I thought that was a pretty poor article - no real argument and essentially a mixed metaphor between the title (chess) and the body of the article (cards/poker). The bit about "negative cash cycles" seems hopelessly outdated - comparing Amazon to bricks and mortar companies seems appropriate to 2002, not 2013.
I wouldn't agree that a negative cash cycle is outdated. However I would disagree with the author's inference that a low profit business with negative working capital is as good a high profit business.
As evidence, I'd point to a great negative working capital businesses. Dell. No one's arguing that Dell is a super business thanks to the cash it generates because of its negative working capital cycle.
Bezos is obviously brilliant. It's possible that he made the decision to stick to low margin businesses because he knows that won't attract competition. That would be counter-intuitive and pretty brilliant if you're certain you can out-execute your competitors in the low margin space.
I just meant that the comparison to bricks and mortars companies who have to pay for their inventory up front, then collect cash 15, 30, 45 days down the road is outdated. Amazon isn't competing against mall bookstores anymore, it's competing against other online companies - eBay, Apple, B&N (online), etc.
Large brick and mortar retailers also usually have negative working capital, it's nothing to do with being an online company, rather it's about bargaining power vs suppliers.
