or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: Simon & Schuster settles; 9M Galaxy S III preorders; 10.1" Kindle Fire
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: Simon & Schuster settles; 9M Galaxy S III preorders; 10.1" Kindle Fire - Page 2

post #41 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It might be a problem if it was just kindle owners but anyone with the kindle app can benefit regardless of hardware and platform.

 

So you're saying the Kindle app on the iOS and Android platforms is subsidizing the Kindle hardware? Then why make and sell the hardware reader?


Edited by ankleskater - 5/18/12 at 9:42am
post #42 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] A Samsung official reportedly told the Korea Economic Daily off the record that customers had placed roughly nine million preorders of the company's Galaxy S III handset across over 100 carriers globally, as noted by Reuters. [...]

 

Crushing the life out of all other Android hardware makers.  (Hey HTC, enjoying that beautiful spring weather down in Mexico?)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] Overall, Samsung represented roughly 40 percent of Android devices monitored by the app maker. [...]

 

 

My point exactly.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] Amazon is reportedly making the move to "focus its competition against Apple's iPad," the publication cited industry sources as saying. The insiders also said that the 8.9-inch model had been meant to challenge Samsung's Galaxy Note tablets. [...]
 

Challenge the Galaxy Note?  LOL.

 

No need to challenge the Galaxy Note.  It's already self-challenged.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #43 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

So you're saying the Kindle app on the iOS and Android platforms is subsidizing the Kindle hardware? Then why make and sell the hardware reader?

Never thought about it that way, that's a good question, one I don't have a answer to.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View PostChallenge the Galaxy Note?  LOL.

No need to challenge the Galaxy Note.  It's already self-challenged.

The Galaxy Note tablet will be a different product than the Note smartphone.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/05/16/galaxy-note-101s-performance-could-crush-rival-tablets/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Never thought about it that way, that's a good question, one I don't have a answer to.

 

Bezos is no dummy. There's more to this than meets the eye. I just think the whole loss leader analysis is over simplified.

post #46 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

 

Challenge the Galaxy Note?  LOL.

 

No need to challenge the Galaxy Note.  It's already self-challenged.

 

I am surprised by how often I see this beast. More often than I see Motorola phones these days.

post #47 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Most people couldn't care less if Amazon had a near-monoploy and how or why they kept prices low. They wanna know why the "introduction of competition caused prices to rise" when its supposed to lower them. Its pretty hard to convince them that a 30% price increase is better when you're not offering a better service or product than the competition.

Fortunately, the DOJ doesn't have to convince the average person - they only have to convince the court. Monopolies often look like good deals at first - until the monopolist starts doing things like driving all the profit out of the publishing industry and causing publishers to disappear or gouging consumers in other ways to make up for their losses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

I don't quite get the theory that Amazon is selling at a great loss. They'd have to sell quite a few eBooks and songs to make up the difference. Even then, they'd never have the margin that Apple has. However, this loss-leader theory becomes truly suspect in cases where a Kindle owner is also a Prime member. Amazon reportedly loses $11 per Prime member. So how does it make up for this loss and the loss in hardware costs?

Something doesn't add up. Bezos is not an idiot. Perhaps analysis about its loss leader modus operandi is not accurate.

Re the bolded, I assume you mean 'books and songs', not 'ebooks'. You don't come out ahead when you're selling something at a loss - no matter how many you sell.

And the results show it. AMZN's gross margin is 23% and operating margin is 1.4%. AAPL is 44% GM and 35% operating margin.
"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 #48 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It doesn't matter. My points still apply.
1. If they had sold that many, this would be an official press release rather than a fourth hand report.
2. When the iPhone 4S was released it had less than half as many preorders in spite of worldwide hype. You couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without seeing something about the iPhone 4S. It is implausible that the G3 would have sold as well with essentially no mention in the media at all.

 

I believe the number but you are not comparing Apples to Apples (sic)... Apple has never released the carrier pre-order number. The 1M consumer preorders and 4M sales in the first weekend are completely different numbers to this one. If Apple did release an equivalent number then it would probably be 25M (about 2 months production) as the 9M is for the GS3 (ramping up to 5M per month production). Carriers knew the 4S would fly off the shelves and ordered accordingly... thus 37M sales in 2011Q4 - mostly the 4S. We just don't happen to know the actual number since no-one ever thought that was a relevant number before Samsung started anonymously leaking random numbers that make it sound like the GS3 is more successful than the 4S (which it patently is not). I won't even do half of the iPhone launch numbers at its very best (although that will be much better than the GS2 and Samsung will be ecstatic).

