Amazon 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:

• 
  Gus (@Gus_802) reported 30 seconds ago

  Amazon will blame the retailers. If not a delivery issue then they'll blame Door Dash. They never take personal responsibility. It's much easier to just head back to the stores and shop in person.

• 
  frosty (@Foster471575057) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Banana3Stocks I’m fearing a reset on Amazon back down to 230 what’s your opinion on the local floor? Really want to exit at some point soon to take some profit out of the market. Had a sell all order for 290 but hit 286 and regretting not moving there

• 
  Jacklyn Taylor (@Ronindrake2) reported 6 minutes ago

  @awscloud @AmazonHelp @amazon Yo, can any of yall explain why a review that gets flagged for "community guidelines" refuses to tell you what the issue is? Like yall's bot goes "it violates rules!" But cant tell me what part? It obviously had to note what the issue was...

• 
  The Great Lock In(-60lbs/27kg) (@Hurt97919464y) reported 9 minutes ago

  He’s giving me his phone so I can go on Amazon and replace what’s broken

• 
  Herb zimmerman (@Herbzimmerman2) reported 10 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Never used to be a problem. Not it is more often than not. Managed decline seems to be the choice.

• 
  Dr Arif Nasir Butt(Advocate) (@DrArifNasirButt) reported 10 minutes ago

  Dear Team I have Bought Hawkins Futura Dual **** Induction and Now it's Not Working.. Kindly Provide Service Centre Number or Service Man Name and Number Bought From Amazon Order NUMBER- 406-4142458-6179509 Bought on 03/12/2025 @HawkinsCookers

• 
  Shaik Osman (@osmanmbs) reported 12 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Initiated return on 7th Aug and scheduled for 9th Aug. Still the damaged product is with me. Your team is not helping to resolve the issue and simply disconnected the call. (2/2)

• 
  Jake Day (@JakeDay) reported 15 minutes ago

  @TheQuartering Good job. I’m a seller on Amazon, eBay, Walmart and all the other long-tail of platforms. You said and implied your coffee would be “in” Walmart. Not on Walmart marketplace. Which is VERY different. This is the type of behavior that fuels your detractors because you think they’re too naive to understand the difference. I think these errors are avoidable.

