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?
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?
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!
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.
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."
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?
Sorry, pal, but if you don't even know what a 'below the line cost' is, then you have no business discussing the topic at all. That is a very, very fundamental term used in even the simplest of businesses.
As I said, I've run businesses from small businesses to divisions of multibillion dollar companies. I had full financial responsibility for most of them and I know how to do and interpret the finances. I'm most certainly not interested in the opinion of someone who doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about - and readily admits it.
Come back after you educate yourself enough that you understand at least the basic principles of business finances.
Comments
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!
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
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.
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
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?
Sorry, pal, but if you don't even know what a 'below the line cost' is, then you have no business discussing the topic at all. That is a very, very fundamental term used in even the simplest of businesses.
As I said, I've run businesses from small businesses to divisions of multibillion dollar companies. I had full financial responsibility for most of them and I know how to do and interpret the finances. I'm most certainly not interested in the opinion of someone who doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about - and readily admits it.
Come back after you educate yourself enough that you understand at least the basic principles of business finances.