 

I also agree with ThatAverageJoe that Samsung is the #1 threat to Apple (not Google - esp. when Samsung forks Android) and they will not only overall sell a lot of smartphones (more than Apple) but is every quarter increasing the share of high-end phones in those overall numbers. A year ago, it was less that 25% GalaxyS-class, and I bet that with the GS3 it will be up to 40% (GS/GS2/GS3) which is why Samsung's profit levels and shares are rising so strongly. I would bet that in another year, Samsung will probably have a similar profit share of the industry to Apple since it will sell more overall smartphones (as it crushes other Android OEMs) and even with Apple's superior margins, will approximate its overall performance. Note, in Q4 Apple/Samsung 75/15% Q1 73/26% as Samsung's overall $ profit also increased greatly.

post #49 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
That's predatory pricing.

So you really did just made that one up then, since you've avoided an answer or a citation? 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you really did just made that one up then, since you've avoided an answer or a citation? 

I forgot. You're incapable of using a search engine.


http://www.investorwords.com/3770/predatory_pricing.html

"An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat."
"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 #51 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

 

I believe the number but you are not comparing Apples to Apples (sic)... Apple has never released the carrier pre-order number. The 1M consumer preorders and 4M sales in the first weekend are completely different numbers to this one. If Apple did release an equivalent number then it would probably be 25M (about 2 months production) as the 9M is for the GS3 (ramping up to 5M per month production). Carriers knew the 4S would fly off the shelves and ordered accordingly... thus 37M sales in 2011Q4 - mostly the 4S. We just don't happen to know the actual number since no-one ever thought that was a relevant number before Samsung started anonymously leaking random numbers that make it sound like the GS3 is more successful than the 4S (which it patently is not). I won't even do half of the iPhone launch numbers at its very best (although that will be much better than the GS2 and Samsung will be ecstatic).

 

...

 

This is a very reasonable interpretation of the numbers, IMO.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you really did just made that one up then, since you've avoided an answer or a citation? 

 

He made it up, as usual. I can remember quite a few recent threads where he made outlandish claims and bailed out without supporting them. Better ignore this fine example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Edit: While I was writing this, you've gotten an "answer". Not to the question you asked, typically.


Edited by DrDoppio - 5/18/12 at 12:19pm
post #52 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Re the bolded, I assume you mean 'books and songs', not 'ebooks'. You don't come out ahead when you're selling something at a loss - no matter how many you sell.
And the results show it. AMZN's gross margin is 23% and operating margin is 1.4%. AAPL is 44% GM and 35% operating margin.

 

I did mean eBooks. I appreciate your analysis. But ...

 

Making up losses in Kindle by selling books is a rather expensive marketing scheme, given they already have a virtual monopoly on selling books. To my simple mind, you have to make the Kindle proposition work by selling contents on it. Otherwise, there must be cheaper ways of marketing to sell more books.

 

But like I said, we don't know the true story. After all, why do we dismiss most speculative stories about Apple products and yet buy into this one about Amazon losing their shirt on Kindles?

post #53 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post
After all, why do we dismiss most speculative stories about Apple products and yet buy into this one about Amazon losing their shirt on Kindles?

 

Because they refuse to report their numbers.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #54 of 79
edit

Edited by Gatorguy - 5/18/12 at 12:46pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 79
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.

 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Amazon raised their prices to compete with Apple pricing? Interesting theory. . .

 

You keep claiming Amazon practices predatory pricing, an illegal act, yet give no supporting proof. Do you have some or just "making stuff up"?

 

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
That's predatory pricing.
 
 
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've not seen that. What's your link to the statement that Amazon made? I'd like to read it for myself.

 

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I forgot. You're incapable of using a search engine.
http://www.investorwords.com/3770/predatory_pricing.html
"An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat."

I forgot you have a problem with admitting fault.

 

I ask for your link to Amazon's public announcement that they're selling any entire line of products below cost, proof that they're breaking US law as you claim, and you can only offer a definition for predatory pricing?? I thought you might have been mistaken with your original assertion, but with your latest answer I'm more convinced you sometimes just make stuff up and assume no one will notice.  This was one of those instances apparently.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

It's a good point. But Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. are all on equal footing when it comes to Android (although Moto will soon have an inside track). Yet, Samsung has assumed a gargantuan lead. So I don't think it's Android that's giving Samsung the advantage to go head to head with Apple.  I suspect Samsung would be where it is now if Windows Mobile 7/8 had come out earlier and had assumed the place where Android is today.

 

Well, in that case Microsoft and Samsung would be equal competitors to Apple.

 

Hardware giant... absolutely... but I don't believe for a minute that Samsung could get the software right without a partner.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #57 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

It may mean lower prices for those who want to buy from Amazon until they run everyone else out of business, again. This would mean, less reasons for writers to write and publishers to publish. The truly great artist would prefer to sell their creations by themselves than support a system where they make one company rich and not even have access to the rest of the market or even be able to sell their own product for a reasonable price themselves because Amazon wants to use it as a loss leader. 

 

Well let's take a quick look at two books, and their ebook counterparts.

 

Calico Joe by John Grisham is onsale right now for $14.23 in Hardcover, and $12.99 in ebook format. A difference of $1.24.

Drift by Rachael Maddow is onsale right now for $15.00 in Hardcover, and $12.99 in ebook format. A difference of $2.01.

 

Does that sound like fair pricing to you, Gen?

post #58 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I forgot. You're incapable of using a search engine.
http://www.investorwords.com/3770/predatory_pricing.html
"An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat."

Hahahaha really?  You have to do better than that.  Where is the link showing Amazon admitting that they were using predatory pricing?

post #59 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Because they refuse to report their numbers.

 

Apple also does not release its COG. Furthermore, a company's reticence does not lend credibility to speculations.

post #60 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

Well, in that case Microsoft and Samsung would be equal competitors to Apple.

 

Hardware giant... absolutely... but I don't believe for a minute that Samsung could get the software right without a partner.

 

I agree that Samsung (not to mention others) would not be where they are without Android.

 

And, without Android, Apple would have a total monopoly. And I bet the iPhone and iOS would not be where they are today without the competition.

 

So I have to retreat and accept your POV.

post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

 

Since the various carriers are Samsung's customers and not the end user are the preorder numbers being reported from the various carrier's or from the end user? Sold to a carrier for inventory is very different from sold to the end user, End users represent an immediate sale yet carrier inventory could take months to get sold to an end user, if ever. That information would be important to truly gauge how well it is doing.

 

Updated: The Reuters article cited says the orders are from carriers but AI's article is worded to make it seem like the orders are from end users. Another poorly written AI article.

Yes, we all know there are a kazillion boxes stored somewhere waiting for a buyer.

post #62 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed View Post

jragosta has his butt up his ass.

 

Not that I care ... but would that be an example of buttrassing?

post #63 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Hahahaha really?  You have to do better than that.  Where is the link showing Amazon admitting that they were using predatory pricing?

Both Amazon and the publisher stated that Amazon was selling below cost.
"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 #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

Not that I care ... but would that be an example of buttrassing?

 

Apparently that's the only way for him to buttress his canards.

post #65 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The evidence is quite clear. Amazon ... publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.

 

Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?

 

It's a myph.  Amazon surely making money on each Kindle Fire. Yes, a tablet could cost less then $199 to manufacture. Best Buy, which is not exactly a discout store, sells for instance a doezen of tablets in $99-189 range:

 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=-1473800139734267686&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=android+tablet&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=%2Bcurrentprice+skuid&qp=q616e64726f6964207461626c6574~~cabcat0500000%23%237%23%235y~~cpcmcat209000050006%23%233%23%2358~~ncpcmcat209000050008%23%230%23%231e&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&iht=n

 

 

3811106_sb.jpg

 

Coby - Kyros Tablet with 4GB Memory and Capacitive Touch Screen

$99, free shipping from Best Buy

 

Unlike the Kindle Fire it features:

 

  • Built-in front-facing VGA webcam
  • Digital media card reader - microSD for up to 32GB
  • HDMI output

Edited by mercury99 - 5/18/12 at 2:58pm

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #66 of 79

9 million pre-order to end-users? Or to carriers?

post #67 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits 
selling a tablet at below their cost?

No one ever said any such thing.

We were talking about Amazon's selling of eBooks for under cost.

Clearly, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet arena.
"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 #68 of 79

I can't wait for the next Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S V. That thing is going to be awesome.

post #69 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

New spelling:
4.8" = humongously huge
7.8" = nail-file-requiredly small

Take iPad assets and scale them to the Galaxy S III screen. Or, file something else of yours down.

post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

 

Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?

 

Thanks for your input, but you should pay more attention to the thread: jragosta's lie this time was that Amazon publicly declared selling ebooks below cost, not tablets. He's not going to support his fabrication with any evidence, so don't bother with him.

 

Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.

post #71 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Thanks for your input, but you should pay more attention to the thread: jragosta's lie this time was that Amazon publicly declared selling ebooks below cost, not tablets. He's not going to support his fabrication with any evidence, so don't bother with him.

Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100131/2223217982.shtml
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).

Or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/amazon-ebooks-kdp-select_b_1139260.html
"If agency pricing is limited or overturned, it would allow Amazon to engage in predatory pricing by selling ebooks at below cost in an effort to drive current and future competitors out of the market."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-16/tech/31347874_1_ebook-prices-lower-prices-to
"The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point."

http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/12/11163026-publishers-youve-just-been-sued-by-the-department-of-justice-what-will-you-do-next
"Before Apple entered into an "agency model" agreement with the major publishing houses, Amazon was routinely selling books below cost. Because Amazon had already locked-up a significant portion of the ebook market, it was next to impossible for anyone else to compete, unless they too could afford to (or wanted to) take a loss on every book they sold."

There's lots more if you dig your head out of your rear and actually look for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.

You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).


Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect:
http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html
"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 #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post
I can't wait for the next Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S V. That thing is going to be awesome.

 

Don't you mean Galaxy S VI? 😉

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #73 of 79

Unfortunately being sloppy isn't the way to regain your credibility, jragosta. Check your claim in the post quoted below. Check again the links you provided. Nowhere do you show any evidence that Amazon publicly admitted that they were selling ebooks below cost.
 

 

To be clear, nobody denies that Amazon sells some ebooks as loss leaders, and I have personally said so previously. However, from reportedly selling some ebooks as loss leaders, to publicly admitting to predatory pricing is a long way.

 

You seem to be convinced that people are purposefully distorting the truth in pursuit of some sinister agenda, while in fact you don't bother to pay attention to the actual claims and go around the threads looking for arguments to pick. This isn't very constructive and more suited for a troll, don't you think?

 

As to backing the up the possibility that Amazon isn't losing on the Kindle, it's in the post that I quoted when I said so -- showing a similar tablet being sold for half the price of the Kindle Fire, and most likely for profit. I have always backed up my claims, even in cases when no evidence should be necessary to a person of average intelligence. So don't lie that I never back any of my claims, doing so is low and only reflects poorly on you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The evidence is quite clear. Amazon had a near monopoly at 80% market share.
They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.

...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100131/2223217982.shtml
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).
Or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/amazon-ebooks-kdp-select_b_1139260.html
"If agency pricing is limited or overturned, it would allow Amazon to engage in predatory pricing by selling ebooks at below cost in an effort to drive current and future competitors out of the market."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-16/tech/31347874_1_ebook-prices-lower-prices-to
"The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point."
http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/12/11163026-publishers-youve-just-been-sued-by-the-department-of-justice-what-will-you-do-next
"Before Apple entered into an "agency model" agreement with the major publishing houses, Amazon was routinely selling books below cost. Because Amazon had already locked-up a significant portion of the ebook market, it was next to impossible for anyone else to compete, unless they too could afford to (or wanted to) take a loss on every book they sold."
There's lots more if you dig your head out of your rear and actually look for it.
You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).
Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect:
http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html
post #74 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

To be clear, nobody denies that Amazon sells some ebooks as loss leaders, and I have personally said so previously. However, from reportedly selling some ebooks as loss leaders, to publicly admitting to predatory pricing is a long way.

So you admit that Amazon sells below cost and it's well documented. So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it? If it's an apparent fact that everyone knows, then Amazon's admission isn't necessary.

As for predatory pricing, I've already given you the links. With Amazon having a dominant market share, pricing below cost is de facto predatory pricing.

I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.
"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 #75 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


... So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it?...
...I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.

 

If Amazon publicly admit to being guilty, that means that they likely are. If a bunch of blogs insinuate so, that doesn't mean 
anything. Huge difference.

So instead of backing up your initial outlandish statement, you back away from it -- this is just one example.

Then, only in the past week or so, you insinuated that people attack Apple for not launching a frivolous lawsuit; suggested that Apple has spent lots of time and money on research of dubious value and in the same thread made up that Apple would give away its SIM design for free but continue to pay royalties for others' SIM patents; insinuated that few people install new Android software (maybe you were confusing software with OS), and lied about AT&T's subsidy of the Samsung Galaxy Note.

 

Some of these claims of yours were challenged in the threads but you didn't supply evidence to support them. Sometimes you did provide links, but they were irrelevant to the point -- much like you've demonstrated in this thread in posts #51 and #72.

So there you go, and that should be about enough of off-topic nonsense in this thread.

post #76 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

If Amazon publicly admit to being guilty, that means that they likely are. If a bunch of blogs insinuate so, that doesn't mean 

anything. Huge difference.


So instead of backing up your initial outlandish statement, you back away from it -- this is just one example.


Then, only in the past week or so, you insinuated that people attack Apple for not launching a frivolous lawsuit; suggested that Apple has spent lots of time and money on research of dubious value and in the same thread made up that Apple would give away its SIM design for free but continue to pay royalties for others' SIM patents; insinuated that few people install new Android software (maybe you were confusing software with OS), and lied about AT&T's subsidy of the Samsung Galaxy Note.

Some of these claims of yours were challenged in the threads but you didn't supply evidence to support them. Sometimes you did provide links, but they were irrelevant to the point -- much like you've demonstrated in this thread in posts #51 and #72.


So there you go, and that should be about enough of off-topic nonsense in this thread.


So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?
"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 #77 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?

 

I didn't claim claim Amazon sells the Kindle for profit, but that such a possibility exists, as suggested by the $100 Coby tablet. Do you understand the difference between possibility and certainty? Either no, or you present yet another straw-man argument. A hint: quote the relevant post when you insist that someone claimed something.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

...

Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.

 

For the record, you did not back up your position in this thread, you backed away from it in your previous post, after several attempts to muddle up the conversation with semi-relevant links.

 

At this point, whom are you trying to fool, other than yourself?

post #78 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

It's a good point. But Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. are all on equal footing when it comes to Android (although Moto will soon have an inside track). Yet, Samsung has assumed a gargantuan lead. So I don't think it's Android that's giving Samsung the advantage to go head to head with Apple.  I suspect Samsung would be where it is now if Windows Mobile 7/8 had come out earlier and had assumed the place where Android is today.

 

Elephant in the room.

 

Why is no one talking about Microsoft as a player? I don't think it's anything about timing of a new version of Windows Mobile. Nokia's adoption of Windows Mobile is widely seen as akin to queueing for the last lifeboat on the Titanic.

 

This is a huge change in the industry. A whole new sector is opening up in a big way, and the biggest player in the old mass market is nowhere in sight. We're arguing about whether it's a fight between Apple and Samsung or Apple and Google.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #79 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

Elephant in the room.

Why is no one talking about Microsoft as a player? I don't think it's anything about timing of a new version of Windows Mobile. Nokia's adoption of Windows Mobile is widely seen as akin to queueing for the last lifeboat on the Titanic.

This is a huge change in the industry. A whole new sector is opening up in a big way, and the biggest player in the old mass market is nowhere in sight. We're arguing about whether it's a fight between Apple and Samsung or Apple and Google.

Microsoft's position has been discussed quite extensively. The opinions range from "too little, too late" to "Microsoft is going to eat Google's lunch". Only time will tell.

I do, however, think that Windows Mobile is going to gain some support from Google's acquisition of Motorola. If I were a cell phone maker relying on Android, I'd be very, very nervous.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: Simon & Schuster settles; 9M Galaxy S III preorders; 10.1" Kindle Fire