If the Fire sells well, we will see the Amazon Phone. If the Fire fizzles then probably not.
I never really understood the appeal of a cheap substitute when the real thing is so affordable. Amazon's tablet and possible phone experiment hinges entirely on sales to cheapskates.
In my example Apple would get rid of Amazon's tablet and phone and therefore severely limit their content ambitions. Apple's customers would increase dramatically and would win because of the reduced prices. There's little difference here. Amazon is doing this to compete, not to be nice to their customers, as would Apple. Why do you assume Amazon does what Amazon for the benefit of its customers but Apple would do it to spite everyone?
No, I don't agree with your logic here. Why would Apple's customers increase any more as compared to before Amazon entered the tablet market? They will increase gradually as the tablet adoption increases in general, but stifling Amazon will not give an advantage. True, Amazon will steal some market share, but that will likely be less than 10-20% of Apple's projected growth.
In your example, if you believe me that Apple would have to dump the majority of the tablets bought from Amazon that is, there is a 1 billion pure loss, coming from Apple's reserves. That's why I am saying that it is a no-win situation, and it will spite everyone. Well, maybe Android tablet vendors will get some breath of air, but they should better slash profit margins and ramp up volumes anyway, instead of expecting that they can mirror Apple's runaway success with the iPad.
Apple will not reduce prices if they can hold on to the meager market share that Amazon would prevent them from gaining. And Apple's customers will not reap any benefits from extinguishing Kindle Fire. Your spite is misdirected and unjustified.
"Why do you assume Amazon does what Amazon for the benefit of its customers but Apple would do it to spite everyone?"
- Simple. If I buy A Kindle Fire, I am getting a device that cost ~$250 to produce for $200. That's like being credited with $50. If I buy an iPad, I pay $500 for a device that cost ~350, leaving ~$150 profit for Apple. No wonder Apple has $80 billion in the bank, of which they should waste 1% to deprive me of my choice to get the Kindle, as you suggest.
No, I don't agree with your logic here. Why would Apple's customers increase any more as compared to before Amazon entered the tablet market? They will increase gradually as the tablet adoption increases in general, but stifling Amazon will not give an advantage. True, Amazon will steal some market share, but that will likely be less than 10-20% of Apple's projected growth.
In your example, if you believe me that Apple would have to dump the majority of the tablets bought from Amazon that is, there is a 1 billion pure loss, coming from Apple's reserves. That's why I am saying that it is a no-win situation, and it will spite everyone. Well, maybe Android tablet vendors will get some breath of air, but they should better slash profit margins and ramp up volumes anyway, instead of expecting that they can mirror Apple's runaway success with the iPad.
Apple will not reduce prices if they can hold on to the meager market share that Amazon would prevent them from gaining. And Apple's customers will not reap any benefits from extinguishing Kindle Fire. Your spite is misdirected and unjustified.
Well, first off... there is no spite. I know Apple would never engage in that kind of competition and besides, were they to, they would not only 'get' Amazon but every other tablet vendor and would not be allowed (monopolistic). With Apple's war chest they could sell at a loss for years in order to kill competition. Hypothetically.
I also agree that would be a no win situation - (by the way, my original suggestion of Apple buying up all Amazon's tablet was not really serious. I thought it was a kind of funny idea. Very spiteful, but funny)
But our contention is that you think it is fair that Amazon sells products at a loss in order to sell content, and that the consumer wins. I think we both agree it is risky. I think it is a destructive business practice that limits customer choice in the long run. I am also under the impression that you feel it is a fair practice for Amazon, but not for Apple
Well, first off... there is no spite. I know Apple would never engage in that kind of competition and besides, were they to, they would not only 'get' Amazon but every other tablet vendor and would not be allowed (monopolistic). With Apple's war chest they could sell at a loss for years in order to kill competition. Hypothetically.
I also agree that would be a no win situation - (by the way, my original suggestion of Apple buying up all Amazon's tablet was not really serious. I thought it was a kind of funny idea. Very spiteful, but funny)
But our contention is that you think it is fair that Amazon sells products at a loss in order to sell content, and that the consumer wins. I think we both agree it is risky. I think it is a destructive business practice that limits customer choice in the long run. I am also under the impression that you feel it is a fair practice for Amazon, but not for Apple
Yes, I also thought it was a joke, but I though it was amusing to try to imagine the math behind the idea.
I think that as long as neither of the companies engages in monopolistic practices, it's all fair. I would applaud Apple slashing their profit margins as well, that's not exactly what you suggested though.
