Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo told AppleInsider last year that Amazon was working on a 10.1-inch Kindle tablet codenamed "Coyote" alongside development of an 8.9-inch tablet. However, suppliers were believed to have experienced difficulty with Amazon's requirements for the 8.9-inch device.
should be renamed from "coyote" to "peyote" because amazon is "higher-than-a-kite" if it thinks it can make a better tablet than the 399 iPad2... for 299.. Is amazon inc. a socialist company? ... a so-called-NO-profit? LOL... Not a "know" profit (where you know the profits will come latter) or a not-profit (making products for the benefit of people) BUT a NO-profit? how can people believe in a company that is no-profit instead of a company that is "non-profit" Because they are cheap
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.
You're still missing the point and no your points don't apply.
To your 1: That's solely based on your goal posts. Samsung could do a release when they hit 10 million, or after x number of days since announcement. Just because an exec said something ahead of a potential announcement doesn't mean it's wrong, your argument doesn't hold up.
To your 2: Get out a little more. The US isn't even the largest smartphone market anymore, and there is no US marketing (other than a hidden signup) as it's not here yet so again your logic doesn't hold water. There IS marketing all over Asia for it and the phone doesn't even release until the 29th. alexkhan2000 has it absolutely right in his post. Samsung also still sells phones in more countries than Apple does.
I'm not saying the number is accurate, but given it's carrier driven, not consumer, it's also NOT implausible. Just because you can't see it from your window, doesn't make it real.
Yes, 9 M would be an impressive number either way. However, I'm very skeptical of the number. We have a rumored report from an unnamed official.
1. If Samsung really had 9 M preorders, it is extremely likely that there would be an official announcement.
2. Apple got a few million preorders for the iPhone 4s (I don't remember the exactly number, but it was less than half of the alleged 9 M for the Galaxy S3. Think back to the iPhone 4S launch, though. It was on every major news outlet world wide. EVERYONE was talking about it - extensively. The S3, OTOH, was briefly mentioned when it was announced and then largely disappeared form the media. Heck, in their radio ads, US Cellular is still advertising the S2 as the most advanced phone they offer with no mention of the S3. If Apple only got a few million with the massive media frenzy that surrounded the iPhone 4S, I can't see how Samsung got more than twice as many with a relatively silent media.
Let's wait until we have real numbers, not some fourth hand rumor.
I tend to agree. So many stories/rumors lately have been refuted practically before they are out of the gate.
Whether the 9M number is accurate or not, it is clear as day that Samsung is the real competitor to Apple, and not Google. The Galaxy is the only product standing up to the iPhone. What is impressive about this is the fact that Samsung is the manufacturer of key components for the two smartphone lines that collectively outnumber the rest of the industry. Very impressive capacity.
Whether the 9M number is accurate or not, it is clear as day that Samsung is the real competitor to Apple, and not Google. The Galaxy is the only product standing up to the iPhone. What is impressive about this is the fact that Samsung is the manufacturer of key components for the two smartphone lines that collectively outnumber the rest of the industry. Very impressive capacity.
Without Google's Android system would Samsung be doing so well.
I think Google and Samsung are equally Apple's competitors.
Please fight that DOJ antitrust suit to the end. It needs somebody with enough cash to stand up to the government and tell it to get the ***** out of the markets. there is nothing inherently better or worse about the agency model as opposed to Amazon's and nothing "conspiratorial" about persuading thgye publishers to use the agency model. These regulators are way over-reaching. Punch them in the face!
That's not the problem. Apple and the publishers are free to whatever business model they want to. The problem arises is when the publishers turn around and try to change their agreement with Amazon all of a sudden and collectively. The vast majority of people don't know nor care about wholesale or agency models, all they know is the they used to pay $9.99 for ebooks and since Apple started selling ebooks the prices jumped up to $22.99 and they wanna know why. Prices either go down or remain static whenever there's competition but prices instead went up causing many to demand an investigation.
That's not the problem. Apple and the publishers are free to whatever business model they want to. The problem arises is when the publishers turn around and try to change their agreement with Amazon all of a sudden and collectively. The vast majority of people don't know nor care about wholesale or agency models, all they know is the they used to pay $9.99 for ebooks and since Apple started selling ebooks the prices jumped up to $22.99 and they wanna know why. Prices either go down or remain static whenever there's competition but prices instead went up causing many to demand an investigation.
The bolded is incorrect. Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.
The bolded is incorrect. Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.
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"? If it's simply your opinion you should say so, and if not then offer some proof that your assertion is factual. I've never seen any evidence and would look forward to yours.
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.