• 
  TheValueist (@TheValueist) reported 18 minutes ago

  $CSCO KEY READ-THROUGHS FROM CISCO SYSTEMS Q4 FY26 EARNINGS CALL Cisco’s Q4 FY26 earnings call provides one of the clearest cross-sector confirmations that the AI infrastructure cycle is broadening from accelerators and servers into networking, coherent optics, enterprise data centers, campus infrastructure, security, telecom transport, memory, power management, and industrial connectivity. The strongest evidence was not merely Cisco’s 18% revenue growth, but the breadth and forward visibility of demand: total product orders increased 35%, orders excluding hyperscalers increased 25%, enterprise orders increased 21%, public-sector orders increased 30%, service-provider and cloud orders increased 95%, telco orders increased more than 30%, and hyperscaler AI infrastructure orders reached $4 billion in Q4 and $9.3 billion for FY26. The call is therefore directionally positive for the physical AI infrastructure ecosystem. However, it is not uniformly positive for incumbent vendors. Cisco is using vertically integrated silicon, systems, optics, software, security, and observability to re-enter markets where it historically had limited hyperscaler exposure, creating material share risk for merchant-silicon suppliers, independent networking vendors, optical-system incumbents, and stand-alone security vendors. The call also contains an important quality-of-growth warning: approximately 5 percentage points of Q4 revenue growth and an expected 4-5 percentage points of FY27 growth are being generated by price increases, while product gross margin declined 270 bps. The most actionable conclusion is that the AI infrastructure cycle is becoming broader and more durable, but the relative winners will be companies positioned in scarce components, physical infrastructure, private AI systems, and cross-domain platforms rather than every company exposed to nominal data-center spending. AI NETWORKING, SWITCHING AND SILICON ETHERNET AI FABRIC DEMAND IS ACCELERATING, BUT CISCO’S HYPERSCALER SHARE RECOVERY CREATES A STRUCTURAL RISK FOR ARISTA (READ-THROUGH 1) AFFECTED COMPANIES AND IMPACT: Arista Networks (ANET: US) faces a near-term positive demand read-through of moderate magnitude but a longer-duration negative competitive read-through of moderate-to-high magnitude. NVIDIA (NVDA: US) receives a positive read-through from the continued expansion of AI infrastructure spending, but Cisco’s scale-out and scale-across wins create a low-magnitude negative read-through for NVIDIA’s networking portfolio specifically. The negative impact on NVIDIA’s consolidated earnings is substantially smaller than the potential impact on a networking-focused company such as Arista. CALL SUPPORT: Cisco took $4 billion of hyperscaler AI infrastructure orders in Q4 and $9.3 billion for FY26, approximately 4.5 times the FY25 total. All 4 of Cisco’s largest hyperscaler customers increased AI infrastructure orders at triple-digit rates. Approximately 60% of the orders were for Silicon One-based systems and 40% were for optics. Cisco won 3 new hyperscaler designs during Q4, including a P200 scale-across deployment and a G200 scale-out deployment. Cisco now has 3 P200 scale-across wins, each with a different hyperscaler, and received orders from all 3 during Q4. Management expects FY27 hyperscaler AI revenue of $7.5 billion, compared with approximately $4 billion in FY26, implying approximately 88% growth. Management also stated that FY27 AI orders should be “meaningfully higher” than the $9.3 billion recorded in FY26. TRANSMISSION MECHANISM: The sector-level demand read-through is positive because Cisco’s results validate rapid growth in Ethernet-based AI fabrics across both scale-out and scale-across architectures. This supports the overall addressable market for high-speed switching, routing, optics, network operating systems, and fabric-management software. Arista should benefit from the same hyperscaler capital-spending environment, particularly where customers prefer Ethernet-based architectures. The non-consensus implication is that Cisco’s success is not only a market-expansion signal; it is also evidence of a credible share-recapture campaign. Cisco emphasized that it had virtually no business inside hyperscaler data centers slightly more than 6 years ago. It now has multibillion-dollar orders, design wins across several separate hyperscalers, and a product stack spanning silicon, systems, optics, security, and software. Cisco’s 60% systems mix indicates that it is not participating only as an optical-component provider. It is competing directly for high-value switching and routing deployments. Cisco’s profitability framework increases the competitive risk. Management stated that the incremental expenses required to capture hyperscaler revenue are minimal and that lower-gross-margin hyperscaler systems can still be highly profitable because Cisco does not need to add a traditional enterprise selling organization in proportion to revenue. Cisco can therefore pursue market share aggressively without necessarily sacrificing operating-margin growth. This gives Cisco greater flexibility on pricing, product bundling, and commercial terms than a competitor whose earnings model depends more heavily on maintaining very high product gross margins. NEAR-TERM TRADING CATALYST: Continued hyperscaler capital-spending growth should support networking revenue estimates across the sector during the next several quarters. Arista can still report strong demand even while Cisco gains share because the underlying market is expanding rapidly. The principal near-term risk is that new Cisco design wins, particularly across multiple