I understand the dangers are that the competition will be pushed out of the business and we as consumers left with a monopoly. I don't think Amazon is that big though, and I also suspect they may end up being much smaller by the end of this story.
In another article, it was suggested that Amazon's practice is making Android vendors throw in the towel. This is admitedly a concern, but I think it is very exaggerated.
So yeah, I should have taken your joke for what it is and just laughed, as I don't see things all that differently, I may have slightly overreacted...
Pretty sure this is what Android has already done. I walk into a mobile phone shop and the only difference between 'droid devices in the same price class I can see is the appearance. The only droid phones I see as "vastly different" (used loosely) are the premium range from Sammy.
HTC has the Beats edition phones, Motorola has the ruggedised Defy phone's there is a bit of trying to find niches.
The Samsung's as usual are rather mediocre, relying on hype for sales, for example the sound quality of music through headphones is woeful which probably explains why HTC is diversifying with Beats in order to distinguish their products.
iPhone's rule in this area thanks to their iPod heritage, just like the 4S camera is also considered best in class.
Yea every major phone company has tried that since the oiginal iphone.... but then Apple keeps setting records on iphone sales... Amazons phone is only going to add more "fire" on the iphone sales
Those basterds! Amazon phone will be DOA, just like the Kindle Fire! Apple doesn't care about the bottom-feeders, so it's suing Amazon over a word, and AI posts three articles on Amazon per day because nobody here gives a damn. No one needs convenient access to a huge selection of consumer products, the economy is flourishing anyway. Amazon's phone will be crap like the rest of the Androidz, who wants a Nexus Prime, HTC Rezound or Droid RAZR when they can have the FreeGS? Amazon will not sell any phones at all, and it will sell so many at a loss that it will go bankrupt. Nobody will buy an Amazon phone but it will steal the better part of Android's market share. It will be useless without the Google Apps, and will also fragment Android by offering incompatible Google Apps.
Did you use "one click?" to post that?
In an article that apparently has something to do with a South American river or a mythical tribe of women.
Shouldn't the Amazon phone be challenging Android instead of iOS? I mean everyone knows by now that Android has kicked the iPhone's ass from here to Jericho. Why challenge the loser? Challenge the clear winner. There's something wrong with the title of this article.
In an article that apparently has something to do with a South American river or a mythical tribe of women.
Lol, "one-click" is a ridiculous trademark I think. Amazon is a cool name; I don't hear the amazons complaining about the use, and nobody would pay attention to one-breasted warrior women anyways...
In the end of the day, the name doesn't make the company but vice versa. I could hardly think of stupider names than Apple or Micro-Soft, and Go-Ogle sounds perverted, but no one thinks of this any more...
But if you read further into my jocular post you could see that despite my sarcasm I wasn't taking sides. I only wanted to illustrate how obviously contradicting ideas are used to elicit verbal attacks from the same side, and (as long as they are bashing Apple's competition) they would both be accepted as valid arguments.
Yes, I also thought it was a joke, but I though it was amusing to try to imagine the math behind the idea.
I think that as long as neither of the companies engages in monopolistic practices, it's all fair. I would applaud Apple slashing their profit margins as well, that's not exactly what you suggested though.
I understand the dangers are that the competition will be pushed out of the business and we as consumers left with a monopoly. I don't think Amazon is that big though, and I also suspect they may end up being much smaller by the end of this story.
In another article, it was suggested that Amazon's practice is making Android vendors throw in the towel. This is admitedly a concern, but I think it is very exaggerated.
So yeah, I should have taken your joke for what it is and just laughed, as I don't see things all that differently, I may have slightly overreacted...
Well, just with the thought that I was being (seriously) spiteful. But I'll engage in a discussion on hypothetical situation as if they were real, any day. Facts can get in the way of a meaningful conversation very quickly (!) So though my first comment was a joke its was out there to be knocked about.
Ha ha ha! Amazon will report 'earnings', the more Fires they sell the less money they make! They are gonna make it up on BOOK sales? Or housewares or what?
Even apple only makes 1% on their ecosystem sales. Right now the P/E for Amazon stock is 105, at a share price of $200. looks like another Netflix. I'm sure it will be shorted, anybody can see this one coming. The Fire doesn't even have a volume control! They may sell a lot of them but the followthrough for amazon content will be, well, you said it best, harakiri.
