Amazon status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Amazon reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Amazon users through our website.

• Website Down (43%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (24%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Amazon outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Chicago	Errors	8 hours ago
Honeoye Falls	Sign in	10 hours ago
Helensburgh	Sign in	2 days ago
Annecy	Website Down	2 days ago
Nancy	Sign in	3 days ago
Bayeux	Sign in	3 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Amazon Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Anibal Gutierrez (@AnibalGuti15760) reported 4 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Just to give you an idea how much the unwillingness of your tech support to help.I have t send a routers to be fix,the manufacturer required a copy of the invoice which we can’t access to the account any more,the hacker is controlling that account. How do I get that info ?

• 
  ChefDankerton (@Dankert315) reported 11 minutes ago

  @ThoughtCrimes80 There's always 1-4 accidents as well. Last time I went down 2 weeks ago, and Amazon truck smashed an exit divider. It was 1 ******* lane for a 1/2 a mile.

• 
  🇺🇲king John🇲🇽 (@J0HNM45T3RCH13F) reported 11 minutes ago

  @8BitDo Getting it tomorrow Amazon do to a payment info issue but updated the info getting it tomorrow can't wait

• 
  Jane Reynolds (@JaneReynolds8) reported 11 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Thank you. I’m normally a very happy customer so it’s not a huge problem, but I will just fill out the form.

• 
  STR8BGN (@StraightBugging) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Variety Energetic my ***. Horrible acting and terrible plot. It's like speed, but she's running. Amazon Studios strikes out again.

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 16 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Just to clarify, are the same representatives who gave me inconsistent answers each time, and who made my situation more complicated, really the best resource for resolving this issue?

• 
  Harry Tandy (@HarryTandy) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Shruti_0810 The company case studies are the strongest part Learning how Amazon or Discord actually solved scaling problems beats reading generic theory

• 
  Fine Grain Solutions (@fine_grain_sol) reported 18 minutes ago

  @i2cjak You can get large kits of metric or imperial machine screws/inserts on Amazon. I use them for prototyping but they are bad quality generally so I order specific hardware in bulk once I have sizes nailed down. Really only need to stock a couple sizes for PCB stuff anyway

• 
  Brian McCormick (@bjmtweets) reported 22 minutes ago

  Take the entire market cap value of businesses that require the internet to run. Amazon, Google, Uber, AirBnB, the list goes on. Tens of trillions. Now take the entire market cap value of businesses providing that infrastructure to run the internet. Much less. Although the value of the internet is transformative to everyone, internet providers were not able to capture much of that value. Ultimately, profitability is not from the value you create, but from your pricing power and moat. Another internet provider will lay cable or provide WiFi for less profit, bringing down industry margins, until the point nobody finds it profitable enough to compete. The market is currently rewarding most every AI infrastructure layer AI business today, but being essential does not guarantee superior economics. The providers that capture the most value will be the one with the most durable scarcity, pricing power, and competitive protection.

• 
  Richard 🍋 (@ZizouDeTemu) reported 24 minutes ago

  @atuhru You can buy it in Amazon Japan. Problem solved.

• 
  Fi Rhodes (@RhodesFi32898) reported 27 minutes ago

  @sunakball @Lord_Sugar Amazon does some direct supply. There are so many issues.

• 
  Bronx (@Bronx_wrangler) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Essiex2a And all international firms and all large corporates in SA. All are compliant. Do you prefer the 30% black elite shareholding? StarLink proposed to do be same as Amazon. Do you oppose StarLink in SA? The issue is the GNU.

• 
  Juan Guillermo Ruiz (@JuanRzc) reported 28 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Hi. Issue on Prime video. One particular movie plays in bad quality. It's available with Prime, I didn't rent it or use a subscription. Thank you

• 
  𝙹𝙱 (@KOTULCN) reported 28 minutes ago

  @ScullySherSpock @HailMaryLogs There has been differing interpretations of what was said. Amazon is likely waiting out until sales of the dvd release die down and then release the 4 hour directors cut…got milk that consumer money.

