Don't view Amazon's strategy as being focussed on Apple. The race for #2 in tablets is still open. Amazon is the only player that has ecosystem in place. So a credible offering from Amazon is enough to make them #2.
Maybe the Fire sucks now, but at some point even the cheap components will be more than good enough for what people want to do with the Fire. Amazon has to sustain its model till then, and build up critical mass.
Sometimes this forum has a mentality of looking at everything from a stance of what impact it will have on Apple. There is a world outside Apple as well. Amazon has more than a decent chance of winning the battle in that world.
That being said, I think we will soon see Apple lowering its margins and making a serious bid for even more marketshare - at least in some areas. Tim Cook being an operational genius indicates that. And Apple has a lot of history where they know how painful it can get once you lose the market share battle.
There are product areas where you can be a Louis Vuitton and do very well with low market share. But technology is entirely about network effects. Low marketshare does not work at all, even if you are massively profitable. This is the reason why I feel Tim Cook is the best CEO for Apple today - better than even Steve Jobs!
Sometimes this forum has a mentality of looking at everything from a stance of what impact it will have on Apple. There is a world outside Apple as well. Amazon has more than a decent chance of winning the battle in that world
I don't think that's the case at all. The stories typically get presented that way before they even get to AI simply because Apple does have a dominate mindshare. It's usually about an iPod-killer, iPhone-killer, iPad-killer, etc. These are terms that people on this site tend to laugh at since it has historically meant the product will fail miserably.
There is likely a place for razor-thin or below cost tablets and if anyone here doesn't see it then they just the bargain PCs that come loaded with crapware to see the possibility. That said, that doesn't mean it will happen that way with the bargain PCs taking up th majority of consumer PC sales. We can look to the PMP market to see that Apple dominated because the object type and their efficiency made it difficult for anyone to compete even on the low end. Sure, there are some on the fringe but that's not the same thing.
PS: it's actually the iPod model that makes me think a smaller iPad (or large iPod Touch) are possibilities, but that's for another discussion.
In my defense I did qualify my statement and have never stated it wasn't possible. My stance is and always has been that it's simply not as advantageous as the cheaper iPods and iPod Touch from the iPhone for which it gets compared because a new display size requires a new UI, SDK, and app store, which is far beyond the effort the others.
I have always seen a business model for it if they can turn a healthy profit without hurting their 10" iPad sales and/or hurting their iPad brand in the process. It's the latter that makes me think a larger iPod Touch might make more sense.
Amazon is expected to release a new 7-inch Kindle Fire with a higher resolution screen for $199, which would push the current model to an even lower price of $149
...
That could prompt Amazon to sell another 7-inch model with similar specifications to the existing Kindle Fire, including an identical screen resolution of 1,024 by 600, at a price of $149. The new, less expensive Kindle Fire
So which is it?
They will drop the price of the current model and continue to sell it?
Or they will make a new, different model, identical to the current model and sell it for less than the current model (which will go away)?
Don't give Apple too much credit here. It's unlikely they invented those displays. They may have specified they wanted in displays by providing specifications and manufacturers responded with what they can do at what price, or the opposite, manufacturers said they can make these kinds of displays at a certain price and Apple snapped them up. Apple may be leveraging their purchasing power and may be the only company that can order enough of these units that everyone in the supply chain can make a little bit of money. As soon as the manufacturers get the process going and are able to mass produce them at a cheaper cost, you'll see more and more machines with similar high-density displays. In this aspect, Apple is in a way an industry parts bin re-packager, but they are the ones that push the latest technology forward because they have the money and the guts to do so.
Actually with it's money, Apple sends it's top end engineers to work with the suppliers, across almost the entire supply line. I think it would be hard to find a part that did not have significant direct Apple engineering on it despite where it may be produced or assembled. Sure the subs provide the entirety of the grunt work, but Apple is famous for telling other industries what is possible NOW and at what price point because Apple hired from the best engineers in those other industries. Then it becomes a matter of getting the supplier to buy into the program and jointly engineering the final result at the lowest possible cost manufacturing process. And yes it helps to buy several years production capacity up front.
I guess that makes your assessment pretty hollow, because there are few other manufacturers that spend that kind of time with the subs. Just because nearly everyone else does what you said does not make it the universal business plan of action.
So Apple engineers spend a lot of time visiting with Samsung, sharing ideas for improving production, increasing yields and cutting costs? I've no doubt they appreciate Apple's assistance.