They are losing less than $3 per KF. 2-3 books would make it up. Now consider the profit potential of all apps, music, movies and books and a monthly Prime subscription through Amazon.
If the Fire sells well, we will see the Amazon Phone. If the Fire fizzles then probably not.
I never really understood the appeal of a cheap substitute when the real thing is so affordable. Amazon's tablet and possible phone experiment hinges entirely on sales to cheapskates.
You don't understand the appeal because you have $500 of disposable income that you could easily part with. In case you haven't noticed, in today's economy there's fewer and fewer people in the same boat.
I'd get an iPad, because I plan to do more than read and surf.
But if that's all you do, spending $500 is wasteful and not something the average Joe can easily afford in today's economy. Apple will take those who have the disposable income to part with. Amazon will take the rest.
Maybe in the US but the game has been changed and unlocked for years in Europe and other countries.
Not that Amazon is that popular elsewhere. But somebody else could easily follow the same model. Sell hardware at cost. Make money on content.
Just think of how much phones like the Galaxy Nexus cost to manufacture. And how much they sell for. Now imagine a company like Amazon selling you that kind of hardware at cost. It would be hard to ignore a phone with a large HD screen going for free on contract when you walk into the phone store.
[QUOTE=DrDoppio;1990897In the end of the day, the name doesn't make the company but vice versa. I could hardly think of stupider names than Apple or Micro-Soft, and Go-Ogle sounds perverted, but no one thinks of this any more...[/QUOTE]
You know it's funny you go that direction w/google's name. A google is a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The guy who came up w/it said it was also a sound his young son made. Google then decided they liked it when they were naming the company
You don't understand the appeal because you have $500 of disposable income that you could easily part with. In case you haven't noticed, in today's economy there's fewer and fewer people in the same boat.
I'd get an iPad, because I plan to do more than read and surf.
But if that's all you do, spending $500 is wasteful and not something the average Joe can easily afford in today's economy. Apple will take those who have the disposable income to part with. Amazon will take the rest.
I'd wait until I saved up the $500 rather than buy something that is not what I wanted. I'd recommend just save a little more and get the iPad 3 when it comes out.
Comments
I never really understood the appeal of a cheap substitute when the real thing is so affordable. Amazon's tablet and possible phone experiment hinges entirely on sales to cheapskates.
In my example Apple would get rid of Amazon's tablet and phone and therefore severely limit their content ambitions. Apple's customers would increase dramatically and would win because of the reduced prices. There's little difference here. Amazon is doing this to compete, not to be nice to their customers, as would Apple. Why do you assume Amazon does what Amazon for the benefit of its customers but Apple would do it to spite everyone?
No, I don't agree with your logic here. Why would Apple's customers increase any more as compared to before Amazon entered the tablet market? They will increase gradually as the tablet adoption increases in general, but stifling Amazon will not give an advantage. True, Amazon will steal some market share, but that will likely be less than 10-20% of Apple's projected growth.
In your example, if you believe me that Apple would have to dump the majority of the tablets bought from Amazon that is, there is a 1 billion pure loss, coming from Apple's reserves. That's why I am saying that it is a no-win situation, and it will spite everyone. Well, maybe Android tablet vendors will get some breath of air, but they should better slash profit margins and ramp up volumes anyway, instead of expecting that they can mirror Apple's runaway success with the iPad.
Apple will not reduce prices if they can hold on to the meager market share that Amazon would prevent them from gaining. And Apple's customers will not reap any benefits from extinguishing Kindle Fire. Your spite is misdirected and unjustified.
"Why do you assume Amazon does what Amazon for the benefit of its customers but Apple would do it to spite everyone?"
- Simple. If I buy A Kindle Fire, I am getting a device that cost ~$250 to produce for $200. That's like being credited with $50. If I buy an iPad, I pay $500 for a device that cost ~350, leaving ~$150 profit for Apple. No wonder Apple has $80 billion in the bank, of which they should waste 1% to deprive me of my choice to get the Kindle, as you suggest.
No, I don't agree with your logic here. Why would Apple's customers increase any more as compared to before Amazon entered the tablet market? They will increase gradually as the tablet adoption increases in general, but stifling Amazon will not give an advantage. True, Amazon will steal some market share, but that will likely be less than 10-20% of Apple's projected growth.
In your example, if you believe me that Apple would have to dump the majority of the tablets bought from Amazon that is, there is a 1 billion pure loss, coming from Apple's reserves. That's why I am saying that it is a no-win situation, and it will spite everyone. Well, maybe Android tablet vendors will get some breath of air, but they should better slash profit margins and ramp up volumes anyway, instead of expecting that they can mirror Apple's runaway success with the iPad.
