Since the various carriers are Samsung's customers and not the end user are the preorder numbers being reported from the various carrier's or from the end user? Sold to a carrier for inventory is very different from sold to the end user, End users represent an immediate sale yet carrier inventory could take months to get sold to an end user, if ever. That information would be important to truly gauge how well it is doing.
Updated: The Reuters article cited says the orders are from carriers but AI's article is worded to make it seem like the orders are from end users. Another poorly written AI article.
Yes, we all know there are a kazillion boxes stored somewhere waiting for a buyer.
The evidence is quite clear. Amazon ... publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?
It's a myph. Amazon surely making money on each Kindle Fire. Yes, a tablet could cost less then $199 to manufacture. Best Buy, which is not exactly a discout store, sells for instance a doezen of tablets in $99-189 range:
Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">publicly admits </span>
selling a tablet <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">at below their cost?</span>
No one ever said any such thing.
We were talking about Amazon's selling of eBooks for under cost.
Clearly, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet arena.
Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?
Thanks for your input, but you should pay more attention to the thread: jragosta's lie this time was that Amazon publicly declared selling ebooks below cost, not tablets. He's not going to support his fabrication with any evidence, so don't bother with him.
Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.
Thanks for your input, but you should pay more attention to the thread: jragosta's lie this time was that Amazon publicly declared selling ebooks below cost, not tablets. He's not going to support his fabrication with any evidence, so don't bother with him.
Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100131/2223217982.shtml
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).
Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.
You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).
Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect: http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html
Unfortunately being sloppy isn't the way to regain your credibility, jragosta. Check your claim in the post quoted below. Check again the links you provided. Nowhere do you show any evidence that Amazon publicly admitted that they were selling ebooks below cost.
To be clear, nobody denies that Amazon sells some ebooks as loss leaders, and I have personally said so previously. However, from reportedly selling some ebooks as loss leaders, to publicly admitting to predatory pricing is a long way.
You seem to be convinced that people are purposefully distorting the truth in pursuit of some sinister agenda, while in fact you don't bother to pay attention to the actual claims and go around the threads looking for arguments to pick. This isn't very constructive and more suited for a troll, don't you think?
As to backing the up the possibility that Amazon isn't losing on the Kindle, it's in the post that I quoted when I said so -- showing a similar tablet being sold for half the price of the Kindle Fire, and most likely for profit. I have always backed up my claims, even in cases when no evidence should be necessary to a person of average intelligence. So don't lie that I never back any of my claims, doing so is low and only reflects poorly on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The evidence is quite clear. Amazon had a near monopoly at 80% market share.
They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).
"If agency pricing is limited or overturned, it would allow Amazon to engage in predatory pricing by selling ebooks at below cost in an effort to drive current and future competitors out of the market."
"Before Apple entered into an "agency model" agreement with the major publishing houses, Amazon was routinely selling books below cost. Because Amazon had already locked-up a significant portion of the ebook market, it was next to impossible for anyone else to compete, unless they too could afford to (or wanted to) take a loss on every book they sold."
There's lots more if you dig your head out of your rear and actually look for it.
You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).
Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect:
To be clear, nobody denies that Amazon sells some ebooks as loss leaders, and I have personally said so previously. However, from reportedly selling some ebooks as loss leaders, to publicly admitting to predatory pricing is a long way.
So you admit that Amazon sells below cost and it's well documented. So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it? If it's an apparent fact that everyone knows, then Amazon's admission isn't necessary.
As for predatory pricing, I've already given you the links. With Amazon having a dominant market share, pricing below cost is de facto predatory pricing.
I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.
... So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it?...
...I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.
If Amazon publicly admit to being guilty, that means that they likely are. If a bunch of blogs insinuate so, that doesn't mean
anything. Huge difference.
So instead of backing up your initial outlandish statement, you back away from it -- this is just one example.
Some of these claims of yours were challenged in the threads but you didn't supply evidence to support them. Sometimes you did provide links, but they were irrelevant to the point -- much like you've demonstrated in this thread in posts #51 and #72.
So there you go, and that should be about enough of off-topic nonsense in this thread.
Some of these claims of yours were challenged in the threads but you didn't supply evidence to support them. Sometimes you did provide links, but they were irrelevant to the point -- much like you've demonstrated in this thread in posts #51 and #72.
So there you go, and that should be about enough of off-topic nonsense in this thread.
So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?
So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?
I didn't claim claim Amazon sells the Kindle for profit, but that such a possibility exists, as suggested by the $100 Coby tablet. Do you understand the difference between possibility and certainty? Either no, or you present yet another straw-man argument. A hint: quote the relevant post when you insist that someone claimed something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
...
Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.
For the record, you did not back up your position in this thread, you backed away from it in your previous post, after several attempts to muddle up the conversation with semi-relevant links.
At this point, whom are you trying to fool, other than yourself?
