Why do we assume we know better than Jeff Bezos, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the internet era? Micro-analyze P/E, profit margins all you want, he is one of the few leaders who has reinvented his company repeatedly. Why do we assume he doesn't know what he is doing? And why are we dissing his company based on rumors?
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
Why do we assume we know better than Jeff Bezos, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the internet era? Micro-analyze P/E, profit margins all you want, he is one of the few leaders who has reinvented his company repeatedly. Why do we assume he doesn't know what he is doing? And why are we dissing his company based on rumors?
If you want to take that position, why do you think you know better than Apple - probably THE most successful company of recent years? By your logic, you should immediately stop criticizing Apple.
In any event, your logic really doesn't fly. Amazon has created a powerful business model and has convinced investors that it's worth almost 200 times earnings, but hasn't been as successful in other areas. For example, Fire was a pretty solid disappointment. I can't think of anything other than retail where Amazon has been successful. And where do you come up with the idea that he reinvented his company repeatedly? They're using the same business model that they've always used with only very minor changes.
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
The "Apple fanboys" predicted the Kindle Fire Fail even before it hit the shelves. You might want to start paying attention to them. Seems like a pretty prescient bunch.
There is certainly a case to be made for Apple releasing a smaller tablet.
1) They have an iPod-like domination of an entire market that could broken if they other vendors can make 7" tablets popular.
2) They shell game used to locate a 7.85" display size that could still use original iPhone's 163 PPI display investments could reduce costs thus making it feasible to play the low cost tablet game whilst turning a healthy profit.
3) If Apple can lose out to a 7" tablet market to Android it will create a market for tablet apps on Android which would make it harder to fend off larger tablets or create a smaller tablet once an ecosystem is established.
There is certainly a case to be made for Apple releasing a smaller tablet.
1) They have an iPod-like domination of an entire market that could broken if they other vendors can make 7" tablets popular.
2) They shell game used to locate a 7.85" display size that could still use original iPhone's 163 PPI display investments could reduce costs thus making it feasible to play the low cost tablet game whilst turning a healthy profit.
3) If Apple can lose out to a 7" tablet market to Android it will create a market for tablet apps on Android which would make it harder to fend off larger tablets or create a smaller tablet once an ecosystem is established.
It's all looking very feasible to me.
We saw the same four years ago, but with "2-inch" and "iPhone nano" instead. *shrug*
I'm not following. "but with 2" and iPhone nano instead"?
How there were many valid arguments for a smaller-screened iPhone under a different name. I mention this, once again, not because of the features of the devices in question, but as an example of Apple ignoring what an assumed-large subsection of the market thought they wanted.
How there were many valid arguments for a smaller-screened iPhone under a different name. I mention this, once again, not because of the features of the devices in question, but as an example of Apple ignoring what an assumed-large subsection of the market thought they wanted.
The same argument applies. Apple apparently didn't think a simpler phone was worth their while but that doesn't mean that there will never be a case where a simpler device will never be worth their while. As previously stated they might actually make a healthy profit because they can use tech from soon-to-be retired iPhone manufacturing. They've also never had handset or smartphone monopoly but they had one with PMPs where they did make a series of different models.
If I were you I wouldn't rule it out even if your position is that it's unlikely.
Because the past 3 years have shown that outside of retail, he really doesn't.
I wholeheartedly disagree. AWS was a pioneer in cloud computing and remains a top player in this area. If you think Amazon is all about retail, I believe you are missing something big.
If you want to take that position, why do you think you know better than Apple - probably THE most successful company of recent years? By your logic, you should immediately stop criticizing Apple.
In any event, your logic really doesn't fly. Amazon has created a powerful business model and has convinced investors that it's worth almost 200 times earnings, but hasn't been as successful in other areas. For example, Fire was a pretty solid disappointment. I can't think of anything other than retail where Amazon has been successful. And where do you come up with the idea that he reinvented his company repeatedly? They're using the same business model that they've always used with only very minor changes.
WTF?
When have I consistently stated that Apple would not succeed at something?
I occasionally would disagree with Apple practices but mostly praise their approach and products.