Apple will not reduce prices if they can hold on to the meager market share that Amazon would prevent them from gaining. And Apple's customers will not reap any benefits from extinguishing Kindle Fire. Your spite is misdirected and unjustified.
Well, first off... there is no spite. I know Apple would never engage in that kind of competition and besides, were they to, they would not only 'get' Amazon but every other tablet vendor and would not be allowed (monopolistic). With Apple's war chest they could sell at a loss for years in order to kill competition. Hypothetically.
I also agree that would be a no win situation - (by the way, my original suggestion of Apple buying up all Amazon's tablet was not really serious. I thought it was a kind of funny idea. Very spiteful, but funny)
But our contention is that you think it is fair that Amazon sells products at a loss in order to sell content, and that the consumer wins. I think we both agree it is risky. I think it is a destructive business practice that limits customer choice in the long run. I am also under the impression that you feel it is a fair practice for Amazon, but not for Apple
Go Amazon! I hope Amazon can bring a self-subsidized phone, unlocked without US carriers intervention. That would be a game changer!
Maybe in the US but the game has been changed and unlocked for years in Europe and other countries.
Well, first off... there is no spite. I know Apple would never engage in that kind of competition and besides, were they to, they would not only 'get' Amazon but every other tablet vendor and would not be allowed (monopolistic). With Apple's war chest they could sell at a loss for years in order to kill competition. Hypothetically.
I also agree that would be a no win situation - (by the way, my original suggestion of Apple buying up all Amazon's tablet was not really serious. I thought it was a kind of funny idea. Very spiteful, but funny)
But our contention is that you think it is fair that Amazon sells products at a loss in order to sell content, and that the consumer wins. I think we both agree it is risky. I think it is a destructive business practice that limits customer choice in the long run. I am also under the impression that you feel it is a fair practice for Amazon, but not for Apple
Yes, I also thought it was a joke, but I though it was amusing to try to imagine the math behind the idea.
I think that as long as neither of the companies engages in monopolistic practices, it's all fair. I would applaud Apple slashing their profit margins as well, that's not exactly what you suggested though.
I understand the dangers are that the competition will be pushed out of the business and we as consumers left with a monopoly. I don't think Amazon is that big though, and I also suspect they may end up being much smaller by the end of this story.
In another article, it was suggested that Amazon's practice is making Android vendors throw in the towel. This is admitedly a concern, but I think it is very exaggerated.
So yeah, I should have taken your joke for what it is and just laughed, as I don't see things all that differently, I may have slightly overreacted...
Pretty sure this is what Android has already done. I walk into a mobile phone shop and the only difference between 'droid devices in the same price class I can see is the appearance. The only droid phones I see as "vastly different" (used loosely) are the premium range from Sammy.
HTC has the Beats edition phones, Motorola has the ruggedised Defy phone's there is a bit of trying to find niches.
The Samsung's as usual are rather mediocre, relying on hype for sales, for example the sound quality of music through headphones is woeful which probably explains why HTC is diversifying with Beats in order to distinguish their products.
iPhone's rule in this area thanks to their iPod heritage, just like the 4S camera is also considered best in class.
Here's what Apple should do...
Buy Kodak for their patents, they are almost desperate enough to make a hostile takeover.
An Amazon phone would make Apple go ballistic.
Yea every major phone company has tried that since the oiginal iphone.... but then Apple keeps setting records on iphone sales... Amazons phone is only going to add more "fire" on the iphone sales
Those basterds! Amazon phone will be DOA, just like the Kindle Fire! Apple doesn't care about the bottom-feeders, so it's suing Amazon over a word, and AI posts three articles on Amazon per day because nobody here gives a damn. No one needs convenient access to a huge selection of consumer products, the economy is flourishing anyway. Amazon's phone will be crap like the rest of the Androidz, who wants a Nexus Prime, HTC Rezound or Droid RAZR when they can have the FreeGS? Amazon will not sell any phones at all, and it will sell so many at a loss that it will go bankrupt. Nobody will buy an Amazon phone but it will steal the better part of Android's market share. It will be useless without the Google Apps, and will also fragment Android by offering incompatible Google Apps.
Did you use "one click?" to post that?
In an article that apparently has something to do with a South American river or a mythical tribe of women.
