1. iCloud runs on AWS and Azure IIRC, it's really just AWS, Azure and App Engine. Unless you're referring to consumer cloud.

2. Apple has ping, but that doesn't really count.

3. Facebook is launching an app store.

4. Amazon has its own version of Android it uses for Kindle Fire. Sure, it's based on Google's Android, but they ripped out the Google bits.

5. That's true, Facebook doesn't yet have its own browser.

Another point here is Amazon Silk caches/records a huge amount of your browsing, it's between the user and the web, and so does Opera Mobile (not opera desktop as far as I know). Facebook in this way will capture even more than they do through their ubiquitous "like" buttons which are constantly recording where everyone goes.

Opera Mini does. Not Opera Mobile (although you can opt in if you like in Opera Mobile and the Desktop version).

>Amazon doesn't have a social network

I'd argue they have a good amount of social data through purchases. Just because it doesn't involve posting pictures of your cat doesn't mean they don't have it.

I wonder if this is even more valuable (in terms of predictive power) than facebook's data. After all, the latter tries to predict buying behavior through adjacent information, while the former is, well, buying behavior.

> So, Facebook definitely needs a browser.

Why?

This is off course a legitimate question. I tried to really summarize it by saying: "loosing one level will cause the collapse of the others".

The browser is for the end user an important base because that is where they get directed to surf and target ad spending etc. By inserting functionality like a start page or search engine, the behavior is influenced a lot. You can also push own services and products directly.

The current status of the browser is also that it can replace the OS. (See Google Chrome OS)

Google made a browser so that Google products wouldn't be hindered by whatever the state of the browser market was. And Google was the Internet for lots of lay users.

Now since Facebook is the Internet for lots of lay users, I suppose they might use the same driving logic?

You should also add in Media sale and consumption - music purchase and listening, etc.

This is certainly not a inexhaustible list. Just some important areas. Media sales, advertising income, hardware design, integration with 3rd parties etc. are also major components.

Amazon?

You guys need to realize that practically noone outside of the US has any idea of what Amazon is.

Even if that were true, it's not especially important for the end user to be familiar with the brand name "Amazon." They use its services constantly. Are they familiar with Netflix? Do they read the Guardian or the Washington Post? Maybe they use apps like Yelp or Foursquare or visit websites like Reddit or IMDb.

Amazon's web services are everywhere. If you're dismissing them because you don't recognize their name, I'd seriously question your familiarity with the current web landscape.

Are you seriously trying to convince a non-US citizen with those services?

And I fail to see how amazon hosting a few sites makes it important enough in the current web landscape to be able to be compared to microsoft/google/apple/facebook. (I bet that reddit would exist without amazon)

Those are typically US-oriented services, so that's a fair point. I was trying to list brands which end-users might be more familiar with, but really that's beside the point.

Just one more nitpick: Amazon does not just "host a few websites." Seriously, Amazon Web Services is a noteworthy business and is widely used -- yes at the level of those other companies you listed -- whether you believe it or not.

That's about as relevant as saying that Cisco is defining the future of the internet.

Facebook (or any user anywhere in the world) don't care whether their packets are routed on Cisco hardware and just because Cisco has a hand in the game doesn't mean that they have anything to say when it comes to defining the future of the internet. The best they can do is be prepared and hope that the future of the internet works well on their hardware (talking services now, of course Cisco has a larger role in the technical side of the internet but that's beside the point - unless somehow Cisco hardware is so unique that the "next facebook" or whatever wouldn't be able to exist without Cisco hardware (hardly likely for either Cisco or Amazon)).

I think I'd be hard pressed to find anyone here in the UK that doesn't know what Amazon is.

Still, to compare amazon with apple, facebook, microsoft or google is ludicrous.

I don't mean to keep picking on you, but this might be more persuasive to you: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=book+value+amazon+faceb...

I don't see the relevance. Take dell: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=book+value+amazon+dell

If Dell were to be gone tomorrow, how would that affect you? Just barely, if you use Dell products you might switch to HP. End of story.

If amazon goes away tomorrow (and assuming that people have had time to migrate to other services) that wouldn't affect people the slightest. Some users in the US would be mad that their kindles don't support DRM from any other source than amazon but that's pretty much it.

Amazon, compared to the rest mentioned, does not play a part in "defining the future of the internet". They are just a service provider that can be replaced in a jiffy. Yes they probably have great services but they don't make or break things that define the internet.

If apple, google, microsoft or facebook would disappear - that would make quite an impression. Of those facebook surely is the one most easily replaced but their current presence on the internet is huge and that is why they can have a hand in defining the future of the internet.

Amazon and Dell can only hope that the companies that do shape the internet use their services/hardware - knowing full well that Facebook would run just fine on HP hardware.

Is there anything I can show you to convince you otherwise? You make a lot of gut claims that I'm worried we're straying away from what can be conveniently falsifiable.

In terms of your counterexample, perhaps a look at the historical growth of each: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=amazon+dell+stock+price.... But I'd like to move away from Dell, because what I'm addressing is the notion that Amazon is not a "player" comparable to Facebook, Apple, or Microsoft. Dell is a hardware company. Similar, but not enough in my opinion to make such a comparison.

I think we can agree that Amazon is apparently not as recognizable to an end-user as those other companies. I don't think that diminishes their role in the landscape, and I don't totally trust your opinion that they are so conveniently replaceable.

We probably just have different ideas of what it takes to "define the future of the internet".

Pretty much nothing that amazon does will ever affect me personally, nothing wrong with that - amazon aren't even trying to define future of the internet in my eyes.

If amazon as a hosting company tries to interfere with their customers you bet they will be abandoned ASAP, doesn't matter if amazon has the best web hosting service it's still the sites they host that matter for the future of the internet and amazon has no control what so ever over that - so how can that possibly matter in this context?

The first post talked about Silk as an example of Amazons influence, really? Opera alone really feels like a small player yet Opera has way more than ten times more active users than amazon has even sold Silk-capable devices. Opera are also active in the development of future web standards, which I doubt amazon are. Again, nothing wrong with that - it's just that amazon have an entirely different focus and thus I get quite confused when you talk about stock prices - what on earth is the relevance? Seems to me that even Opera work way more towards defining the future of the internet than amazon does (or want to do).

Well to be honest, I never tried to assert that Amazon was "defining the future of the internet." I was disagreeing with your point that Amazon shouldn't even be compared to Facebook, Apple, Google, or Microsoft. And to be fair, instead of noting Amazon's horizontal stretch, I pigeonholed myself talking about AWS (which by the way, is more than web hosting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services#List_of_AWS...)

Maybe it's just that we work in different contexts. For example, at least in my field, EC2 is the de facto scalable distributed computing provider. For most intents and purposes, Amazon is the cloud computing service. Web hosting is not unique, sure, but many of the other AWS products are. If Amazon disappeared tomorrow, there would be no equivalent for many of them.

I think my point boils down to this: just because you might not frequently see Amazon on your end does not mean they should be dismissed. They are an important part of the industry right now and are absolutely worth considering in the same breath as the others.

Well, in hindsight I might have been a bit unclear but it was in that context that I made my comment(s). I sure recognize Amazon as a company (and eagerly await the day I have a project that is suited for EC2).