It's a good point. But Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. are all on equal footing when it comes to Android (although Moto will soon have an inside track). Yet, Samsung has assumed a gargantuan lead. So I don't think it's Android that's giving Samsung the advantage to go head to head with Apple. I suspect Samsung would be where it is now if Windows Mobile 7/8 had come out earlier and had assumed the place where Android is today.
Elephant in the room.
Why is no one talking about Microsoft as a player? I don't think it's anything about timing of a new version of Windows Mobile. Nokia's adoption of Windows Mobile is widely seen as akin to queueing for the last lifeboat on the Titanic.
This is a huge change in the industry. A whole new sector is opening up in a big way, and the biggest player in the old mass market is nowhere in sight. We're arguing about whether it's a fight between Apple and Samsung or Apple and Google.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Well, in that case Microsoft and Samsung would be equal competitors to Apple.
Hardware giant... absolutely... but I don't believe for a minute that Samsung could get the software right without a partner.
I agree that Samsung (not to mention others) would not be where they are without Android.
And, without Android, Apple would have a total monopoly. And I bet the iPhone and iOS would not be where they are today without the competition.
So I have to retreat and accept your POV.
jragosta has his butt up his ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Since the various carriers are Samsung's customers and not the end user are the preorder numbers being reported from the various carrier's or from the end user? Sold to a carrier for inventory is very different from sold to the end user, End users represent an immediate sale yet carrier inventory could take months to get sold to an end user, if ever. That information would be important to truly gauge how well it is doing.
Updated: The Reuters article cited says the orders are from carriers but AI's article is worded to make it seem like the orders are from end users. Another poorly written AI article.
Yes, we all know there are a kazillion boxes stored somewhere waiting for a buyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed
jragosta has his butt up his ass.
Not that I care ... but would that be an example of buttrassing?
Both Amazon and the publisher stated that Amazon was selling below cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Not that I care ... but would that be an example of buttrassing?
Apparently that's the only way for him to buttress his canards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The evidence is quite clear. Amazon ... publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?
It's a myph. Amazon surely making money on each Kindle Fire. Yes, a tablet could cost less then $199 to manufacture. Best Buy, which is not exactly a discout store, sells for instance a doezen of tablets in $99-189 range:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=-1473800139734267686&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=android+tablet&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=+currentprice+skuid&qp=q616e64726f6964207461626c6574~~cabcat0500000##7##5y~~cpcmcat209000050006##3##58~~ncpcmcat209000050008##0##1e&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&iht=n
Coby - Kyros Tablet with 4GB Memory and Capacitive Touch Screen
$99, free shipping from Best Buy
Unlike the Kindle Fire it features:
Built-in front-facing VGA webcam
Digital media card reader - microSD for up to 32GB
HDMI output
9 million pre-order to end-users? Or to carriers?
No one ever said any such thing.
We were talking about Amazon's selling of eBooks for under cost.
Clearly, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet arena.
I can't wait for the next Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S V. That thing is going to be awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
New spelling:
4.8" = humongously huge
7.8" = nail-file-requiredly small
Take iPad assets and scale them to the Galaxy S III screen. Or, file something else of yours down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99
Where is the "evidence"? Would you provide a link that Amazon publicly admits selling a tablet at below their cost?
Thanks for your input, but you should pay more attention to the thread: jragosta's lie this time was that Amazon publicly declared selling ebooks below cost, not tablets. He's not going to support his fabrication with any evidence, so don't bother with him.
Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.
Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100131/2223217982.shtml
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).
Or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/amazon-ebooks-kdp-select_b_1139260.html
"If agency pricing is limited or overturned, it would allow Amazon to engage in predatory pricing by selling ebooks at below cost in an effort to drive current and future competitors out of the market."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-16/tech/31347874_1_ebook-prices-lower-prices-to
"The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point."
http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/12/11163026-publishers-youve-just-been-sued-by-the-department-of-justice-what-will-you-do-next
"Before Apple entered into an "agency model" agreement with the major publishing houses, Amazon was routinely selling books below cost. Because Amazon had already locked-up a significant portion of the ebook market, it was next to impossible for anyone else to compete, unless they too could afford to (or wanted to) take a loss on every book they sold."
There's lots more if you dig your head out of your rear and actually look for it.
You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).
Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect:
http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
I can't wait for the next Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S V. That thing is going to be awesome.
Don't you mean Galaxy S VI? ????
Unfortunately being sloppy isn't the way to regain your credibility, jragosta. Check your claim in the post quoted below. Check again the links you provided. Nowhere do you show any evidence that Amazon publicly admitted that they were selling ebooks below cost.
To be clear, nobody denies that Amazon sells some ebooks as loss leaders, and I have personally said so previously. However, from reportedly selling some ebooks as loss leaders, to publicly admitting to predatory pricing is a long way.
You seem to be convinced that people are purposefully distorting the truth in pursuit of some sinister agenda, while in fact you don't bother to pay attention to the actual claims and go around the threads looking for arguments to pick. This isn't very constructive and more suited for a troll, don't you think?