• 
  Dr Mark van Rijmenam, CSP (@VanRijmenam) reported 28 minutes ago

  Five juries have now given awards to a book about not having time to think. I treat that as a symptom, not a compliment. My book on riding the tsunami of change has now won five awards. It leaves me oddly unsatisfied. An award means the question landed. It does not mean we answered it. Now What? argues that the hardest problem we face is not artificial intelligence. It is that human beings absorb change at human speed, and change stopped arriving at human speed. Every leader I meet is moving faster. Almost none of them are thinking slower. So here is my stance. The bottleneck is no longer the technology. It is us. Our institutions, our attention, our capacity to make sense of things. You cannot fix a sense-making problem by shipping faster. Irreversible decisions deserve your slowest thinking. Most organizations have this exactly backwards. They deliberate for months over choices they could reverse in a week, then settle the irreversible ones in a single meeting, without thinking of the unintended consequences that will arrive years or decades later. Which decision on your desk this quarter can never be undone? Read why the award worries me more than it flatters me, find the book on Amazon or elsewhere.

• 
  Derek Johnson (@rattletrap1776) reported 33 minutes ago

  Protesting Data Centers because you do not like AI… Is like Protesting to shut down Amazon Publishing and Printing because you read one bad book… 😝 Stop being ig—nernt 🤡📌

• 
  Sebastian Caniulao | Ecommerce Email & Growth (@canipack21) reported 38 minutes ago

  @eliweisss Good problem to have. The piece I would move up the list alongside the hire is pulling those Amazon buyers onto the owned list, since the channel gives you almost nothing on repeat. Insert cards plus a registration offer was the only bridge that ever worked for us.

• 
  🤖 (@artificialfries) reported 40 minutes ago

  @ebloch I’ve been using it to track all of my subscription spending via App Store subscriptions and real time subscriptions irl such as Amazon prime, etc. didn’t realize I was spending so much!! I’m now using it to analyze and cut down on some of my biggest waste spending

• 
  AFCB Oldgit 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦 (@AFCBOldgit) reported 40 minutes ago

  @DeborahHD @amazon I don't know about you, but we sometimes have an English girl deliver to us, she's EXCELLENT, but it's virtually always foreign delivery drivers that are the problem, and some, hardly speak English, so whether they're trying to do everything to avoid talking I've no idea 🤷

