or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Piper Jaffray estimates Amazon will lose $50 per Kindle Fire
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Piper Jaffray estimates Amazon will lose $50 per Kindle Fire - Page 4

post #121 of 234
deleted
post #122 of 234
deleted
post #123 of 234
deleted
post #124 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Since when did Apple make products in response to other people's statistics?

I think you underestimate Apple.

You probably thought Steve wasn't just keeping a secret when he said that Apple would never get into the music business, or phones, or tablets....

Have you ever tried a 7" tablet? I have. At one time, I thought Apple should come out with a 7" tablet. We had a lot of discussions here about that. Ireland was always for a 10" device, and I wanted a 7" one. That's public record. So I'm not against it, in theory. But when I saw some smaller tablets before Apple came out with theirs, you know, stuff from Archos et al, I wasn't happy with them.

When the iPad was announced, I wasn't sure it would be as useful at that size, as I didn't think people would carry them with them, and that it wouldn't get used that much because of that. actually, that was one of the arguments I had been using. But when I went to the Apple store with my daughter and a friend of hers, my opinion changed. People didn't want to give them up to other people to look at. When we did get at one, we saw that it was a major step. At that point, I realized that smaller models weren't going to be nearly as good.

A 7" model isn't really that big. You have to hold it and use it to appreciate that. And with phones getting bigger all the time, the differentiation is getting smaller. A 7" tablet seems TINY to me now. Everything is squeezed. And the 16:9 shape is awkward at best. It's great for 16:9 video, but little else. Even reading is awkward, which is why the Kindle itself isn't that shape. Read reviews of 16:9 tablets and you'll see that all of them are awkward.

I get a bunch of magazines on my iPad now. They're great to read. A page is smaller than a real paper version, but it's sharp enough and big enough. But if I turn the tablet sideways, to see a two page spread, then you can rarely read anything other than heads and subs. You have to turn back to read text. Well, the 7" Fire is the size of just a bit less than half of my screen. Almost exactly the same length as the width on the iPad, and that's just too small.

So some people will find this to be just dandy, but others will be disappointed.
post #125 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

R&D is a fixed cost, yes, but it must be apportioned to the number of devices sold. The fewer sold, the more the R&D cost hangs over. You have no idea if this has anything to do with the Playbook, even though there is a rumor about it. The Playbook is a design owned by RIM. I doubt it would allow its manufacturer to use the design as a basis for a competing company. It looks somewhat like a Playbook as the Samsung Tabs look like an iPad. That doesn't mean that the Tab is an iPad in disguise.

Manufacturing costs will be what they are, and it's likely that it is around $180 per. But whether you like it or not, packaging costs are at least a couple of bucks per. It still costs to ship them from China to N. america and elsewhere. Then there are advertising expenses, sales expenses, support and warrantee service that must be added in. And then there is the rest of what we know as operating margins. That means the cost of the people working at Amazon, the price of lighting in the offices and warehouses, insurance, taxes, and of course, paperclips. In other words, the product must share a certain percentage of keeping the company operating.

Only after all of that is accounted for do we get an after taxes net margin, otherwise known as profit. It's easy to understand why they could be losing $50 on each sale.

Touche to your point about the rumor (despite the fact that we're on a rumor site discussing an analyst's guess with no supporting numbers). RIM can't sell the Playbook, so they might well sell the design. Even if not, both the Fire and Playbook are outsourced designs using less-than-cutting-edge technology. We could both guess at what that might cost, but I'm pretty sure it's a drop in the bucket for Amazon (which had $7.5 billion in operating expenses last quarter alone).

The same could be said for the other operating expenses you cite. Aside from warranty service, it's possible that each incremental Fire could add little incremental expense to Amazon's sea of expenses.

Bottom line is that we don't know how much Amazon *could* be losing on each sale, because aside from a rough guess at manufacturing costs we don't know expenses and we don't know how many they will actually sell. We're all guessing.
post #126 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You and I read different articles apparently. . .