Look at the comments here - so many people suggesting Amazon doesn't have a chance, doesn't know what it is doing, doesn't know how to do anything except lose money, etc., etc. Have I ever suggested Apple doesn't stand a chance in anything? WTF are you talking about?
As for saying that Amazon has not succeeded at anything other than retail and has never reinvented itself, that's like saying Apple has not succeeded at anything other than designing computers and related electronic products.
AWS, by the way, is pretty successful. Is that retail? Fire was a dud, but the Kindle series overall has not been such. That's not retail either, BTW. You're cherry-picking to make your case.
No question, Apple is a far far more profitable company. But Amazon has diversified much more. That's not a slight on Apple but you will probably take it as much and come up with more baseless accusations.
I understand some of you have a mission here to make everything non-Apple sound like crap so that your Apple stock will go up. But don't come up with crap like "why do you think you know better than Apple" when I have never made any statement suggesting I do. You ought to make a retraction.
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
In my book, "vicious attacks" usually involve casualties, blood, and persistent debilitating results… Why go all "sensational" with the rhetoric here? Following a bit too much tabloid news these days? "Daring to compete", and "viciously attack", and "arch-nemesis"… "double damned"… wow. Quite a picture you have of these wild, terrorista "fanboys". Do we really have to go there? It's fairly spurious in the end...
Me, I'm just a happy Mac/OSX/iOS (iPhone/iPad) user… is that alright with you?
I occasionally have opinions about competing products and companies, to which I say, INNOVATE AND COMPETE! PLEASE! Just don't 'slavishly copy' or steal ideas… otherwise, go for it, and I'll happily opine...
I think Bezos has masterfully run Amazon over the past 15 years or so. I've been both a customer and investor from time to time. I don't think the Fire will take any markets by storm like the iPad has, but it will massage revenue streams for Amazon, help to keep them relevant, and will keep their fingers in more pies… (their 'diverse product portfolio' is what helps to keep them alive).
I'm not an investor now. I prefer companies with a P/E below 25, and those are getting much harder to find. And, like Apple, when you do find them they're less affordable.
Wait… do I need to do some rabid fanboy stuff too? OK here….. iPad is the KING, Apple rules! M$ Surface and Google Android are just slaves to Apple's lead….
There is certainly a case to be made for Apple releasing a smaller tablet.
1) They have an iPod-like domination of an entire market that could broken if they other vendors can make 7" tablets popular.
2) They shell game used to locate a 7.85" display size that could still use original iPhone's 163 PPI display investments could reduce costs thus making it feasible to play the low cost tablet game whilst turning a healthy profit.
3) If Apple can lose out to a 7" tablet market to Android it will create a market for tablet apps on Android which would make it harder to fend off larger tablets or create a smaller tablet once an ecosystem is established.
It's all looking very feasible to me.
I agree. A smaller iPad would be an entry level device that requires no contract. Once in the ecosystem, you sell these same customers an iPhone, a full sized iPad, and even perhaps a Mac when the time comes that they can afford such devices. Think teenagers and young adults.
Related, and something I've not seen mentioned here yet: Like Apple, Amazon has also purchased their own 3D mapping company, UpNext. They can currently be found in the AppStore, tho I wonder how long that will last. After all, Face.com pulled their app from the appStore, even discontinuing developers API support, after Facebook acquired them. That despite Face.com assurances to the contrary.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Why do we assume we know better than Jeff Bezos, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the internet era? Micro-analyze P/E, profit margins all you want, he is one of the few leaders who has reinvented his company repeatedly. Why do we assume he doesn't know what he is doing? And why are we dissing his company based on rumors?
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
If you want to take that position, why do you think you know better than Apple - probably THE most successful company of recent years? By your logic, you should immediately stop criticizing Apple.
