◉Tech Investing RadarBY MARC WINN
← Historical patterns

SIMILAR CONDITIONS. DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.

Compare the pattern.
Keep the differences.

Find the shared questions across two episodes, then inspect the evidence that makes each one different.

SHARED RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

2 shared pattern features

A product becomes a platformThe economics improve

These labels describe retrospective research hypotheses. They are not a similarity probability, forecast or evidence that either case predicts the other.

Important differences

  • The documented business outcomes differ; business progress must be assessed separately from shareholder return.
  • The episodes use different time horizons and cannot establish the same investment window.
  • The episodes occurred in different calendar periods; market conditions are not controlled for.

Missing evidence

  • Microsoft: annual endpoints do not resolve a two-to-eight-week investment window.
  • Microsoft: no comparable measured historical sentiment series.
  • Amazon: annual endpoints do not resolve a two-to-eight-week investment window.
  • Amazon: no comparable measured historical sentiment series.

MSFT · 2014–2018

Microsoft: an incumbent builds a cloud growth engine

Documentary candidate
Annual context 2015–2020Episode 2014–2018 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: mature licence businesses dominated future prospects.

New possibility

Hypothesis: cloud and subscriptions could sustain renewed growth.

Alternative explanations

  • Other Microsoft businesses
  • Currency, tax and acquisitions
  • Changes in reporting definitions

Evidence gaps

  • Selected retrospectively, rather than discovered by a predeclared stock-universe screen.
  • Belief labels are interpretations, not a measured sentiment series or evidence of market consensus.
  • Daily adjusted prices, liquidity, transaction costs and exact entry or exit boundaries are not verified.
  • Related episodes can overlap and are not independent statistical observations.
  • Annualised run rate and quarterly recognised revenue are different metrics; this case does not calculate a cross-year growth rate between them.
Inspect the full dated evidence →

AMZN · 2015–2015

Amazon: a cloud profit engine becomes visible

Documentary candidate
Annual context 2014–2019Episode 2015 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: AWS economics were difficult to assess within Amazon.

New possibility

Hypothesis: cloud infrastructure could be a substantial profit engine.

Alternative explanations

  • Retail profitability improvements
  • Costs excluded from segment operating income

Evidence gaps

  • Selected retrospectively, rather than discovered by a predeclared stock-universe screen.
  • Belief labels are interpretations, not a measured sentiment series or evidence of market consensus.
  • Daily adjusted prices, liquidity, transaction costs and exact entry or exit boundaries are not verified.
  • Related episodes can overlap and are not independent statistical observations.
Inspect the full dated evidence →

Belief descriptions are reconstructed unless the case explicitly identifies contemporary sentiment evidence. Annual charts may cover different dates and use different benchmarks. They must not be read as matched trade results.