Yep, just like Android phones made Apple go ballistic.
I don't think Apple cares.
No, but Google might. Especially if they use a different search engine.
Google needs more competition, right Fandroids?
Shouldn't the Amazon phone be challenging Android instead of iOS? I mean everyone knows by now that Android has kicked the iPhone's ass from here to Jericho. Why challenge the loser? Challenge the clear winner. There's something wrong with the title of this article.
Tell that to Apple's bank account
Did you use "one click?" to post that?
In an article that apparently has something to do with a South American river or a mythical tribe of women.
Lol, "one-click" is a ridiculous trademark I think. Amazon is a cool name; I don't hear the amazons complaining about the use, and nobody would pay attention to one-breasted warrior women anyways...
In the end of the day, the name doesn't make the company but vice versa. I could hardly think of stupider names than Apple or Micro-Soft, and Go-Ogle sounds perverted, but no one thinks of this any more...
But if you read further into my jocular post you could see that despite my sarcasm I wasn't taking sides. I only wanted to illustrate how obviously contradicting ideas are used to elicit verbal attacks from the same side, and (as long as they are bashing Apple's competition) they would both be accepted as valid arguments.
Yes, I also thought it was a joke, but I though it was amusing to try to imagine the math behind the idea.
I think that as long as neither of the companies engages in monopolistic practices, it's all fair. I would applaud Apple slashing their profit margins as well, that's not exactly what you suggested though.
I understand the dangers are that the competition will be pushed out of the business and we as consumers left with a monopoly. I don't think Amazon is that big though, and I also suspect they may end up being much smaller by the end of this story.
In another article, it was suggested that Amazon's practice is making Android vendors throw in the towel. This is admitedly a concern, but I think it is very exaggerated.
So yeah, I should have taken your joke for what it is and just laughed, as I don't see things all that differently, I may have slightly overreacted...
Well, just with the thought that I was being (seriously) spiteful. But I'll engage in a discussion on hypothetical situation as if they were real, any day. Facts can get in the way of a meaningful conversation very quickly (!) So though my first comment was a joke its was out there to be knocked about.
Ha ha ha! Amazon will report 'earnings', the more Fires they sell the less money they make! They are gonna make it up on BOOK sales? Or housewares or what?
Even apple only makes 1% on their ecosystem sales. Right now the P/E for Amazon stock is 105, at a share price of $200. looks like another Netflix. I'm sure it will be shorted, anybody can see this one coming. The Fire doesn't even have a volume control! They may sell a lot of them but the followthrough for amazon content will be, well, you said it best, harakiri.
They are losing less than $3 per KF. 2-3 books would make it up. Now consider the profit potential of all apps, music, movies and books and a monthly Prime subscription through Amazon.
If the Fire sells well, we will see the Amazon Phone. If the Fire fizzles then probably not.
I never really understood the appeal of a cheap substitute when the real thing is so affordable. Amazon's tablet and possible phone experiment hinges entirely on sales to cheapskates.
You don't understand the appeal because you have $500 of disposable income that you could easily part with. In case you haven't noticed, in today's economy there's fewer and fewer people in the same boat.
I'd get an iPad, because I plan to do more than read and surf.
But if that's all you do, spending $500 is wasteful and not something the average Joe can easily afford in today's economy. Apple will take those who have the disposable income to part with. Amazon will take the rest.
Maybe in the US but the game has been changed and unlocked for years in Europe and other countries.
Not that Amazon is that popular elsewhere. But somebody else could easily follow the same model. Sell hardware at cost. Make money on content.
Just think of how much phones like the Galaxy Nexus cost to manufacture. And how much they sell for. Now imagine a company like Amazon selling you that kind of hardware at cost. It would be hard to ignore a phone with a large HD screen going for free on contract when you walk into the phone store.
You know it's funny you go that direction w/google's name. A google is a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The guy who came up w/it said it was also a sound his young son made. Google then decided they liked it when they were naming the company
You don't understand the appeal because you have $500 of disposable income that you could easily part with. In case you haven't noticed, in today's economy there's fewer and fewer people in the same boat.
I'd get an iPad, because I plan to do more than read and surf.
But if that's all you do, spending $500 is wasteful and not something the average Joe can easily afford in today's economy. Apple will take those who have the disposable income to part with. Amazon will take the rest.
I'd wait until I saved up the $500 rather than buy something that is not what I wanted. I'd recommend just save a little more and get the iPad 3 when it comes out.