hyperscalers rather than a single customer, cause investors to lower assumptions for Arista’s long-term hyperscaler share or terminal margin structure. Cisco indicated that additional G300, G200, P200, and optical decisions are expected during the next 6 months, making design-win disclosures a potentially significant trading catalyst. LONGER-DURATION FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: The longer-term issue is the emergence of Cisco as a vertically integrated hyperscaler networking competitor rather than a legacy enterprise-networking vendor. If Cisco can scale Silicon One across hyperscaler, enterprise, telco, and campus environments, the value of a common architecture, supply chain, and software layer could become increasingly important. Arista remains a major beneficiary of AI networking growth, but Cisco’s re-entry reduces the probability that incremental Ethernet AI spending accrues to Arista with limited competitive pressure. The call therefore supports higher sector revenue assumptions but also a higher competitive-risk discount for Arista. Cisco did not identify the 4 hyperscalers by name. No company-specific customer attribution to Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, or another cloud operator is warranted solely from the transcript. CISCO’S SILICON ONE EXPANSION IS A STRUCTURAL NEGATIVE FOR MERCHANT-SILICON CONTENT AND A POSITIVE FOR TSMC (READ-THROUGH 2) AFFECTED COMPANIES AND IMPACT: Marvell Technology (MRVL: US) faces a negative longer-duration impact of moderate magnitude. Broadcom (AVGO: US) faces a negative longer-duration impact of low-to-moderate magnitude at the consolidated-company level because of its greater diversification. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSM: Taiwan) receives a positive longer-duration impact of low-to-moderate magnitude. CALL SUPPORT: Cisco plans to deploy Silicon One “comprehensively across our high-performance networking systems by fiscal year ’29.” Management stated that owning the silicon, systems, and software provides greater control over the supply chain and innovation roadmap. Cisco also emphasized that it deals directly with TSMC rather than depending on allocations and commitments from merchant-silicon providers. Management explicitly identified the potential “avoidance of stacking margins with merchant silicon” as a longer-term economic benefit. TRANSMISSION MECHANISM: Broadcom and Marvell participate in merchant Ethernet switching, routing, connectivity, custom silicon, and related semiconductor markets. Cisco’s deployment of internally controlled Silicon One products creates a direct risk to merchant-silicon sockets that Cisco might otherwise source externally. The impact occurs through reduced unit content, lower attach rates, diminished pricing leverage, and lower incremental revenue from Cisco’s future high-performance system volumes. The effect is likely more material for Marvell than for Broadcom on a relative basis because Broadcom has a broader earnings base spanning custom accelerators, networking, storage connectivity, wireless, and infrastructure software. Marvell also has important custom-silicon and optical opportunities that can offset networking-silicon displacement, but Cisco’s stated intention to internalize more of the stack remains a clear competitive negative. The positive read-through for TSMC is direct. Cisco’s internal silicon strategy does not eliminate semiconductor outsourcing; it shifts value from merchant-chip suppliers toward the foundry. Cisco indicated that it is managing wafer, substrate, assembly, and test requirements directly and maintaining an active relationship with TSMC. As Silicon One expands across Cisco’s product portfolio, TSMC should benefit from higher networking-ASIC wafer demand and greater visibility into Cisco’s product roadmap. NEAR-TERM TRADING CATALYST: The near-term earnings impact on Broadcom and Marvell should be limited because the portfolio-wide rollout extends through FY29 and the underlying AI-networking market is expanding. Market growth can offset lost Cisco content during the early phase. The key near-term catalysts will be Cisco disclosures regarding which product families have transitioned to Silicon One, the rate of system adoption, and any evidence of lower merchant-silicon purchases. LONGER-DURATION FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: The more important implication is architectural. Cisco is attempting to convert networking silicon from a purchased component into a strategic control point. If successful, this can improve product differentiation, supply assurance, security integration, and system economics. It also creates an industry precedent for large systems vendors to internalize more semiconductor intellectual property. The structural value transfer would favor foundries and internal design teams over merchant-silicon vendors. OPTICAL, TELECOM AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRIBUTED AI CLUSTERS CREATE A MULTI-YEAR COHERENT-OPTICS CYCLE, BUT CISCO’S ACACIA STRATEGY THREATENS OPTICAL-SYSTEM INCUMBENTS (READ-THROUGH 3) AFFECTED COMPANIES AND IMPACT: Coherent Corp. (COHR: US) and Lumentum Holdings (LITE: US) receive positive industry-demand read-throughs of moderate-to-high magnitude. These are market-level read-throughs rather than assertions that either company is a direct supplier for the Cisco deployments discussed on the call. Ciena Corp. (CIEN: US) receives a near-term positive demand impact of moderate-to-high magnitude but a longer-duration negative competitive impact of moderate magnitude. Nokia Oyj (NOK: Finland) receives a near-term positive demand impact of moderate magnitude and a longer-duration negative