I feel like this is one of the things where the most parsimonious explanation by far is to take their stated explanation at face value. It makes perfect sense that Amazon would insist on commingling when it's necessary to achieve fast shipping speeds, and end it if their logistics network is so good that it's no longer necessary. (Anecdotally, I just got an Amazon order to my doorstep in four hours yesterday - their logistics really are mindbogglingly fast now.)

▲

willis936 10 hours ago | parent [-]

The issue is that saying "the economics no longer work" isn't correct because the economics never worked. They traded longterm real value for short term shareholder gains and they're running out of real value runway. It would be more accurate if they said "we can no longer bare the cashing in of our reputation because there is nothing left to cash in".

	▲	lotsofpulp 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		“Short term shareholder gains” covers a time period of 20+ years? Amazon is the poster child for the exact opposite of what you claim. They spent two decades plowing every cent into land acquisition, warehouse construction, expanding their labor force, and developing software and hardware. It was thought impossible to compete with Walmart and others with established logistics networks. Now, they eclipse Walmart because Walmart was focused on the short term, while Amazon was playing to where the ball would be in 20+ years.