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 41 minutes ago

  Every time Damodaran uploads a video, I always watch it because he usually takes a concept that sounds simple on the surface and then breaks down the incentives and economics underneath it, and this discussion on scaling versus profitability is a good example. The common startup narrative is that companies should grow as quickly as possible, capture market share, and worry about profits later, but Damodaran's argument is that this approach only works when the structure of the business actually supports it. A large addressable market and fast revenue growth can tell us how big a company might become, but they tell us very little about how valuable that company will eventually be unless growth can translate into better unit economics, operating leverage, pricing power, and returns on invested capital. A company can therefore become much larger without becoming economically stronger, and in some cases scaling simply multiplies the weaknesses that were already embedded in the original business model. This is why the distinction between scalability and business quality is so important. Software businesses can often add customers at very low marginal cost, meaning revenue can grow much faster than the underlying cost base, while businesses involving manufacturing, logistics, physical infrastructure, or expensive customer acquisition may require significant incremental spending for every additional dollar of revenue. Even within technology, being asset-light does not automatically solve the problem because customer acquisition costs, incentives, cloud infrastructure, research spending, and competition can effectively become variable costs that rise alongside growth. Scale only creates meaningful operating leverage when the incremental economics improve as the company gets larger, and if costs continue rising roughly in line with revenue, the company may eventually discover that what looked like a temporary profitability problem was actually structural. Amazon is therefore an important example, but also a dangerous template for other startups to copy. Amazon could tolerate years of weak accounting profitability because its scale was gradually building infrastructure, distribution density, customer relationships, marketplace liquidity, and purchasing power that improved the economics of the business over time, so the losses were connected to assets and competitive advantages that eventually supported much greater profitability. The mistake is assuming that every company reporting losses while growing quickly is following the same path, because some businesses are simply using investor capital to subsidize prices, acquire customers, or enter markets without creating corresponding economic advantages. Both companies can initially show the same headline numbers of rapid revenue growth and negative earnings, but one may be accumulating future operating leverage while the other is accumulating obligations that require continuous external capital. Damodaran's "Field of Dreams" can become a "Field of Nightmares" precisely when investors assume profitability will automatically appear once sufficient scale has been reached. The venture capital structure makes this problem more interesting because the incentives of the investor and the economics of the underlying company are not necessarily aligned. Venture portfolios depend heavily on a relatively small number of very large winners, which means a venture capitalist may rationally prefer a founder to pursue a much larger and riskier outcome rather than build a smaller company producing steady profits. A company that could become a profitable business worth a few hundred million dollars may be economically attractive to its founder, employees, and customers, but it might barely move the returns of a multibillion-dollar venture fund, while turning that same company into a speculative attempt at a ten-billion-dollar outcome provides much more upside to the fund. Scaling therefore becomes partly a consequence of portfolio mathematics rather than purely a consequence of what is optimal for the company itself, which helps explain why startups are frequently encouraged to expand geographically, add products, increase hiring, and raise increasingly large funding rounds even before the economics of the original business have been fully proven. Damodaran's point about pricing versus valuation extends this incentive further. Private markets frequently anchor financing rounds around comparable transactions, revenue multiples, user growth, subscribers, or projected future revenue rather than the present value of sustainable future cash flows, so scale itself becomes an input into the next financing round. Once that happens, raising capital can create a self-reinforcing cycle where capital funds growth, growth supports a higher private-market price, the higher price enables another larger funding round, and that new capital funds even more growth. During favorable capital-market conditions this cycle can continue for years, making it difficult to distinguish between a genuinely improving business and a company whose growth is partly being manufactured by increasingly abundant financing. The real test only arrives when the marginal investor becomes less willing to finance losses and the company has to demonstrate that customers, margins, and cash generation can support the business without constant capital injections. The expansion of private capital has allowed this process to continue much further than it could several decades ago. Companies historically reached public markets relatively early because public equity was one of the few ways to obtain the capital required for large-scale expansion, whereas mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, private equity firms, crossover investors, and very large venture funds can now provide billions of dollars while companies remain private. Damodaran describes this as the creation of a gray market between traditional venture capital and public equity, and one consequence is that startups can reach enormous revenue bases and valuations before facing the level of disclosure, governance scrutiny, and profitability expectations traditionally associated with public companies. His data also show how much this has changed the profile of companies reaching the public market, with companies generally arriving larger in revenue terms but substantially less likely to be profitable than companies going public several decades ago. There is also a governance dimension that becomes increasingly important as companies scale privately. A founder managing a small startup and a founder controlling an organization worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars are effectively running very different institutions, yet rapid private-market scaling can allow the governance structure of the first company to survive into the second. Founder control, dual-class shares, fragmented investor bases, and competition among venture investors can weaken the normal mechanisms that challenge management decisions, while large valuations can reinforce the belief that the founder's strategy has already been validated. The danger is that valuation growth can substitute for operational accountability during the scaling phase, and by the time profitability, capital allocation, organizational complexity, or governance problems become visible, the company may already employ thousands of people and control significant amounts of capital. Another part of Damodaran's argument that I find important is that staying small should not automatically be interpreted as failure. Some businesses naturally have better economics when they remain concentrated around a specific customer base, product category, geography, or brand position, because expanding beyond that niche can weaken pricing power or require disproportionately higher capital and marketing spending. Ferrari is an obvious example of a company whose economics partly depend on scarcity, but the principle applies much more widely: maximizing revenue is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing enterprise value. A business generating high returns on capital within a limited market can be economically superior to a much larger competitor producing weak returns after enormous capital investment, which means the correct objective should ultimately be value creation rather than size itself. Personally, this is where I agree strongly with Damodaran, because I do not see profitability and growth as opposite objectives in the first place. A company should absolutely sacrifice near-term profits when it has opportunities to reinvest capital at attractive returns, especially when that spending strengthens distribution, technology, network effects, customer retention, infrastructure, or another durable competitive advantage, but there needs to be a credible economic mechanism connecting today's spending with tomorrow's cash generation. I care much less about whether a rapidly growing company currently reports a profit than about what happens to the economics of the next dollar of revenue, because improving contribution margins, lower acquisition costs, stronger retention, greater pricing power, and falling capital requirements provide evidence that scale is actually making the business better. This also makes the discussion extremely relevant to the current artificial intelligence cycle. Artificial intelligence companies are being pushed to scale models, computing infrastructure, data centers, users, enterprise distribution, and revenue extraordinarily quickly, while the capital required to support that expansion is also becoming enormous. Some of that spending could eventually create exceptional businesses if inference economics improve, utilization rises, customers become deeply embedded in the products, and artificial intelligence generates enough willingness to pay to produce strong margins, but scale alone cannot prove that outcome. If computing costs and capital requirements continue rising alongside usage, then very fast revenue growth could coexist with mediocre returns on capital, particularly when companies must continuously finance new generations of chips and infrastructure simply to remain technologically competitive. For me, the most important question in artificial intelligence therefore is gradually shifting from how fast these companies can grow to how much economic value remains after paying for the infrastructure required to generate that growth, because eventually the market has to separate companies that are using capital to build durable operating leverage from companies that simply need ever larger amounts of capital to keep the scaling story alive.