competitive impact of low-to-moderate magnitude. CALL SUPPORT: Approximately 40% of Cisco’s $9.3 billion of FY26 hyperscaler AI infrastructure orders consisted of optics. Acacia generated more than $1 billion of orders during Q4. Cisco has shipped more than 850,000 400G and more than 75,000 800G coherent pluggable optics. Management estimated that AI scale-across traffic could be approximately 14 times traditional data-center-interconnect traffic. Cisco also won a managed optical-fiber-network design in Q4 that allows its digital coherent optics to operate directly in third-party equipment. Management described this win as strategically important because it positions Cisco as an alternative to an incumbent and “has the potential to disrupt traditional delivery of managed optical fiber networks.” TRANSMISSION MECHANISM: Distributed AI clusters require substantially more bandwidth between facilities because GPUs located in separate buildings or data centers must operate with increasingly low latency and high reliability. This raises demand for coherent DSPs, optical engines, lasers, modulators, transceivers, pluggable coherent optics, open-line systems, and high-capacity transport equipment. The 14 times traffic estimate, while provided by Cisco rather than independently validated, indicates a meaningful increase in optical content per AI deployment. Coherent and Lumentum benefit at the industry level because greater volumes of 400G, 800G, and future higher-speed links increase demand for optical components and modules. The benefit is not necessarily proportional to Cisco’s Acacia growth because Acacia is vertically integrated into Cisco and may source or design portions of the optical stack internally. The high-conviction conclusion is that the addressable optical market is expanding, not that Cisco’s order growth maps directly into identical revenue growth for every component supplier. Ciena and Nokia face a more complex outcome. Higher telco and inter-data-center traffic should improve aggregate demand for transport equipment. Cisco reported more than 30% telco order growth and linked the acceleration directly to cloud customers’ future bandwidth requirements. However, Cisco is also attempting to disaggregate traditional optical systems by placing Acacia coherent optics into third-party equipment and combining those optics with Cisco line systems and Silicon One routing. This architecture can shift value away from proprietary chassis and vertically integrated optical platforms toward pluggable optics, open systems, and network software. Ciena is more exposed to this competitive transition because optical transport is a larger portion of its business. Nokia is more diversified, reducing the consolidated magnitude. Cisco did not identify the displaced optical incumbent, and no specific customer or vendor displacement should be assumed beyond the competitive mechanism management described. NEAR-TERM TRADING CATALYST: Stronger orders at optical-component and transport vendors would confirm the scale-across thesis. Cisco expects several additional optics and silicon design decisions during the next 6 months. A continuation of more than $1 billion quarterly Acacia orders would support elevated optical-industry forecasts. Conversely, evidence that Cisco is winning managed optical-network deployments from established transport vendors would be negative for the relative share outlook of Ciena and Nokia even if industry revenue remains strong. LONGER-DURATION FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: The long-duration shift is from isolated AI clusters toward geographically distributed clusters connected through high-capacity optical networks. This increases network and optical content per accelerator. At the same time, coherent pluggables and open-line architectures can reduce dependence on proprietary transport platforms. The most attractive exposure is therefore likely to reside in differentiated optical components, DSPs, and high-speed modules, while traditional system vendors face a larger risk of value migration and pricing pressure. POWER CONSTRAINTS AND MULTI-SITE AI ARCHITECTURES INCREASE PHYSICAL-INFRASTRUCTURE INTENSITY (READ-THROUGH 4) AFFECTED COMPANIES AND IMPACT: Vertiv Holdings (VRT: US), Eaton Corp. (ETN: Ireland), and Schneider Electric (SU: France) receive positive longer-duration impacts of moderate-to-high magnitude. Belden Inc. (BDC: US) and Rockwell Automation (ROK: US) receive positive impacts of moderate magnitude through industrial networking and data-center-facility connectivity. CALL SUPPORT: Cisco stated that hyperscalers increasingly need to connect AI clusters across multiple data centers because of “physical and power limitations in a single data center.” Management expects scale-across traffic to be approximately 14 times traditional data-center-interconnect traffic. Telco orders increased more than 30% as carriers prepared for greater bandwidth demand. Cisco also reported that industrial IoT orders had increased at double-digit rates for 9 consecutive quarters and accelerated in Q4, driven by manufacturing, utilities, and data-center facilities requiring ruggedized networking equipment. TRANSMISSION MECHANISM: When accelerator deployments cannot be concentrated within a single facility because of power-delivery, cooling, land, or physical-space constraints, the infrastructure requirement expands beyond the server rack. A distributed cluster requires power conversion, switchgear, uninterruptible power systems, thermal management, monitoring, networking, security, and optical links at multiple sites. The same compute workload can therefore generate more aggregate physical-infrastructure content when it is distributed than when it is contained within one data hall. Vertiv, Eaton, and Schneider Electric benefit because the physical bottleneck is increasingly power delivery and thermal management rather than only accelerator availability. Distributed architectures can require duplicated or expanded power and cooling systems across facilities. The benefit should be strongest for suppliers with exposure to high-density power, liquid cooling, electrical distribution, and data-center monitoring. Belden and Rockwell receive a related positive read-through from the 9 consecutive quarters of double-digit industrial IoT order growth. Manufacturing plants, utilities, and data-center campuses increasingly require ruggedized Ethernet, secure industrial connectivity, monitoring, and automation. Cisco’s own industrial portfolio creates competitive pressure, but the sustained order pattern indicates that the underlying market is expanding. NEAR-TERM TRADING CATALYST: Continued order growth from data-center power and cooling vendors would validate that physical bottlenecks are forcing incremental infrastructure investment rather than merely delaying compute deployments. Telco capital-spending commentary and large interconnect projects should provide additional confirmation. The near-term impact is likely to be more visible for equipment vendors than for data-center real estate companies because the call does not establish whether the new capacity will be placed in hyperscaler-owned facilities or third-party colocation sites. LONGER-DURATION FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: AI infrastructure is becoming a system-level deployment involving compute, networking, optics, power, cooling, and industrial automation. The shift toward multi-site clusters increases the amount of supporting infrastructure required per deployed accelerator. This is structurally positive for power-management and thermal-management suppliers and reduces the probability that AI capital spending remains concentrated only in GPU and server vendors. MEMORY, HARDWARE MARGINS AND REVENUE QUALITY CISCO’S MEMORY COST DISCLOSURE IS A POSITIVE READ-THROUGH FOR DRAM PRICING AND A NEGATIVE MARGIN SIGNAL FOR SERVER OEMS (READ-THROUGH 5) AFFECTED COMPANIES AND IMPACT: Micron Technology (MU: US), SK hynix (000660: South Korea), Samsung Electronics (005930: South Korea), and Nanya Technology (2408: Taiwan) receive positive near-term impacts of moderate magnitude. Dell Technologies (DELL: US), Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE: US), and Super Micro Computer (SMCI: US) face negative gross-margin impacts of moderate magnitude if memory-cost inflation exceeds the timing or magnitude of customer price increases. CALL SUPPORT: Cisco’s non-GAAP product gross margin declined 270 bps, with management identifying higher hardware mix and memory costs as the primary causes. Cisco has entered strategic supply agreements, made an investment in Nanya, used advance purchase commitments, and built strategic inventory. Management expects price increases to contribute approximately 4-5 percentage points to FY27 revenue growth. Cisco estimated that memory represents approximately 15%-20% of the bill of materials for affected products and contrasted this with server-heavy companies, where memory can represent a substantially larger share of product cost. TRANSMISSION MECHANISM: The call indicates that memory suppliers continue to possess sufficient pricing power and supply leverage to affect the gross margins of a large, sophisticated hardware buyer. Cisco’s willingness to invest in Nanya, make advance commitments, and accumulate inventory indicates that supply assurance is strategically important. This supports a favorable near-term pricing and demand environment for DRAM suppliers. The margin implication is more negative for server OEMs than for Cisco. Cisco stated that approximately 95% of its products are not servers and that its memory exposure is materially lower than the memory exposure of a server bill of materials. Dell, HPE, and Super Micro therefore have greater sensitivity to DRAM cost inflation, particularly in memory-intensive AI servers. If customer price increases lag component-cost changes, gross margins can compress even while reported revenue and unit demand remain strong. Cisco’s experience also demonstrates that revenue growth and gross-margin growth can diverge. Cisco generated 18% quarterly revenue growth and 23% EPS growth despite lower gross margin because operating expenses declined substantially as a percentage of revenue. Server OEMs with lower gross margins, greater working-capital requirements, and less operating-expense leverage may not reproduce the same earnings outcome. NEAR-TERM TRADING CATALYST: DRAM contract-price commentary, inventory levels, and gross-margin guidance from server and networking vendors should be monitored closely. Continued price increases and advance commitments would be positive for memory suppliers. A widening gap between server revenue growth and server gross-margin growth would confirm that component inflation is transferring economics upstream. LONGER-DURATION FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: The positive memory read-through is not unlimited. Cisco has more than 30 programs intended to reduce memory utilization and reduced Wi-Fi 7 memory requirements by 50% within approximately 90 days. Sustained high memory prices encourage rapid redesign, qualification of alternative suppliers, and lower memory content per product. The near-term pricing cycle is favorable for memory vendors, but engineering efficiency and eventual supply normalization can limit long-term unit-content growth.