How do you figure? The agency model is actually worse for the publishers because if Amazon and Apple both sell a ebook for $9.99 they get their full asking price from Amazon but will only get $6.99 from Apple. So in order for the agency model to work for them the price had to be raised to accommodate Apples 30% cut but because of the most favored nation clause they had to either accept $6.99 from Apple or get Amazon to raise their price. I'm curious what the settlement entails.
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"? If it's simply your opinion you should say so, and if not then offer some proof that your assertion is factual. I've never seen any evidence and would look forward to yours.
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.
That's predatory pricing.
As to why they stopped? Maybe the DOJ was making noises in their direction. Maybe their board got tired of losing money on every sale. Maybe Barnes and Noble sent them a letter saying that if they didn't stop predatory pricing that they'd file a complaint with the DOJ. The reason doesn't matter.
So what's your explanation for Amazon just happening to sell an entire product line at below their cost and then stopping the practice after it is clear that the DOJ is snooping around the industry? It will be interesting to see your explanation for the prices going up.
Without Google's Android system would Samsung be doing so well.
I think Google and Samsung are equally Apple's competitors.
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.
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.
That's predatory pricing.
As to why they stopped? Maybe the DOJ was making noises in their direction. Maybe their board got tired of losing money on every sale. Maybe Barnes and Noble sent them a letter saying that if they didn't stop predatory pricing that they'd file a complaint with the DOJ. The reason doesn't matter.
So what's your explanation for Amazon just happening to sell an entire product line at below their cost and then stopping the practice after it is clear that the DOJ is snooping around the industry? It will be interesting to see your explanation for the prices going up.
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.
The bolded is incorrect. Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.
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.
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.
It might be a problem if it was just kindle owners but anyone with the kindle app can benefit regardless of hardware and platform.
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.
Amazon's business model is about driving volume to create a business without competitors. Their logistics infrastructure is impressive to say the least, and this is made possible by creating huge volumes of sales. Prime builds loyalty, and Amazon is willing to lose money on loyal customers in the short term if it helps them create the base for long-term domination. I believe the $11 figure was from 3 years ago; I would expect it is less now.
If you didn't take the long-term perspective on it, why would they be trading with a 3 digit multiplier.
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo told AppleInsiderlast year that Amazon was working on a 10.1-inch Kindle tablet codenamed "Coyote" alongside development of an 8.9-inch tablet. However, suppliers were believed to have experienced difficulty with Amazon's requirements for the 8.9-inch device.
I do hope "Amazon's requirements" mean more ambitious hardware, addressing the few concerns that the smaller Kindle Fire raised (placement of on-off switch, small storage). That way they could sell it worldwide, instead of US only, and make a decent profit out of it.
Comments
should be renamed from "coyote" to "peyote" because amazon is "higher-than-a-kite" if it thinks it can make a better tablet than the 399 iPad2... for 299.. Is amazon inc. a socialist company? ... a so-called-NO-profit? LOL... Not a "know" profit (where you know the profits will come latter) or a not-profit (making products for the benefit of people) BUT a NO-profit? how can people believe in a company that is no-profit instead of a company that is "non-profit" Because they are cheap
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It is implausible that the G3 would have sold as well with essentially no mention in the media at all.
Umm there was a lot of hype about the S3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
You're still missing the point and no your points don't apply.
To your 1: That's solely based on your goal posts. Samsung could do a release when they hit 10 million, or after x number of days since announcement. Just because an exec said something ahead of a potential announcement doesn't mean it's wrong, your argument doesn't hold up.
To your 2: Get out a little more. The US isn't even the largest smartphone market anymore, and there is no US marketing (other than a hidden signup) as it's not here yet so again your logic doesn't hold water. There IS marketing all over Asia for it and the phone doesn't even release until the 29th. alexkhan2000 has it absolutely right in his post. Samsung also still sells phones in more countries than Apple does.
I'm not saying the number is accurate, but given it's carrier driven, not consumer, it's also NOT implausible. Just because you can't see it from your window, doesn't make it real.
That phone is hella ugly.
Ugly fills a niche the market. Just look up and see majority of "me too" devices out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
That phone is hella ugly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, 9 M would be an impressive number either way. However, I'm very skeptical of the number. We have a rumored report from an unnamed official.