As to backing the up the possibility that Amazon isn't losing on the Kindle, it's in the post that I quoted when I said so -- showing a similar tablet being sold for half the price of the Kindle Fire, and most likely for profit. I have always backed up my claims, even in cases when no evidence should be necessary to a person of average intelligence. So don't lie that I never back any of my claims, doing so is low and only reflects poorly on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The evidence is quite clear. Amazon had a near monopoly at 80% market share.
They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny - since you're the one who never backs up a thing you say.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100131/2223217982.shtml
NYT says Amazon is selling eBooks below cost. It cites some evidence that Amazon is paying around $15 for many books - and since Amazon's sale price is $9.99, they're losing money (I assume that you can do the math).
Or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/amazon-ebooks-kdp-select_b_1139260.html
"If agency pricing is limited or overturned, it would allow Amazon to engage in predatory pricing by selling ebooks at below cost in an effort to drive current and future competitors out of the market."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-16/tech/31347874_1_ebook-prices-lower-prices-to
"The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point."
http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/12/11163026-publishers-youve-just-been-sued-by-the-department-of-justice-what-will-you-do-next
"Before Apple entered into an "agency model" agreement with the major publishing houses, Amazon was routinely selling books below cost. Because Amazon had already locked-up a significant portion of the ebook market, it was next to impossible for anyone else to compete, unless they too could afford to (or wanted to) take a loss on every book they sold."
There's lots more if you dig your head out of your rear and actually look for it.
You find a lot of things to be feasible, but you've never backed any of them up. There have been lots of reports that Amazon is losing money on each Kindle sold. Where's your evidence saying otherwise? (It is, of course, rather humorous that you'd pull that stunt in the same post where you accuse me of never supporting things with evidence).
Oh, and btw, for those arguing that the agency model leads to higher prices, there's at least one publisher whose experience suggests otherwise. They have found that added competition DOES reduce consumer prices in the end, just as you'd expect:
http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book.html
So you admit that Amazon sells below cost and it's well documented. So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it? If it's an apparent fact that everyone knows, then Amazon's admission isn't necessary.
As for predatory pricing, I've already given you the links. With Amazon having a dominant market share, pricing below cost is de facto predatory pricing.
I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
... So why does it matter whether Amazon admitted it?...
...I'm still, however, waiting for you to back up your claims. You know, the claims you made without evidence in the same post where you claimed that I never provide any evidence.
If Amazon publicly admit to being guilty, that means that they likely are. If a bunch of blogs insinuate so, that doesn't mean
anything. Huge difference.
So instead of backing up your initial outlandish statement, you back away from it -- this is just one example.
Then, only in the past week or so, you insinuated that people attack Apple for not launching a frivolous lawsuit; suggested that Apple has spent lots of time and money on research of dubious value and in the same thread made up that Apple would give away its SIM design for free but continue to pay royalties for others' SIM patents; insinuated that few people install new Android software (maybe you were confusing software with OS), and lied about AT&T's subsidy of the Samsung Galaxy Note.
Some of these claims of yours were challenged in the threads but you didn't supply evidence to support them. Sometimes you did provide links, but they were irrelevant to the point -- much like you've demonstrated in this thread in posts #51 and #72.
So there you go, and that should be about enough of off-topic nonsense in this thread.
So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So you ignore all the times I have backed up my position (like this one) and continue to make accusations - without any evidence to support them. So where is the evidence to back up your claim that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a profit? Or where is the evidence to back up ANY of your claims, for that matter?
I didn't claim claim Amazon sells the Kindle for profit, but that such a possibility exists, as suggested by the $100 Coby tablet. Do you understand the difference between possibility and certainty? Either no, or you present yet another straw-man argument. A hint: quote the relevant post when you insist that someone claimed something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
...
Other than that, I also find it feasible that Amazon may be making a small profit out of the Kindle Fire. I still would like them to roll out the next version internationally.
For the record, you did not back up your position in this thread, you backed away from it in your previous post, after several attempts to muddle up the conversation with semi-relevant links.
At this point, whom are you trying to fool, other than yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
It's a good point. But Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. are all on equal footing when it comes to Android (although Moto will soon have an inside track). Yet, Samsung has assumed a gargantuan lead. So I don't think it's Android that's giving Samsung the advantage to go head to head with Apple. I suspect Samsung would be where it is now if Windows Mobile 7/8 had come out earlier and had assumed the place where Android is today.
Elephant in the room.
Why is no one talking about Microsoft as a player? I don't think it's anything about timing of a new version of Windows Mobile. Nokia's adoption of Windows Mobile is widely seen as akin to queueing for the last lifeboat on the Titanic.
This is a huge change in the industry. A whole new sector is opening up in a big way, and the biggest player in the old mass market is nowhere in sight. We're arguing about whether it's a fight between Apple and Samsung or Apple and Google.