So Apple engineers spend a lot of time visiting with Samsung, sharing ideas for improving production, increasing yields and cutting costs? I've no doubt they appreciate Apple's assistance.
I'm sure they do. The old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works for the common enemy, cost, too. Anything where Samsung and Apple can benefit from each other they'd have to be insane not to pursue.
So Apple engineers spend a lot of time visiting with Samsung, sharing ideas for improving production, increasing yields and cutting costs? I've no doubt they appreciate Apple's assistance.
How the hell do you think the A4 and A5 SoCs were developed? A4 essentially started life as an ARM-based Samsung part and Apple reengineered it for exactly their own purposes. One of the first shipping 3D RAM arrays attached to it. A5 was even more customized. I'm sure Samsung's semiconductor company is trying like hell to convince Apple to stay with them despite the consumer electronics company's follies.
Why would I eat crow? I've no idea what you're going on about since we're both saying essentially the same thing.
Of course Apple assisted Samsung and I'm very certain that Samsung appreciates the assistance in expanding their own business. I just hadn't thought much about how odd it was for Apple to give Samsung so much help until you brought it up.
Nice turn of face off a snarky post that it is obvious you were using as a sarcastic retort. You cannot run away from your long term reputation and posting pattern.
Nice turn of face off a snarky post that it is obvious you were using as a sarcastic retort. You cannot run away from your long term reputation and posting pattern.
You got it exactly right. It was meant as somewhat sarcastic, Apple assisting Samsung in creating products and methods to mimic their own. You don't see anything even the tiniest bit awkward about that? The facts is what them facts is. I'm not running away from it at all.
You got it exactly right. It was meant as somewhat sarcastic, Apple assisting Samsung in creating products and methods to mimic their own. You don't see anything even the tiniest bit awkward about that? The facts is what them facts is. I'm not running away from it at all.
No, I don't see anything awkward about it at all. Business makes for the strangest bedfellows.
With the really whacky conglomerate organization of Samsung the company that is in the legal fight with Apple is a different one with the same name as the silicon provider. I'm sure Apple is making preparations to cut the Samsung cord, or at least position themselves to legitimately threaten Samsung with HUGE loss of profits should they do so, but not before they are positive that the Plan B preparations has graduated to Plan A abilities. There are also some reported up front investments and production agreements that need to run their course before those tactics become legally viable.
Comments
Maybe the Fire sucks now, but at some point even the cheap components will be more than good enough for what people want to do with the Fire. Amazon has to sustain its model till then, and build up critical mass.
Sometimes this forum has a mentality of looking at everything from a stance of what impact it will have on Apple. There is a world outside Apple as well. Amazon has more than a decent chance of winning the battle in that world.
That being said, I think we will soon see Apple lowering its margins and making a serious bid for even more marketshare - at least in some areas. Tim Cook being an operational genius indicates that. And Apple has a lot of history where they know how painful it can get once you lose the market share battle.
There are product areas where you can be a Louis Vuitton and do very well with low market share. But technology is entirely about network effects. Low marketshare does not work at all, even if you are massively profitable. This is the reason why I feel Tim Cook is the best CEO for Apple today - better than even Steve Jobs!
I don't think that's the case at all. The stories typically get presented that way before they even get to AI simply because Apple does have a dominate mindshare. It's usually about an iPod-killer, iPhone-killer, iPad-killer, etc. These are terms that people on this site tend to laugh at since it has historically meant the product will fail miserably.
There is likely a place for razor-thin or below cost tablets and if anyone here doesn't see it then they just the bargain PCs that come loaded with crapware to see the possibility. That said, that doesn't mean it will happen that way with the bargain PCs taking up th majority of consumer PC sales. We can look to the PMP market to see that Apple dominated because the object type and their efficiency made it difficult for anyone to compete even on the low end. Sure, there are some on the fringe but that's not the same thing.
PS: it's actually the iPod model that makes me think a smaller iPad (or large iPod Touch) are possibilities, but that's for another discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: it's actually the iPod model that makes me think a smaller iPad (or large iPod Touch) are possibilities, but that's for another discussion.
Did you really just say. . .
smaller iPad!!??
In my defense I did qualify my statement and have never stated it wasn't possible. My stance is and always has been that it's simply not as advantageous as the cheaper iPods and iPod Touch from the iPhone for which it gets compared because a new display size requires a new UI, SDK, and app store, which is far beyond the effort the others.
