Costco has long been the king of bulk buying and private-label loyalty. Its warehouses, stocked with pallets of everything from giant bags of coffee beans to surprisingly great Kirkland-brand dress shirts, have earned it an incredibly loyal membership base. But in the age of e-commerce, does Costco have what it takes to evolve into something like an Amazon competitor?

At first glance, it seems like Costco is lagging. Their online experience is limited, and their digital strategy feels more “1999 catalog” than “Prime ecosystem.” But what if their perceived disadvantage is actually their hidden strength?

Here’s the case: Costco doesn’t need to be Amazon. It has something Amazon didn’t have when it started—established trust and a vast network of strategically located brick-and-mortar stores. Imagine Costco leveraging its physical footprint as a hybrid e-commerce hub. Each warehouse becomes a distribution center, cutting down on last-mile delivery costs while giving members the option of same-day in-store pickup or returns.

And then there’s the Kirkland Signature brand—arguably one of the most trusted private labels in the world. From olive oil to down jackets, Kirkland could dominate categories online in a way that generic third-party sellers on Amazon simply can’t.

The real advantage, though, is timing. By coming late to the e-commerce game, Costco can learn from Amazon’s early missteps. No need to waste billions experimenting with low-margin, third-party marketplaces or drone delivery—Costco can zero in on what works. A streamlined, membership-focused e-commerce experience that stays true to its value-first philosophy might be all it needs to carve out a niche.

Amazon thrives on ubiquity, while Costco thrives on scarcity—you go there because it has just enough of what you need, at prices you can’t resist. The challenge is building an online experience that retains the same sense of discovery and value while leveraging the logistics lessons Amazon has already learned.

Costco might not be Amazon 2.0, but it doesn’t have to be. It can be Costco 2.0—and that might just be enough to shift the game.

P.S. I’ve been sick this past week, and have been relying on Amazon for basics. But I also hate the idea of giving Bezos any more money for his penis rockets so here we are.

Phew, refactor of the blog is (mostly) done.

GitHub, if you could just go ahead and add an indication of what the system is doing here after I click “Index” that would be greaaat.

The irony is not lost on me that my blog post about Apple’s attention to detail is itself broken due to a lack of attention to (coding) detail.

While I appreciate a lot of the improvements to macOS’s visual language—like the slick animations and cleaner interfaces—I can’t forgive the damn move away from those bespoke, semi-skeuomorphic app icons. Seriously, it’s mind-numbing to see a row of soulless rectangles staring back at me. They’re not highway signs; they don’t need to be that standardized. Where’s the charm? The personality?

Happy Halloween! 🎃

Digging through my photos I found some old drawings, enjoy!

Spoke too soon

Hat tip to that level of attention to detail

It’s puzzling that Apple hasn’t introduced a Books app for Apple TV. Our TVs have become the modern hearth, so why not recreate the experience of reading around the fireplace?

Imagine an Apple TV Books app that brings audiobooks to the big screen, turning stories into shared experiences. Families could gather to listen together, with synchronized visuals enhancing the narrative—perfect for kids’ books and interactive tales.

Even better, incorporating voice-to-text would let you enjoy any book audibly, leaving dynamic bookmarks so you can pick up right where you left off. It could also be a game-changer for education, making group discussions and interactive lessons more engaging.

Bringing Books to Apple TV could merge technology with tradition, creating a modern storytelling circle around our digital hearth.

Reminder: an MVP is supposed to show potential, not look like a warning label. Set the bar a bit higher.