The author is upset because Amazon has expanded beyond selling just books and invested earnings into expansion instead of giving back to the investors.
Somehow you distilled the article down into something that it's not. Where does he come across as upset? He isn't even critical of Amazon.
The author gives a seemingly simple explanation as to how Amazon conducts its business differently than everyone else. This apparently is unique enough that it garners lots of wild speculation by other observers and financial analysts, many of the same reactions I'm seeing in the comments here. (My) Simplified version:
- Amazon happily accepts a lower average margin of profit than other companies would. A small subset of its products showcase this to an extreme, but they are the exception.
- The profit it does see, it uncompromisingly reinvests back into itself.
The above concepts are not unfamiliar in the least - any business that wanted to get ahead by being more efficient than the competition started by doing this first. You forgo the low hanging fruit to lift your business into a bigger marketshare, and reap the rewards at that level. The small but significant difference, in my opinion, is that Jeff Bezos does this on autopilot.. it's a mentality instead of a tactic, almost a philosophy. It is a tiny difference in human psychology, which amounts to a profoundly different company than would exist otherwise.
But the rest of us need an appropriate speculative explanation. It's this speculation to which the author is responding.