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...rtphone-users/

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...and-apple-ios/

Partly. I had read the first one earlier. It almost completely agrees with what I said, so thanks for that. As far as the second one goes, well there a matter of dispute about that. I have two links here, one comes off the other that say the opposite.

You can read the statement about feature phones here:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-android-doomed-211100059.html

And he's linked to here, which you can get to from that first link, but I thought I'd post it.

http://www.asymco.com/2011/09/21/the...t-utilization/
post #127 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

AppleInsider Forum Rule #48:

If an analyst says anything that can in any way be seen as detrimental to Apple, every syllable he speaks must be dissected for hidden meanings until his statements are parsed into oblivion.

But if an analyst says something that may be seen as advantageous to Apple, it must not be questioned in any way at all, no matter how specious or ridiculous it may be.

A lot of people in the industry are saying that Amazon will be losing money on every sale of this device, not just one. This comes in below every estimate of price that was made assuming a profit on sales of the device itself. In fact, it was thought they would need to go with an older single core SoC. But they went with an older dual core instead, for a few bucks more. They went, surprisingly, with an IPS screen, which costs more (good for them, even the Xoom uses a cheaper screen!).

I don't see what the problem is for some of you people. Either Amazon's concept works, or it doesn't.
post #128 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Their gross margin wasn't 3.37%. their net margin (profit) was.
<...>

So say that I bought 50 books at $8. At a five percent profit, that would be about $20 profit for them. But, they still incur all the costs for their web site for free books. So how does that lower the margin? It raises the cost for all books, so perhaps they made $16 profit on me so far.
<...>
So that's for books, movies and music. But their profit round the company was 3.37% as we see, so that holds true for anything they sell.
<...>

Gross was around 24%. Net of 3.37% would include operating expenses, so the "costs for their web site for free books" would have no impact in your example because that is already part of operating expenses.

3.37% does not "hold true for anything they sell", that is the average across the board. Different products have different expenses and different margins. It's highly unlikely that selling additional eBooks or media would only net 3.37% net margin because there is little incremental expense to Amazon.
post #129 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Partly. I had read the first one earlier. It almost completely agrees with what I said, so thanks for that. As far as the second one goes, well there a matter of dispute about that. I have two links here, one comes off the other that say the opposite.

You can read the statement about feature phones here:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-android-doomed-211100059.html

And he's linked to here, which you can get to from that first link, but I thought I'd post it.

http://www.asymco.com/2011/09/21/the...t-utilization/

Most of the comments made about apps refers to paid apps, as your linked article does, rather than apps in general. It would make sense that iOS users have more paid apps since many of the most popular paid ones on iOS are free on Android. Different revenue model. For that reason don't focus too much on the paid aspect since the two aren't really comparable. What's free on Android is often available only for a fee on iOS.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #130 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

...with a computer.

I got mine via FedEx.

Not everyone shops at the Apple store.

Unless you have a computer available, and are among the minority of computers users that have iTunes installed, the iPad arrives as a brick.

No, over their WiFi. I don't know how it was done, but I just typed in my Apple password, and they took care of it with the tablet in front of me on the table. It just took a few minutes. All of these tablets use computers do do their set-up, even Android devices. What's the difference if it's their computer servers, or yours locally?

And local backup is far safer in so many ways than doing it on theirs. We see how many times a year that Google's services are broken into, and Microsoft's as well. Or when they lose customers data. Apple will now give us a choice of local or theirs, or we can do both. That's much better.
post #131 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It doesn't matter how many people want this. Very few of them would have bought an iPad anyway. It turns out that a lot of people who have bought Kindles have iPads as well, but that won't be the case with this.

I've been using my iPads for the last year, and I've discovered that for the price I paid, the iPad is actually complete overkill - web, mail, movies is all I use. Very occasionally, I'll play a game. I would be very surprised if I was the only one to hold that point of view.

You seem to have taken my statement and reframed my argument.
post #132 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You may be right. It may be that an offhand comment from one analyst without any substantiating data may be all we need to be convinced that one of the richest men in the world is entirely stupid.

Let me know when the company you've built buys Amazon from him. I mean, gosh, if he's so clearly stupid it shouldn't take much, no?

That was a totally stupid post on your part, and you know it. When you have no answer, you feel you must reply stupidly. Fine. If it makes you feel better. All of these people are always right. They never, ever, make mistakes. All of their products always become major successes.

Happy?

I've been trying to respond to you seriously. Is it worth the effort?
post #133 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There's no evidence that consumers are buying 7" tablets.

As I've said several times before in other threads, no one's buying them because no one's selling a good one (not talking about ones primarily e-readers here). I understand and agree with points you've made that 7" isn't great for reading, but that just means it's the wrong tool for the job. What about people who don't intend to use it as a reader? The first company that markets a good 7" tablet at an attractive price will make a profit.

And since Apple has the larger size market sewn up it makes great sense to focus on anything but one that's within 3 inches of an iPad, since the focus from here on in from all manufacturers will be ties to content, commerce and data mining, as Amazon, like Apple, is doing, rather than whether it will allow the user to treat it more like their main computer.
post #134 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by grub View Post

Apple could buy a few billion $ of these and dump them...

That is illegal.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #135 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Touche to your point about the rumor (despite the fact that we're on a rumor site discussing an analyst's guess with no supporting numbers). RIM can't sell the Playbook, so they might well sell the design. Even if not, both the Fire and Playbook are outsourced designs using less-than-cutting-edge technology. We could both guess at what that might cost, but I'm pretty sure it's a drop in the bucket for Amazon (which had $7.5 billion in operating expenses last quarter alone).

The same could be said for the other operating expenses you cite. Aside from warranty service, it's possible that each incremental Fire could add little incremental expense to Amazon's sea of expenses.

Bottom line is that we don't know how much Amazon *could* be losing on each sale, because aside from a rough guess at manufacturing costs we don't know expenses and we don't know how many they will actually sell. We're all guessing.

Well, don't even make a statement about RIM selling their design. There's really no point to that, unless you personally have some info that you know.

All of these costs are real, and they add up. The more Amazon sells the higher they become. They aren't fixed, except for previous costs such as the R&D, though that continues for the next product release, and the startup costs for this particular device.

It doesn't matter what other expenses Amazon has, as this relates to one particular product line. Companies look at each product to determine whether it will be continued or not. If Amazon finds that sales and profits, after some period of time they have allocated for this product, and associated product sales, are doing well enough, or are building up to the point where they will be, then all may be fine.

But if that's not the case, then they have to decide it this is germane to the future of the company, or whether it's a sideline they can do without. If it's germane, they they will keep trying by changing the mix. If not, then it's gone.

I don't find these numbers to be out of line from my experience in manufacturing electronics, maybe, from your experience in that, you do.
post #136 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Gross was around 24%. Net of 3.37% would include operating expenses, so the "costs for their web site for free books" would have no impact in your example because that is already part of operating expenses.

3.37% does not "hold true for anything they sell", that is the average across the board. Different products have different expenses and different margins. It's highly unlikely that selling additional eBooks or media would only net 3.37% net margin because there is little incremental expense to Amazon.

Cost of running the store is part of the cost of selling the products. When we talk about books, music and video, we are talking about a 30% cut that Amazon, and pretty much everyone else gets. Out of that, comes the expenses of running the store, working on the software for the store, transaction fees, payments for bandwidth, advertising, etc. According to figures published many times over the years, a 3-5% profit on the entire sale price of the downloadable goods are assumed to be correct.

Of course, 3.37% is not the profit for each sale. I assumed you understood it meant that it was the overall percentage of profit. I didn't think I'd have to be so explicit, as I did say that it was their profit for last year.

And now you're making things up. You don't know what expenses they have, obviously. And the profits are what they are. Don't try and make something up that doesn't exist. That 3-5% profit on downloadable content is exactly that, and it doesn't change. Indeed, the more popular Amazon's downloads become, the higher their expenses become, as they have to buy more servers, more room to put them, more electricity, more air-conditioning, more people to run and maintain them, etc. Its interesting that Apple with many times the music sales is making the same percentage as Amazon is thought to be making. As long as you sell a minimum amount, you run up to those numbers, but not, apparently, higher.
post #137 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Do you have a point?

You haven't read anything by the AI trollzzzs before have you?
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
post #138 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Most of the comments made about apps refers to paid apps, as your linked article does, rather than apps in general. It would make sense that iOS users have more paid apps since many of the most popular paid ones on iOS are free on Android. Different revenue model. For that reason don't focus too much on the paid aspect since the two aren't really comparable. What's free on Android is often available only for a fee on iOS.

You trust your links, and I trust mine. It was more than just paid vs non paid. It was usage overall.
post #139 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

I've been using my iPads for the last year, and I've discovered that for the price I paid, the iPad is actually complete overkill - web, mail, movies is all I use. Very occasionally, I'll play a game. I would be very surprised if I was the only one to hold that point of view.

You seem to have taken my statement and reframed my argument.

No. I know what you said. I was trying to show why I didn't think it would happen.
post #140 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You trust your links, and I trust mine. It was more than just paid vs non paid. It was usage overall.

Agreed, there was other info in there besides the paid apps comparison. The links were appreciated.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #141 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You're not correct in your definition. If you want to be a stickler about it - as you often seem to want to be - Gross Margin is Revenue minus Cost of Goods Sold (also called Cost of Sales or CGS).

Direct costs do not necessarily have a one-for-one mapping with CGS (e.g., Depreciation can be included in the latter), so it's at best a loose approximation.

I was also using a loose approximation (since component costs include the labor and other costs in the value-added chain), so get off your high horse.

It would help if you'd stop making yourself look like a blithering idiot.

You looked something up on Google. That's a lot different from actually using business financials every day. "Direct Cost" is the same thing as COGS in a case where you're outsourcing production - or so close as to not matter. Even if you're doing it yourself, it is usually the same thing.

Depreciation is typically a below-the-line cost, and NOT part of COGS.

And the fact that component costs include the supplier's labor is irrelevant.

Please do yourself a favor and take a course in basic economics before you embarrass yourself further.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #142 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

As I've said several times before in other threads, no one's buying them because no one's selling a good one (not talking about ones primarily e-readers here). I understand and agree with points you've made that 7" isn't great for reading, but that just means it's the wrong tool for the job. What about people who don't intend to use it as a reader? The first company that markets a good 7" tablet at an attractive price will make a profit.

And since Apple has the larger size market sewn up it makes great sense to focus on anything but one that's within 3 inches of an iPad, since the focus from here on in from all manufacturers will be ties to content, commerce and data mining, as Amazon, like Apple, is doing, rather than whether it will allow the user to treat it more like their main computer.

So what do we mean when we say that none of those 7" tablets have been good ones? What would make a good one? And by tablet, do we mean something that can run lots of apps, have a camera and microphone, and accelerometer, gyroscope and other features?

What would make something a full fledged tablet rather than a media consumption device?

And, does it matter? This is really very interesting. If this does well, and it has a much better chance of selling well than any other, uh, thing in its size, does it kill any other possible 7" tablet? Does it show that in order to sell, you've got to have what Amazon and Apple have? Does it mean that Android is a bust on tablets, and something like this is what is needed?
post #143 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

That {Apple buying a few million and dumping them} is illegal.

Really? Care to cite the statute that says it's illegal for you to buy a competitor's product and dump it?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #144 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It would help if you'd stop making yourself look like a blithering idiot.

You looked something up on Google. That's a lot different from actually using business financials every day. "Direct Cost" is the same thing as COGS in a case where you're outsourcing production - or so close as to not matter. Even if you're doing it yourself, it is usually the same thing.

Depreciation is typically a below-the-line cost, and NOT part of COGS.

And the fact that component costs include the supplier's labor is irrelevant.

Please do yourself a favor and take a course in basic economics before you embarrass yourself further.

All you do is resort to name-calling when you lose a point, and think that it somehow masks your utter ignorance on financial issues. Grow up.

"Look up something on Google?" Look up any basic financial accounting book for the definition of Gross Margin, buddy. Better yet, go to the SEC website - which is for people like you, who think they know, but don't - and they have every definition you'd want. This is so basic that if this is how "how you use business financials every day," I pity your business (or the people you advise).

"Depreciation is a below-the-line cost"?! What does that even mean? Below what line? Do you even know where that number appears in financial disclosure? Do you even know what the key components of CGS are?
post #145 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Does it show that in order to sell, you've got to have what Amazon and Apple have? Does it mean that Android is a bust on tablets, and something like this is what is needed?

I think it is what this has come to, not because we all are clamoring for whatever Amazon/whoever can give us but because we're not willing to pay what a good tablet experience would cost when sold by a company who sells it like a computer, and relies solely on profit as in "cost to make" minus "price sold at". If we keep turning our noses up at $450 tablets that aren't quite iPads, who is going to make them? Our demand for thin margins has seemed to have gotten such that it will *require* the hardware not being the seller's profit focus. I don't think anyone is going to be even trying eventually, and the market will be divided into the closed "whoever" worlds that we like or put up with and could succeed, and those that we don't. Rather than who's making a good tool that we like to use, which is how we look at our computers.

One thing that would definitely keep me away from the Fire is if Amazon blocks out using any service that competes with an aspect of theirs. I wouldn't expect them to enable you to get the iTunes store, but what about Hulu or Netflix, or reading material from elsewhere? How proprietary can they afford to be? Since on an iPad you can do all of these regardless of the fact that Apple pushes their own stores, I think the new tablet makers who are store owners need to be careful of how much they ask users to leave behind when they enter.
post #146 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, don't even make a statement about RIM selling their design. There's really no point to that, unless you personally have some info that you know.

Seriously? Enforcing that standard would eliminate 90% of this website and 99% of this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't find these numbers to be out of line from my experience in manufacturing electronics, maybe, from your experience in that, you do.

Actually I find the numbers and analyst reports pretty consistent with the ones that followed the last Kindle refresh and price cut. Geesh, Amazon must be pretty dumb to keep making the same mistakes!
post #147 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

I think it is what this has come to, not because we all are clamoring for whatever Amazon/whoever can give us but because we're not willing to pay what a good tablet experience would cost when sold by a company who sells it like a computer, and relies solely on profit as in "cost to make" minus "price sold at". If we keep turning our noses up at $450 tablets that aren't quite iPads, who is going to make them? Our demand for thin margins has seemed to have gotten such that it will *require* the hardware not being the seller's profit focus. I don't think anyone is going to be even trying eventually, and the market will be divided into the closed "whoever" worlds that we like or put up with and could succeed, and those that we don't. Rather than who's making a good tool that we like to use, which is how we look at our computers.

One thing that would definitely keep me away from the Fire is if Amazon blocks out using any service that competes with an aspect of theirs. I wouldn't expect them to enable you to get the iTunes store, but what about Hulu or Netflix, or reading material from elsewhere? How proprietary can they afford to be? Since on an iPad you can do all of these regardless of the fact that Apple pushes their own stores, I think the new tablet makers who are store owners need to be careful of how much they ask users to leave behind when they enter.

I've always found it interesting that people think of computing devices differently than other things they buy. While they don't mind spending whatever the need to to get something more attractive, better performing, more features, etc, they won't do that when it comes to computers, or VCR's(remember them?) and a few other devices.

So we see the failures of other tablets.

It's amazing that the low price of the iPad, which shocked the world when it came out, is now thought to be too expensive by those wanting to buy something other than an Apple product. It's as though that no matter how inexpensive Apple manages to make something, if it isn't made by Apple, it must be even cheaper. This is nuts. Manufacturers can only do so much.

If this thinking continues, there will only be iPads and junk. If Apple manages to drop the price even by just a little bit, that will squeeze everyone down the line. If they keep the old one in the line for $100 less, it could devastate the market.

I think the Fire is an interesting experiment. I think it's an experiment for Amazon. They don't need it. If it works, they will sell others, perhaps that 10" model we've been reading about.if not, then it's gone.

I'm not sure who else could do it, perhaps Sony if they knew what they were doing for a change. Maybe Time Warner.

I think that all we know about this now comes from this page about it on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Color-M...pf_rd_i=507846

I don't know if anything else is available.
post #148 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Seriously? Enforcing that standard would eliminate 90% of this website and 99% of this forum.

The point is that while I don't agree with what a lot of these analysts say as to their predictions, their current numbers are usually fairly good. I'm not saying that this is exact by any means. In fact, it's likely off 10-15% plus or minus. But it's close enough.

But making something up entirely Farfetched is not useful. At least they can point to the fact that someone supposedly who knows something has given them a tip.
Quote:
Actually I find the numbers and analyst reports pretty consistent with the ones that followed the last Kindle refresh and price cut. Geesh, Amazon must be pretty dumb to keep making the same mistakes!

The Kindle is a pretty cheap device to make, and in several upgrades over the years, has gotten even cheaper. It depends on how you want to go. The Kindle has gotten cheaper to make, because they aren't adding features, they are just using updated technology to make it cheaper to make. This is pretty easy to understand.

But tablets are different. Every year they use more sophisticated components and add more parts to the mix. So the price stays the same, or maybe could drop a small bit.
post #149 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Cost of running the store is part of the cost of selling the products. When we talk about books, music and video, we are talking about a 30% cut that Amazon, and pretty much everyone else gets. Out of that, comes the expenses of running the store, working on the software for the store, transaction fees, payments for bandwidth, advertising, etc. According to figures published many times over the years, a 3-5% profit on the entire sale price of the downloadable goods are assumed to be correct.

Of course, 3.37% is not the profit for each sale. I assumed you understood it meant that it was the overall percentage of profit. I didn't think I'd have to be so explicit, as I did say that it was their profit for last year.

And now you're making things up. You don't know what expenses they have, obviously. And the profits are what they are. Don't try and make something up that doesn't exist. That 3-5% profit on downloadable content is exactly that, and it doesn't change. Indeed, the more popular Amazon's downloads become, the higher their expenses become, as they have to buy more servers, more room to put them, more electricity, more air-conditioning, more people to run and maintain them, etc. Its interesting that Apple with many times the music sales is making the same percentage as Amazon is thought to be making. As long as you sell a minimum amount, you run up to those numbers, but not, apparently, higher.

Amazon doesn't count those expenses specifically in COGS (not sure what your point was there), nor do they disclose profit margins on eBooks. I'd be interested in seeing one of those many reports about 3-5% profits, the only thing I found was a WSJ analyst guessing in 2009.

Amazing that the costs of electronic distribution would be as high as physical distribution, makes me wonder why they bother. Amazon S3 pricing must be a sham too, according to them it would cost less than a penny to store and transfer out a 20MB file. Guess they didn't think out that model either.
post #150 of 234
Amazon is in the business of content and services. Apple is in the business of hardware. Amazon owns the android tablet space now. Google is not going to be able to compete with that. Amazon has got them by the balls. Amazon has a winner. It's the low end iPad.
post #151 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Amazon is in the business of content and services. Apple is in the business of hardware. Amazon owns the android tablet space now. Google is not going to be able to compete with that. Amazon has got them by the balls. Amazon has a winner. It's the low end iPad.

Here's a Hitler video that relates exactly to what you are mentioning.

I thought that it was pretty funny. One of the better HItler videos that I've seen.

Hitler hears about the Kindle Fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8bfw-fttnU
post #152 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Here's a Hitler video that relates exactly to what you are mentioning.

I thought that it was pretty funny. One of the better HItler videos that I've seen.

Hitler hears about the Kindle Fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8bfw-fttnU

That has a lot of funny parts and overall very well down but it's also too heavy in parts, like in the lamp and cancer comments, which detract from the overall message. Less is more could have made it a whole lot better.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #153 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That has a lot of funny parts and overall very well down but it's also too heavy in parts, like in the lamp and cancer comments, which detract from the overall message. Less is more could have made it a whole lot better.

Perhaps. In the end, I think it comes down to each individual person's sense of humor.

I'm a big fan of movies like 'Blazing Saddles', very politically incorrect.
post #154 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Perhaps. In the end, I think it comes down to each individual person's sense of humor.

I'm a big fan of movies like 'Blazing Saddles', very politically incorrect.

You misunderstand me. My issue isn't with them not being politically correct, but with parts being too forced that the jokes fell flat.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You misunderstand me. My issue isn't with them not being politically correct, but with parts being too forced that the jokes feel flat.

I clearly did misunderstand, but all is clear now.
post #156 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by bettieblue View Post

Hmm I just read today that is cost them $180 to make, so maybe my math is off but that is $19 per device they will make....not lose.

DED you are scared, I can smell your fear. The iPad finally has a real contender, backed a equally if not larger echo system.

Sure the iPad is a technically better device but so is the Xoom compared to the iPad. The rell DIFFERENCE here is $300.

Not a single user will care what OS it will run, provided it can do what they want. Every single app you can buy for it on Amazon will run on it, vs the other Andriod tablets and massive fragmentation/apps.

It is like Amazon stole Andriod from Google and watched and learned from Apple. I Love IT!!!!

My pre-order goes in today.

Good luck!

You're really confused about things so you may very well end up enjoying that 7" screen 8GB iPod Touch that the Fire is.
1) Bill of materials is, well, of materials. Does NOT include R&D, advertising/marketing, logistics, etc. So DED is right and it could be even a greater loss PER UNIT;
2) What Amazon Apps? It also cannot run any Android Apps. It's a Kindle, uh get it?
3) Amazon didn't steal anything, it's just trying a gamble and see what gives, throwing the clay at the wall to see if it sticks;
4) Amazon does NOT a ecosystem have. An ecosystem is an integrated system, it's not an incoherent and ugly amalgamation of stuff.

Finally, if you still didn't get it

THE KINDLE FIRE IS NOT A TABLET, IT'S AMAZON.COM WEBSTORE ON THE GO. NOTHING ELSE. Although they may want to elude you into thinking otherwise.

Still, if they believed so much in the advantage of digital over physical, they wouldn't have done such mediocre efforts at transitioning Amazon.com into digital products store. That mp3 store and that kindle store are really bad. It's really hard for them to threaten killing the golden egg goose. THEY are scared! They think this way they fool the market into thinking they (are a me-too) have a tablet etc and are ahead of the game.

Look at it. Amazon.com, which some people seem to worship (???) so much, is a very poorly designed electronic facade of a brick&mortar store. They are not much more than a online supermarket. Just because it's on the Internet and received lots of hype in the Bubble days people still think of it as great. Well, that was AGES ago. And they stood still!

The other day I tried buying a Kindle book. It was a hassle! There were Kindle eBooks far more expensive than the paperback counterparts! There's no justification for that, it's outright scandalous. I had to install a specific App to read the Kindle book and it's proprietary - I'm stuck to that App to read it, it's like it's not mine to do as I please! I hate it and try to avoid it, I feel imprisoned. I never felt that with an Apple product ever and some are proprietary!

Jeff Bezos better wake up. But I guess that growing too big too fast can get you astray...
post #157 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

It's plain common sense, people who are buying this because it's cheap will also be cheap when it comes to buying content.

Perfect assumption!

It's amazing how many people live in scarsity mode in which the words "cheap" and "free" like turns on some circuitry inside them that leads them into action to... pursue the scarsity path.

From the Law of Attraction, think poor and that's what will materialize in your life.

The Kindle Fire is Amazon.com in 7" format. If you buy it and find yourself trapped in Amazon's universe you may end up realizing it was not such cheap a deal after all.

Hey guess what, I can go to Amazon.com on the iPad! But wait, I can go anywhere!
post #158 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Curious to see if Google counts these as 'Android devices' sold, activated.
Curious to see if folks count these as 'Android tablets' in marketshare.

That goes without saying! They probably counted them already .... preemptively
post #159 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Most of the comments made about apps refers to paid apps, as your linked article does, rather than apps in general. It would make sense that iOS users have more paid apps since many of the most popular paid ones on iOS are free on Android. Different revenue model. For that reason don't focus too much on the paid aspect since the two aren't really comparable. What's free on Android is often available only for a fee on iOS.

I know it's your job to try to spin everything in Google/Android's favor, but Mel's point that Android is the new feature phone OS was obvious from the beginning. Ignoring the fact that no one believes Google's activation numbers (if they didn't have something to hide, they'd be up front about what those numbers mean, not secretive and ambiguous), it's clear that Android is pushed by carrier sales people as a cheap "feature phone" to those who are price sensitive or don't understand the differences between phones. This is the true secret of Android's success, and it's not just customers who are buying these as "feature phones", carriers see them exactly that way too and order and market them accordingly.

And all of this fits in with why Android users don't buy apps. The revenue models are different because developers can't make money selling apps on Android, so the users are sold instead. What users are willing to make micropayments for on iOS, is often only available at the cost of viewing intrusive ads and giving up your privacy on Android.
post #160 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I know it's your job to try to spin everything in Google/Android's favor, but Mel's point that Android is the new feature phone OS was obvious from the beginning. Ignoring the fact that no one believes Google's activation numbers (if they didn't have something to hide, they'd be up front about what those numbers mean, not secretive and ambiguous), it's clear that Android is pushed by carrier sales people as a cheap "feature phone" to those who are price sensitive or don't understand the differences between phones. This is the true secret of Android's success, and it's not just customers who are buying these as "feature phones", carriers see them exactly that way too and order and market them accordingly.

And all of this fits in with why Android users don't buy apps. The revenue models are different because developers can't make money selling apps on Android, so the users are sold instead. What users are willing to make micropayments for on iOS, is often only available at the cost of viewing intrusive ads and giving up your privacy on Android.

That was a refreshingly valid and well-worded reply Anonymouse.
I actually agree with you that Android smartphones are used by the carrier's to entice up-graders and new customers into signing up for their higher-tier data plans. It's appears to be working too with most new plans including a smartphone. Unsurprisingly IMO, the average Android smartphone user spends an hour a day with apps and browsing the web. Those old feature phone users seem to be catching on pretty quick.

Perhaps once upon a time it may have appeared Android users didn't use apps (they average 35 per user now according to Nielsen) or browse the web from their smartphone, but that's no longer the case. I don't know that it ever was really true to begin with.

By the way, this is Google's response to a statement Steve Jobs made questioning activation numbers:
"The Android activations numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market, since we only include devices that have Google services," the spokesperson said."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/archi.../t-112765.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Piper Jaffray estimates Amazon will lose $50 per Kindle Fire