Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Amazon has publicly stated that every 100ms in additional loading time leads to 1% loss in revenue. For the scale of Amazon, that is massive


Was it linear though? I understand how you can lose 50% revenue by 5 seconds delay per click. But thinking that this has no “breakpoints” is naive.

Also, personally when shopping for e.g. jeans and tshirts I’d rather just wait for all items (json) and thumbnails to load (they can do that in bg except for the first page) and then filter/search/pagination would work instantly. You can lose half a hour in total by dealing with these shitty filtering sidebars which reload everything every time. Why aren’t e-shops then just semi-local apps over an on-demand synchronizable full-blown localstorage db? Nobody does this sort of precaching. Do they know how much revenue they are losing? It doesn’t add up.


That's a claim that they made in 2006. Could there be a reason why Amazon said that a slow website would have a massive impact on ecommerce sales back then? Was there some other Amazon product that would greatly benefit from people believing they had to use the fastest hosting service possible for their online store?

Coincidently, AWS also launched in 2006.


AWS was nothing like it is today back in 2006. It’s not as easy as your post implies, and if you know the full story, it’s super far fetched.


It was a very limited study and Amazon have sent C&Ds to other large companies to tell them to stop using that quote




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: