Amazon claims the Kindle is selling a lot, how come they never release numbers?
When Apple TV wasn't selling much, Apple did not release sales numbers, could it be the same for the Kindle?
No, different reason. The Kindle sells for a much thinner margin, barely above cost, and the one with ads sell at below cost with the ads subsidizing the difference. It's not so great to show numbers that show that you sell a million of something and barely even break a profit. Apple makes more profit on their disappointments than Amazon does with their successes. When Apple has disappointing sales of a product like Apple TV they can just take the heat of the focus off it and not come off as having slipped and have too much explaining to do. Amazon would have to spin too many reasons.
So? They purchased it from the original developer. Apple are the ones who saw the potential, paid up fair and square, and have broadly implemented the concept throughout their software. It's an Apple product. Anyone at this point implementing a coverflow style scheme can reasonably be described as "copying Apple."
They paid up (unless they're still appealing it) but only after losing a lawsuit.
It's not an apple product. They're just the first ones to make it popular. That's NOT the same thing.
Again, if you make something in tech, no matter how "innovative" it may seem, there's basically a 100% chance that you're violating dozens of "lawsuits" Besides, coverflow always felt like an extension of jukeboxes to me. You know, they show off the albums, and you can page through them?
That's beside the point. I don't think this tablet much to do with the ipad compared to what it has to do with expanding amazon's ecosystem. Rumor has it that this device will come with a FREE year of AmazonPrime, which means they'll be pushing the streaming TV/Movie service pretty hard with it. It's a means to get Amazon's new product in front of users.
No, different reason. The Kindle sells for a much thinner margin, barely above cost, and the one with ads sell at below cost with the ads subsidizing the difference. It's not so great to show numbers that show that you sell a million of something and barely even break a profit. Apple makes more profit on their disappointments than Amazon does with their successes. When Apple has disappointing sales of a product like Apple TV they can just take the heat of the focus off it and not come off as having slipped and have too much explaining to do. Amazon would have to spin too many reasons.
No, they wouldn't. Because you don't understand the point of the Kindle. Amazon didn't make the kindle to make profit on the hardware. They made it to make profit on their SOFTWARE. Specifically, Kindle books.
Study after study released by Amazon and third parties shows that Kindle owners tend to purchase books at a faster rate than their counterparts (and some show that users actually buy more physical books as well). Amazon gets the kindle to an almost impulse price level and then make their profit on the books.
Compare that to Apple, who (according to their own statements) barely "break even" on the itunes store. If they sold the ipad at a lower cost it wouldn't make sense. They make their money from Hardware. The iTunes ecosystem exists to get users to buy Apple HARDWARE. Amazon's ecosystem exists to get users to buy Amazon's Software/products.
Wouldn't it he better to buy an iPad and run the free Kindle app on it? Bigger screen, bigger ecosystem, more apps? I mean, if Kindle tablet wants to give up the advantages of eInk displays...why not just get an iPad?
Simple...price. At half the price of the lowest iPad it will have apeal. My wife uses her kindle to read and her iPad to check email, surf the net, play simple games. She spends way more time with her kindle.
If this new kindle is focused like I think it will be, reading first + a webkit browser, and apps for Amazon's cloud music, movies and shopping....it will be a hit.
Amazon is the only one with a echo system to rival Apple.
"...Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has slammed competitors who make 7-inch tablets, saying that screen size is too small for the average user's fingertips."
They paid up (unless they're still appealing it) but only after losing a lawsuit.
Nope. They lost a bullshit East Texas infringement case based on dubious tech, then had that dismissed on appeal.
In fact, they purchased the rights to use the work of Andrew Enright, an indy Mac developer. I remember, because the guy posted regularly on Ars Technica and there were high fives all around when he revealed that Apple had approached him, checkbook in hand
Quote:
It's not an apple product. They're just the first ones to make it popular. That's NOT the same thing
Oh for fuck's sake, I'm so sick of this kind of desperate parsing to avoid crediting Apple with anything. Of course it's an Apple product. Enright came up with the idea, Apple purchased it, built on his work and made it a central metaphor for their software. It's the very definition of ownership. By your reasoning no one owns anything, since we can always figure out some precedent.
Quote:
Again, if you make something in tech, no matter how "innovative" it may seem, there's basically a 100% chance that you're violating dozens of "lawsuits" Besides, coverflow always felt like an extension of jukeboxes to me. You know, they show off the albums, and you can page through them?
Interesting theory. RL examples of things implemented in software represent prior art? No one invented or owns "search" because people have been "searching for things" forever. Google, prepare to have your patents voided!
Comments
Amazon claims the Kindle is selling a lot, how come they never release numbers?
When Apple TV wasn't selling much, Apple did not release sales numbers, could it be the same for the Kindle?
No, different reason. The Kindle sells for a much thinner margin, barely above cost, and the one with ads sell at below cost with the ads subsidizing the difference. It's not so great to show numbers that show that you sell a million of something and barely even break a profit. Apple makes more profit on their disappointments than Amazon does with their successes. When Apple has disappointing sales of a product like Apple TV they can just take the heat of the focus off it and not come off as having slipped and have too much explaining to do. Amazon would have to spin too many reasons.
So? They purchased it from the original developer. Apple are the ones who saw the potential, paid up fair and square, and have broadly implemented the concept throughout their software. It's an Apple product. Anyone at this point implementing a coverflow style scheme can reasonably be described as "copying Apple."
No, actually they didn't:
http://www.cultofmac.com/61758/apple...ingement-suit/
They paid up (unless they're still appealing it) but only after losing a lawsuit.
It's not an apple product. They're just the first ones to make it popular. That's NOT the same thing.
Again, if you make something in tech, no matter how "innovative" it may seem, there's basically a 100% chance that you're violating dozens of "lawsuits" Besides, coverflow always felt like an extension of jukeboxes to me. You know, they show off the albums, and you can page through them?
That's beside the point. I don't think this tablet much to do with the ipad compared to what it has to do with expanding amazon's ecosystem. Rumor has it that this device will come with a FREE year of AmazonPrime, which means they'll be pushing the streaming TV/Movie service pretty hard with it. It's a means to get Amazon's new product in front of users.
No, different reason. The Kindle sells for a much thinner margin, barely above cost, and the one with ads sell at below cost with the ads subsidizing the difference. It's not so great to show numbers that show that you sell a million of something and barely even break a profit. Apple makes more profit on their disappointments than Amazon does with their successes. When Apple has disappointing sales of a product like Apple TV they can just take the heat of the focus off it and not come off as having slipped and have too much explaining to do. Amazon would have to spin too many reasons.
No, they wouldn't. Because you don't understand the point of the Kindle. Amazon didn't make the kindle to make profit on the hardware. They made it to make profit on their SOFTWARE. Specifically, Kindle books.
Study after study released by Amazon and third parties shows that Kindle owners tend to purchase books at a faster rate than their counterparts (and some show that users actually buy more physical books as well). Amazon gets the kindle to an almost impulse price level and then make their profit on the books.
Compare that to Apple, who (according to their own statements) barely "break even" on the itunes store. If they sold the ipad at a lower cost it wouldn't make sense. They make their money from Hardware. The iTunes ecosystem exists to get users to buy Apple HARDWARE. Amazon's ecosystem exists to get users to buy Amazon's Software/products.
For Apple, the Hardware is the end.
For Amazon, the Hardware is just the means.
Wouldn't it he better to buy an iPad and run the free Kindle app on it? Bigger screen, bigger ecosystem, more apps? I mean, if Kindle tablet wants to give up the advantages of eInk displays...why not just get an iPad?
Simple...price. At half the price of the lowest iPad it will have apeal. My wife uses her kindle to read and her iPad to check email, surf the net, play simple games. She spends way more time with her kindle.
If this new kindle is focused like I think it will be, reading first + a webkit browser, and apps for Amazon's cloud music, movies and shopping....it will be a hit.
Amazon is the only one with a echo system to rival Apple.
So Steve...my iPhone screen is no good????
No, actually they didn't:
http://www.cultofmac.com/61758/apple...ingement-suit/
They paid up (unless they're still appealing it) but only after losing a lawsuit.
Nope. They lost a bullshit East Texas infringement case based on dubious tech, then had that dismissed on appeal.
In fact, they purchased the rights to use the work of Andrew Enright, an indy Mac developer. I remember, because the guy posted regularly on Ars Technica and there were high fives all around when he revealed that Apple had approached him, checkbook in hand
It's not an apple product. They're just the first ones to make it popular. That's NOT the same thing
Oh for fuck's sake, I'm so sick of this kind of desperate parsing to avoid crediting Apple with anything. Of course it's an Apple product. Enright came up with the idea, Apple purchased it, built on his work and made it a central metaphor for their software. It's the very definition of ownership. By your reasoning no one owns anything, since we can always figure out some precedent.
Again, if you make something in tech, no matter how "innovative" it may seem, there's basically a 100% chance that you're violating dozens of "lawsuits" Besides, coverflow always felt like an extension of jukeboxes to me. You know, they show off the albums, and you can page through them?
Interesting theory. RL examples of things implemented in software represent prior art? No one invented or owns "search" because people have been "searching for things" forever. Google, prepare to have your patents voided!