1. If Samsung really had 9 M preorders, it is extremely likely that there would be an official announcement.
2. Apple got a few million preorders for the iPhone 4s (I don't remember the exactly number, but it was less than half of the alleged 9 M for the Galaxy S3. Think back to the iPhone 4S launch, though. It was on every major news outlet world wide. EVERYONE was talking about it - extensively. The S3, OTOH, was briefly mentioned when it was announced and then largely disappeared form the media. Heck, in their radio ads, US Cellular is still advertising the S2 as the most advanced phone they offer with no mention of the S3. If Apple only got a few million with the massive media frenzy that surrounded the iPhone 4S, I can't see how Samsung got more than twice as many with a relatively silent media.
Let's wait until we have real numbers, not some fourth hand rumor.
I tend to agree. So many stories/rumors lately have been refuted practically before they are out of the gate.
Whether the 9M number is accurate or not, it is clear as day that Samsung is the real competitor to Apple, and not Google. The Galaxy is the only product standing up to the iPhone. What is impressive about this is the fact that Samsung is the manufacturer of key components for the two smartphone lines that collectively outnumber the rest of the industry. Very impressive capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Whether the 9M number is accurate or not, it is clear as day that Samsung is the real competitor to Apple, and not Google. The Galaxy is the only product standing up to the iPhone. What is impressive about this is the fact that Samsung is the manufacturer of key components for the two smartphone lines that collectively outnumber the rest of the industry. Very impressive capacity.
Without Google's Android system would Samsung be doing so well.
I think Google and Samsung are equally Apple's competitors.
That's not the problem. Apple and the publishers are free to whatever business model they want to. The problem arises is when the publishers turn around and try to change their agreement with Amazon all of a sudden and collectively. The vast majority of people don't know nor care about wholesale or agency models, all they know is the they used to pay $9.99 for ebooks and since Apple started selling ebooks the prices jumped up to $22.99 and they wanna know why. Prices either go down or remain static whenever there's competition but prices instead went up causing many to demand an investigation.
The bolded is incorrect. Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The bolded is incorrect. Amazon had a near- monopoly and kept prices low via predatory pricing. Introduction of competition is what caused the prices to rise.
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"? If it's simply your opinion you should say so, and if not then offer some proof that your assertion is factual. I've never seen any evidence and would look forward to yours.
How do you figure? The agency model is actually worse for the publishers because if Amazon and Apple both sell a ebook for $9.99 they get their full asking price from Amazon but will only get $6.99 from Apple. So in order for the agency model to work for them the price had to be raised to accommodate Apples 30% cut but because of the most favored nation clause they had to either accept $6.99 from Apple or get Amazon to raise their price. I'm curious what the settlement entails.
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.
That's predatory pricing.
As to why they stopped? Maybe the DOJ was making noises in their direction. Maybe their board got tired of losing money on every sale. Maybe Barnes and Noble sent them a letter saying that if they didn't stop predatory pricing that they'd file a complaint with the DOJ. The reason doesn't matter.
So what's your explanation for Amazon just happening to sell an entire product line at below their cost and then stopping the practice after it is clear that the DOJ is snooping around the industry? It will be interesting to see your explanation for the prices going up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Without Google's Android system would Samsung be doing so well.
I think Google and Samsung are equally Apple's competitors.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
That's predatory pricing.
I've not seen that. What's your link to the statement that Amazon made? I'd like to read it for myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
That's predatory pricing.
As to why they stopped? Maybe the DOJ was making noises in their direction. Maybe their board got tired of losing money on every sale. Maybe Barnes and Noble sent them a letter saying that if they didn't stop predatory pricing that they'd file a complaint with the DOJ. The reason doesn't matter.
So what's your explanation for Amazon just happening to sell an entire product line at below their cost and then stopping the practice after it is clear that the DOJ is snooping around the industry? It will be interesting to see your explanation for the prices going up.
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.
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.
It might be a problem if it was just kindle owners but anyone with the kindle app can benefit regardless of hardware and platform.
Amazon's business model is about driving volume to create a business without competitors. Their logistics infrastructure is impressive to say the least, and this is made possible by creating huge volumes of sales. Prime builds loyalty, and Amazon is willing to lose money on loyal customers in the short term if it helps them create the base for long-term domination. I believe the $11 figure was from 3 years ago; I would expect it is less now.
If you didn't take the long-term perspective on it, why would they be trading with a 3 digit multiplier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo told AppleInsider last year that Amazon was working on a 10.1-inch Kindle tablet codenamed "Coyote" alongside development of an 8.9-inch tablet. However, suppliers were believed to have experienced difficulty with Amazon's requirements for the 8.9-inch device.
I do hope "Amazon's requirements" mean more ambitious hardware, addressing the few concerns that the smaller Kindle Fire raised (placement of on-off switch, small storage). That way they could sell it worldwide, instead of US only, and make a decent profit out of it.