Also, "scratching your own itch" is always the best startup method because you know intimately if your proposed solution really is a viable solution in the first place. It's then just a matter of pricing and cost, rinse and repeat.

And execution. Knowing what you want doesn't guarantee you can deliver it.

Otherwise your point (and parents) is a good one - certainly a good indicator that you might really be onto something.

This is the story of Interactive Intelligence, a company I worked for long ago. They were going to build children's software, but had trouble setting up a phone system. So they decided to build phone systems, and later sold for 1.3B

This is basically how Amazon thinks (e.g. AWS, FBA)

I agree with AWS but how did FBA solve problems for amazon internally?

You have it backwards. AWS didn't solve anything for Amazon internally (it's actually kinda funny how tricky moving internal systems onto AWS is). FBA and AWS are Amazon taking systems that they already had to build for its own use and selling them as a product/service to external companies. FBA is just a way to use a portion of Amazon's existing distribution system. AWS is a way to use Amazon's existing tech platform(s).

Fulfillment solves warehousing, inventory, and delivery of Amazon packages. Amazon built out their own network. FBA is Amazon renting out that network to third parties - whether they sell on Amazon or on their own ecommerce site.

One possibility related to commingled SKUs would be that they can control coverage of items in warehouses by controlling which warehouse(s) sellers and their product to.

To bring it back to the article, it's a bit like how CannaSOS (think a mix of Amazon & Rotten Tomatoes for weed) are stepping up and developing a crypto token & platform specifically for the purpose of buying/selling marijuana.