealers and buyers, with everything is between. These could include cases when Siri has triggered unintentionally without the users’ awareness.

The biggest problem with Apple’s analytics programme is that it does not explicitly disclose to consumers that some of Siri recordings are shared with contractors in different parts of the world who will listen to the anonymous content, as a means to improve Siri’s accuracy. By not being upfront, Apple does not provide users with the option to opt out either.

Shortly before Apple’s decision to call a halt to Siri grading, Google also pulled the plug on its own human analysis of Google Assistant in the European Union, reported Associated Press. The company promised to the office of Johannes Caspar, Hamburg’s commissioner for data protection and Germany’s lead regulator of Google on privacy issues, that the suspension will last at least three months.

The decision was made after Google admitted that one of the language reviewers it partners with, who are supposed to assess Google Assistant’s response accuracy, “has violated our data security policies by leaking confidential Dutch audio data.” Over 1,000 private conversations in Flemish, some of which included private data, were sent to the Belgian news outlet VRT. Though the messages are supposed to be anonymised, staff at VRT were able to identify the users through private information like home addresses.

At that time Google promised “we will take action. We are conducting a full review of our safeguards in this space to prevent misconduct like this from happening again.”

These are not the first cases where private conversations are leaked over voice assistants. Last year an Alexa-equipped Amazon Echo recorded a conversation between a couple in Portland, Oregan, and sent it to a friend, which was another recent case that rang the alarm bell of private data security.

It should not surprise those in the tech world that AI powered natural language processing software still has a long way to go before it can get all the intricacies right. Before that it needs human input to continuously improve the accuracy. The problems that bedevilled Google and Apple today, and Amazon in the past, and Microsoft (Cortana) which fortunately has not suffered high profile embarrassment recently, are down to the lack of stringent oversight of the role humans play, the lack of clear communication to consumers that their interactions with voice assistants may be used for data analysis purposes, and the failure to give consumers the choice to opt out.

There is also the controversy of data sovereignty, as well as the question of whether private data should be allowed to be stored in the cloud or should be kept on device. Apple’s leak case is not geographically specified, but Google’s case is a clear violation of GDPR.  According to the AP report, Germany has already started proceedings against Google.

Facebook is reading minds while Amazon perfects text-to-speech

A Facebook-funded study has achieved a breakthrough in decoding speech directly from brain signals at the same time as AWS has made automated speech more realistic.

The study funded by the creepily-named Facebook Reality Labs was conducted by San Francisco University. Its findings were published yesterday under the heading ‘Real-time decoding of question-and-answer speech dialogue using human cortical activity’. It claims to have achieved breakthroughs in the accuracy of identifying speech from the electrical impulses in people’s brains.

The clever bit doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual reading of these impulses, but in using algorithms and context to narrow down the range of possible sounds attributable to a given piece of brain activity. This helps distinguish between words comprised of similar sets of sounds and thus improve accuracy, with a key piece of context being the question asked. Thus this breakthrough is as much about AI and machine learning as anything else.

At the same time Amazon Web Services (AWS) has announced a new feature of its Polly text-to-speech managed service. The specific announcement is relatively minor – the ability to give the resulting speech a newsreader style of delivery – but it marks a milestone in the journey to make machine-generated speech as realistic as possible.

When you combine the potential of these two developments, two eventualities spring to mind. The first is an effected cure for muteness without the need for interfaces such as keyboards, which would be amazing. The second is somewhat more ominous, which is a world in which we can no longer be sure we’re communicating with an actual human being unless we’re face-to-face with them.

The AWS post makes joking reference to HAL 9000 from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, but thanks in part to its own efforts and those funded by Facebook, that sort of thing is looking less like science fiction and more like science fact with every passing day.

 

Do you have some clear ideas about how the edge computing sector is developing? Then please complete the short survey being run by our colleagues at the Edge Computing Congress and Telecoms.com Intelligence. Click here to see the questions.

Amazon becomes the latest giant to face Europe’s antitrust wrath

The European Commission has formally opened an antitrust investigation into Amazon’s dual role as a retailer and marketplace and how it uses data derived from independent retailers.

Europe has a track-record of taking on the industry’s biggest players on the grounds of antitrust and Amazon is next in-line. The case which the European Commission will attempt to prove is that Amazon abused its position of power as a leading eCommerce platform, using this position to aid it in selling its own products.

“European consumers are increasingly shopping online,” said Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for competition policy. “eCommerce has boosted retail competition and brought more choice and better prices.

“We need to ensure that large online platforms don’t eliminate these benefits through anti-competitive behaviour. I have therefore decided to take a very close look at Amazon’s business practices and its dual role as marketplace and retailer, to assess its compliance with EU competition rules.”

This investigation is based around two points which the European Commission hopes to prove are anticompetitive. Firstly, Amazon collects marketplace data from its third-party partners to inform its own sales strategies. Secondly, with a ‘buy box’ only available to certain partners, and the Commission wants to understand what impact this differentiation has on competition.

On the first point, as the overarching platform owner, Amazon is privy to sensitive marketplace information from independent retailers who sell products through the platform. Using this insight to create more effective sales strategies is very likely to fall foul of Europe’s competition rules, should Vestager be able to prove a competitive advantage.

On the subject of Vestager, perhaps this is not the last we will hear from the bureaucrat. Vestager has worked up a reputation over the last few years for taking on some of the US’ most influential, and sometimes slippery, technology companies. With Vestager’s tenure at the European Commission ending in October, perhaps she will be aiming to make a bigger splash.

This is also not the first time Amazon has found itself on the bad-side of Vestager either. In 2017, Amazon was forced to pay €250 million in back taxes to Luxembourg, after the relief which was offered to the internet giant between 2003 and 2016 was deemed illegal.

The second point focuses on the ‘buy box’. This feature allows customers to add items from some retailers directly to their shopping carts. As not all retailers are able to access the feature, the European Commission would like to understand how this impacts competition. It is also not entirely clear why some retailers are able to access this feature and others are not.

Unfortunately for Amazon, this difficult situation is not one which will be resolved quickly. In such cases, due to the complexity of digital businesses and the vast amount of information involved, the European Commission has not set itself a deadline to conduct the investigation.

Another element to consider is the criticism faced by Amazon in the US. Not only has the eCommerce platform found itself as an enemy of the White House, the other aisle is poking. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat candidate for the 2020 Presidential campaign, wants to ban companies from operating and selling on a platform simultaneously.

With an antitrust case in Europe, potential enemies on both sides of the Presidential campaign, various Congressional committees investigating big tech, Germany’s anti-trust authority sniffing at the front door and its fulfilment centres never too far away from controversy, Amazon is not in the most comfortable of positions.