I just tried Walmart.com (with uBlock Origin). It's 2.4MB, with 32 scripts loaded.

Amazon.com (logged in) was 12MB, with 28 scripts.

What I find more significant: walmart.com takes 9 seconds to start displaying meaningful content, amazon.com is finished loading in 3 seconds.

(Disclaimer: Anecdata for my system, obviously.)

That’s really odd, just checked on my iPad which has never been to Walmart.com and it fully loaded in under 2 seconds. Amazon.com which I have visited before was mostly done in the same time frame, but took around 4 seconds to fully load.

Probably cuz Walmart refuses to use AWS...

I can imagine funding their direct competitor (which they're losing to) might not be a great idea.

I wonder if that mentality with change if/when AWS splits from AMZN.

Amazon Retail would be an unsustainable mess without AWS.

Lol yes Amazon was definitely not a thriving company before AWS, good point.

Why is that?

AWS has much fatter margins than retail.

There are substitutes for AWS, but the switching cost is relatively high. Whereas for toothpaste, breakfast cereal, toasters, books etc etc the substitution is perfect (I can buy the same brands from many companies) and switching cost is low (I pull out a credit card).

Insofar as Amazon has a large free cashflow coming off AWS after capital improvements, it can use that money to (a) attract cheap funding from Wall St to (b) build, build, build.

Dear God I hope the FTC cleaves vertically not horizontally.

AWS isn't the only cloud, and several AWS competitors have similar or better performance numbers. This isn't it.

Having used most of the competition, none can consistently compete. While they may have some better numbers, configuration complexity and user experience make achieving them in real-world use difficult

Having used every major public cloud I find google cloud to be the easiest to configure and manage.

Google clouds network is superior to AWS. I would be very surprised if a head to head comparison didn't have GCP in the lead as far as speed.

Lol, amazon retail still hardly uses AWS. They use mostly their custom nosql database sable and a ton of Oracle SQL databases (albeit, a decent amount of those are getting migrated to rds postgresql)

This is not true. Amazon turned off oracle DB late last year and is trending Oracle free.

https://twitter.com/ajassy/status/1060979175098437632

May sound like a silly question but does Amazon ecommerce actually run on AWS?

I hear it might be azure when cloud but mostly on prem. (See one cloud)

Just tried with ublock disabled, it's about 3.1mb and loaded in 3 seconds flat here. I'm not sure what GP is going on about. Amazon was 14.4mb and took about 4.5s to settle down.

I will say, Amazon's above the fold paint was faster, but it did load a LOT after that.

I don't understand this comment. I am in the EU and never visited the Walmart site before.

Loads fast, looks clean, seems to work fine.

I think there are color schemes on the site which are reminiscent of their relatively uninspiring stores, which creates a bias against their site by those who have spent time shopping in them. The site has also been through a number of iterations and some people might be working off outdated memories.

For a counterpoint, it loads essentially instantly (less that 1s) on my machine, and includes an easy-to-find and semi-well-functioning in-store only filter, which autosuggests my local stores and remembers my choice. It does need to filter out "out-of-stock" items, which they've made a specific choice not to do, and has nothing to do with permormance/design/ui.

Jet.com (https://jet.com) on the other hand has a very nice and fast design built with Next.js (https://nextjs.org/).

Walmart.com is also using React, and Walmart labs developed significant tooling for server-side render and partial render caching for specific components. They've published a lot of articles on their technology choices and how well they do.

Amazon's above the fold render does appear a little faster, but their total payload and load time is much larger/slower.

The site is ok, but loading images takes forever.

Agreed. The top-end images on the homepage is way too heavy. The e-commerce subpages are slightly better image-wise: https://jet.com/c/fashion/men/shoes/5209961250?experienceId=...

The main problem is most of the images are extra large and poorly optimized (they are all preloaded it seems, as Next.js does automatically). Even on my fast fiber connection it flashes.

For example, this product image is 63kb:

https://jetimages.jetcdn.net/md5/f442c4124ca2fb7537503a592a7...

But on the page it’s only loaded 360x360 px but are downloaded at 700px.

And F#

Nice, the site looks great. Good job jet.com devs, sounds like a fun project.

> so I can search for in-store only items

Their landing page doesn't have a filtering option, but the bar at the top of the search results page has a "Store Availability" option.

It doesn't work very well. It doesn't stick, and the results are clogged with out-of-stock items. ‘I do not think that word means what you think it means.’