• 
  Humberto (@patife) reported 47 minutes ago

  @ericwdolan Sure I meant more that things get transformed! Postal services were about letters, os they move parcels/ amazon boxes. Email service was about .. email, now they’re about identity/ login.

• 
  The Inner Circle Trading Group DP David Prince (@epictrades1) reported 50 minutes ago

  @CardiCNBC Really ? That is what you took from this ? I see much worse broken business models w low valuations over amazon. Indeed amazon is doing quite well... rem last earnings. Oh and no nothing is a hard rule for all stox, odd u thought that

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 51 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Ahmed’s replies haven’t actually addressed my issue. Just the same response repeated. I really hope someone else on this team can help resolve this. Please don’t let me down again.

• 
  David Murithi (@DaviMurithi) reported 51 minutes ago

  1 Customer research. Involves digging through reviews i.e. Trustpilot, Amazon to identify recurring patterns, avatars, benefits, objections and their frequencies. This is the most crucial step. You get this step wrong & you will flush all the ad budget down the ******* toilet

• 
  Marcus Cruz (@Marcus8214) reported 52 minutes ago

  @rauliscoolyo @salinisalazini Problem is that there is 30 nationally televised games. So you still need ESPN, NBC and Amazon Prime.

• 
  Michael Rauch (@Michael_L_Rauch) reported 54 minutes ago

  @WaterGardenApps @Tesla @Waymo Terrible business with race to bottom on margins. Neither Waymo or Zoox are going anywhere with Google & Amazon money, but too many want to believe.

• 
  leelakurup (@leelakurup) reported 57 minutes ago

  @Tukaram_IndIAS Sir what about companies do not deliver items prepaid and show on line its delivered. Amazon delivery is doing it off late. Then call them convince them item not delivered. Big problem. Any remedy??

• 
  David Bruce (@DavidBruceman) reported 58 minutes ago

  @omgsidewalks If climate change is really a concern then why is no one mentioning the destruction of the Amazon rain forest? It slows Global Warming: By locking away greenhouse gases, the Amazon helps slow down the pace of global climate change.

• 
  pmanik (@pmanik94) reported 1 hour ago

  @AmazonHelp I did not any resolution from you guys in this chat. I am not sure why customer will face problem if there is system glitch from amazon @amazonIN @PMOIndia

• 
  Saharcia (@sofija9797) reported 1 hour ago

  @Vengerin @mariaquevedo07 tbh I don't think Amazon would even let Alastor get cut out of S4 + maybe he has tons of lines and songs with other characters? and like someone else said, may be scheduling issues or Amir is just trolling