I have always seen a business model for it if they can turn a healthy profit without hurting their 10" iPad sales and/or hurting their iPad brand in the process. It's the latter that makes me think a larger iPod Touch might make more sense.
They will drop the price of the current model and continue to sell it?
Or they will make a new, different model, identical to the current model and sell it for less than the current model (which will go away)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcdinkins
They were already losing 20 bucks per kindle fire sold already. This can't be good for their bottom line.
That always reminds me of the old joke:
"I know a guy who sells suite below cost."
"Below cost? How does he make money?"
"He sells a lot of suits."
To Amazon's bottom line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG
Don't give Apple too much credit here. It's unlikely they invented those displays. They may have specified they wanted in displays by providing specifications and manufacturers responded with what they can do at what price, or the opposite, manufacturers said they can make these kinds of displays at a certain price and Apple snapped them up. Apple may be leveraging their purchasing power and may be the only company that can order enough of these units that everyone in the supply chain can make a little bit of money. As soon as the manufacturers get the process going and are able to mass produce them at a cheaper cost, you'll see more and more machines with similar high-density displays. In this aspect, Apple is in a way an industry parts bin re-packager, but they are the ones that push the latest technology forward because they have the money and the guts to do so.
Actually with it's money, Apple sends it's top end engineers to work with the suppliers, across almost the entire supply line. I think it would be hard to find a part that did not have significant direct Apple engineering on it despite where it may be produced or assembled. Sure the subs provide the entirety of the grunt work, but Apple is famous for telling other industries what is possible NOW and at what price point because Apple hired from the best engineers in those other industries. Then it becomes a matter of getting the supplier to buy into the program and jointly engineering the final result at the lowest possible cost manufacturing process. And yes it helps to buy several years production capacity up front.
I guess that makes your assessment pretty hollow, because there are few other manufacturers that spend that kind of time with the subs. Just because nearly everyone else does what you said does not make it the universal business plan of action.
So Apple engineers spend a lot of time visiting with Samsung, sharing ideas for improving production, increasing yields and cutting costs? I've no doubt they appreciate Apple's assistance.
I'm sure they do. The old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works for the common enemy, cost, too. Anything where Samsung and Apple can benefit from each other they'd have to be insane not to pursue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So Apple engineers spend a lot of time visiting with Samsung, sharing ideas for improving production, increasing yields and cutting costs? I've no doubt they appreciate Apple's assistance.
How the hell do you think the A4 and A5 SoCs were developed? A4 essentially started life as an ARM-based Samsung part and Apple reengineered it for exactly their own purposes. One of the first shipping 3D RAM arrays attached to it. A5 was even more customized. I'm sure Samsung's semiconductor company is trying like hell to convince Apple to stay with them despite the consumer electronics company's follies.
Are you done eating that crow yet?
Why would I eat crow? I've no idea what you're going on about since we're both saying essentially the same thing.
Of course Apple assisted Samsung and I'm very certain that Samsung appreciates the assistance in expanding their own business. I just hadn't thought much about how odd it was for Apple to give Samsung so much help until you brought it up.
Nice turn of face off a snarky post that it is obvious you were using as a sarcastic retort. You cannot run away from your long term reputation and posting pattern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Nice turn of face off a snarky post that it is obvious you were using as a sarcastic retort. You cannot run away from your long term reputation and posting pattern.
You got it exactly right. It was meant as somewhat sarcastic, Apple assisting Samsung in creating products and methods to mimic their own. You don't see anything even the tiniest bit awkward about that? The facts is what them facts is. I'm not running away from it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You got it exactly right. It was meant as somewhat sarcastic, Apple assisting Samsung in creating products and methods to mimic their own. You don't see anything even the tiniest bit awkward about that? The facts is what them facts is. I'm not running away from it at all.
No, I don't see anything awkward about it at all. Business makes for the strangest bedfellows.
With the really whacky conglomerate organization of Samsung the company that is in the legal fight with Apple is a different one with the same name as the silicon provider. I'm sure Apple is making preparations to cut the Samsung cord, or at least position themselves to legitimately threaten Samsung with HUGE loss of profits should they do so, but not before they are positive that the Plan B preparations has graduated to Plan A abilities. There are also some reported up front investments and production agreements that need to run their course before those tactics become legally viable.