• 
  Dhanji Bhagat (@BhagatDhanji) reported 24 minutes ago

  Every cloud empire started with a bottleneck. Amazon (2006): Their own teams kept rebuilding storage & servers for every feature. So they built internal tools - S3 & EC2. Then realized their Black Friday servers were idle 70% of the year. Why not rent it? Google (2008): They built Borg & Bigtable to index the web. Best infra on earth, but only Googlers could use it. While AWS was eating the next generation of startups. They had to productize or lose them. Microsoft (2010): Existential panic. They sold Windows Server. AWS said "you don't need servers anymore." Azure wasn't about innovation. It was survival. Lesson: You don't start a platform business because you see an opportunity. You start because you hit a bottleneck, fix it for yourself then realize everyone else has the same pain. Infrastructure is just scar tissue turned into a product.

• 
  𝕭𝖑𝖚𝖊 𝕮𝖍𝖊𝖈𝖐𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖐 𝕳𝖆𝖙𝖆™️ (@PlayaHata7691) reported 26 minutes ago

  @ArashMarkazi It's a bubble. By the end of this CBA, there will be severe problems with the financial model of the NBA as a product and the inflated prices they are getting from these behoemth companies like Amazon, Disney and others.

• 
  haitham (@theonlyhaitham) reported 26 minutes ago

  Ran the numbers on an Amazon brand's keywords. Every term describing what the product IS: 135 clicks, $148 spent, zero orders. One term describing what it DOES for the customer: 15% conversion rate, best converter in the account. Same product, same listing, same budget. People searching for your category are browsing. People searching for their problem are buying. Write your titles, bullets, and backend keywords for the second group, and stop paying for clicks from the first.

• 
  Spaghetti Monster (™) 🐳 🤡 ✌️ 🏴‍☠️ (@flyingspghetti) reported 26 minutes ago

  let's cut down rain forests and fill the Amazon with Amazon data centers

• 
  minxmarx (@minxmarx2) reported 34 minutes ago

  @ghhughes @timothylord @Google Somewhat related: always read that you could *exclude* a search result by putting a 'minus sign' before the term/site you want excluded but it's not working anymore for me. Even used minus with url. (In case you wondering, I'm trying to exclude Amazon from results.) Any ideas? 😢

• 
  Wepa (@wepa210) reported 35 minutes ago

  @Amazon I'm having issues with Amazon and my refunds and returns, im extremely unhappy with how this situation is being handled and I expect to be compensated for wasting my time and withholding my money