As for shipping, amazon already has a delivery service (amazon fresh) but I don't think they have a strong desire to completely own delivery, they have very cozy relationships with all of the major shipping companies. If you knew how much money amazon actually pays for shipping you'd be astounded, they're very good at using their volume as negotiating leverage.
Logistics is at the core of amazon's business though, and it's a big reason why they are succeeding where others are not. If you order through amazon you can expect most items to be en route in less than 24 hours. That takes a lot of work especially considering the sheer quantity of stuff they offer.
Aside from that, they aren't just trying to do one thing, they are trying to diversify the company, so that it will rest on multiple multi-billion dollar divisions over the next decade (retail, AWS et al, ebooks, mp3/VOD, etc.)
How do you know this? I don't think they have ever released this information in their financial reports. Are you going by analysts' estimates?
So their cozy relationship with the big shipping companies might not remain so cozy.
Their own logistics / delivery component would be a gargantuan undertaking, even for them. They seem to understand what businesses they can get into and do very well in (cloud computing, generic branding (Amazon Basics), eBooks), and which ones to steer clear of. I suppose they could launch this in urban areas, but that would be shortsighted in an area that they are particularly smart, so I wouldn't count on anything past a pilot program.
Regarding what could be done to make more Amazons... You can't. Walmart is the closest competitor (although they are a bigger company, but let's see about that in 15 years). If there is one company on Earth that can beat Amazon at efficiency (warehouses, shipping, and general business ops), it's these guys. They've made an empire around it. But it seems their only strength here is their storefronts, so it seems like their online strategy would be to go the "pick up in store" route, which is a giant hassle for most. So as Amazon finds ways to improve selection and reduce costs, Walmart will go the way of Borders, and a lot of other brick and mortar stores that came before it, albeit very very slowly. Unless one of the big box retailers is willing to say "screw this storefront crap, we're totally up-ending our business model", there is absolutely no one.
It's quite attractive to us as a retailer as they take all the negative feedback, handle returns, etc etc. FBA makes us, as a retailer, look good and saves us money (no shipping costs), while protecting our reputation.
From a logistics point of view it simplifies things immensely (we just need to manage stocks in another warehouse).
Coding this should, however, be interesting :)
They will probably be announcing some sort of global supply chain and fulfillment service.
And the building blocks look interesting: robots, amazon level customer service and fulfillment, better supplier financing(enabled by sales data), global handling services(customs ,etc), offering better IT tools(for example demand prediction, A/B testing globally), Advertising deals on the amazon platform, etc. Almost like telling the manufacturer: you just build stuff, we'll do the rest for you.
If this guess is true, seeing all this packaged would be very interesting.
AWS and MechTurk both came from Amazon realising it could commoditise and spin off what it was using internally as separate products. A kind of reverse dogfooding.
On the flip side, I have to wonder if this is actually something of a benefit for Amazon. They get to save a ton of money by using a cheap delivery service, but the delivery service takes much of the heat for bad service. I'm a little annoyed with Amazon for using LaserShip, but I'm much more annoyed with LaserShip for sucking. If Amazon handled the delivery, they would have to do better just to get the same amount of satisfaction from me.
You're right in thinking that would only really work for new companies (with strong leaders), but if the stock punishment is an issue, then these two happenings will allow older giants to be this ambitious too: 1) Amazon succeeds wildly & shareholder demand these older giants copy that success 2) These older giants' stock starts to tank and must scramble to try something new.
There are certainly more, but this is what I can think of from the top of my head.
Now you can make big picture arguments about the improvements in efficiency ultimately leading to structural improvements for everyone overall -- that's Econ 101 -- but we've been doing a whole lot of that for the last 20 years and it's mostly making people in China better off and it's not at all clear that more factory jobs in China has positively affected the direction of demand for factory workers in the US.
But don't let facts get in the way of hand-waving theory.
Oh and your ground assumption is that Amazon fulfillment center workers want to be paid more for their jobs. No, they want different jobs. Creating more Amazon fulfillment center jobs at the cost of other jobs is not what they want.
Just Google stories on what it's like working in fulfillment centers for online retailers.
I see this sentiment all the time--that Amazon is simply still in its growth phase, and once it's "big enough" it will pivot and reap huge profits. I don't see any reason to believe that is true. I can't remember Bezos every saying anything like that, for instance.
I don't think so. I think Amazon expects to run at essentially break-even forever, or at least until Bezos leaves.
Once they're "big enough" they simply won't need to spend as much as they're currently spending on infrastructure and growth, and the profit (re)materializes without any business change at all.
None of the other titans are challenging Amazon. They can't because Amazon's Earnings Per Share are...
-0.23. Negative 0.23.
Investors often lump AMZN with GOOG and the like but GOOG's EPS is 33.59. TGT? 4.26. Walmart is 5.07. No other company with a market cap (100+Bn) as large as AMZN is allowed to get away with negative EPS. The only one that comes close is Vodafone, with a tiny positive EPS (0.13).
It's important to note that if any other company spent until their EPS was negative, investors would flip. Amazon is playing with razor thin margins while trying to scale up a platform to end all platforms that we might someday use for everything without thinking about it. If successful, on that day/year/eon dollar bills might as well be printed with Jeff Bezos' face on them.
Amazon won't be using UPS and Fedex trucks on that day. They'll be using Amazon trucks. You'll know that era when you see it, I think.
If you're Walmart or Target its hard to justify trying to do something similar at this point, the stock could take a major dive from such a risk. They're at the "Ask-questions" phase, and the questions are always "What's the profit?" because these are publicly traded companies. Amazon has been playing it risky since the get-go. Bezos is in for a very long gamble, and that frustrates the hell out of some investors, but its lofty enough to still attract investment dollars while in the "build-first" stage. Hopefully they can pull it off for a few more years before the stock market shifts to asking questions.
So Amazon gets to play the long game that other companies are literally disallowed from playing because investors that have seen profits want more. Amazon gets to do something bold that would cause the mother of all stock dives in any other 100+Bn company. They get a free pass because Bezos is convincing and for Amazon its sort-of-always-been-this-way. Walmart/Target/Etc do not have either of those luxuries - the incredible (or believable) visionary and being a company that's still in burn (build) mode.
~~~
All that said, an interesting question I think: What can we do to make more companies like Amazon? And is there a way to allow the older giants (such as Target) to ever be as ambitious again, without huge stock punishment?