In any event, your logic really doesn't fly. Amazon has created a powerful business model and has convinced investors that it's worth almost 200 times earnings, but hasn't been as successful in other areas. For example, Fire was a pretty solid disappointment. I can't think of anything other than retail where Amazon has been successful. And where do you come up with the idea that he reinvented his company repeatedly? They're using the same business model that they've always used with only very minor changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/05/demand_for_kindle_fire_collapses_as_apples_ipad_continues_to_dominate.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57453699-93/ipad-still-dominates-tablet-traffic-but-nook-surges-past-kindle-fire/
The "Apple fanboys" predicted the Kindle Fire Fail even before it hit the shelves. You might want to start paying attention to them. Seems like a pretty prescient bunch.
meh still getting a nexus 7 unless they announce the ipad7" soon
Enjoy your Nexus 7.
There is certainly a case to be made for Apple releasing a smaller tablet.
2) They shell game used to locate a 7.85" display size that could still use original iPhone's 163 PPI display investments could reduce costs thus making it feasible to play the low cost tablet game whilst turning a healthy profit.
3) If Apple can lose out to a 7" tablet market to Android it will create a market for tablet apps on Android which would make it harder to fend off larger tablets or create a smaller tablet once an ecosystem is established.
It's all looking very feasible to me.
We saw the same four years ago, but with "2-inch" and "iPhone nano" instead. *shrug*
I'm not following. "but with 2" and iPhone nano instead"?
How there were many valid arguments for a smaller-screened iPhone under a different name. I mention this, once again, not because of the features of the devices in question, but as an example of Apple ignoring what an assumed-large subsection of the market thought they wanted.
The same argument applies. Apple apparently didn't think a simpler phone was worth their while but that doesn't mean that there will never be a case where a simpler device will never be worth their while. As previously stated they might actually make a healthy profit because they can use tech from soon-to-be retired iPhone manufacturing. They've also never had handset or smartphone monopoly but they had one with PMPs where they did make a series of different models.
If I were you I wouldn't rule it out even if your position is that it's unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Because the past 3 years have shown that outside of retail, he really doesn't.
I wholeheartedly disagree. AWS was a pioneer in cloud computing and remains a top player in this area. If you think Amazon is all about retail, I believe you are missing something big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you want to take that position, why do you think you know better than Apple - probably THE most successful company of recent years? By your logic, you should immediately stop criticizing Apple.
In any event, your logic really doesn't fly. Amazon has created a powerful business model and has convinced investors that it's worth almost 200 times earnings, but hasn't been as successful in other areas. For example, Fire was a pretty solid disappointment. I can't think of anything other than retail where Amazon has been successful. And where do you come up with the idea that he reinvented his company repeatedly? They're using the same business model that they've always used with only very minor changes.
WTF?
When have I consistently stated that Apple would not succeed at something?
I occasionally would disagree with Apple practices but mostly praise their approach and products.
Look at the comments here - so many people suggesting Amazon doesn't have a chance, doesn't know what it is doing, doesn't know how to do anything except lose money, etc., etc. Have I ever suggested Apple doesn't stand a chance in anything? WTF are you talking about?
As for saying that Amazon has not succeeded at anything other than retail and has never reinvented itself, that's like saying Apple has not succeeded at anything other than designing computers and related electronic products.
AWS, by the way, is pretty successful. Is that retail? Fire was a dud, but the Kindle series overall has not been such. That's not retail either, BTW. You're cherry-picking to make your case.
No question, Apple is a far far more profitable company. But Amazon has diversified much more. That's not a slight on Apple but you will probably take it as much and come up with more baseless accusations.
I understand some of you have a mission here to make everything non-Apple sound like crap so that your Apple stock will go up. But don't come up with crap like "why do you think you know better than Apple" when I have never made any statement suggesting I do. You ought to make a retraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Because they're daring to compete against Apple. The fanboys don't need any other reason to viciously attack them. And worse Amazon is competing against them using an OS created by Apple's arch-nemesis Google. Which of course makes those products double damned by the Apple fanboys.
In my book, "vicious attacks" usually involve casualties, blood, and persistent debilitating results… Why go all "sensational" with the rhetoric here? Following a bit too much tabloid news these days? "Daring to compete", and "viciously attack", and "arch-nemesis"… "double damned"… wow. Quite a picture you have of these wild, terrorista "fanboys". Do we really have to go there? It's fairly spurious in the end...
Me, I'm just a happy Mac/OSX/iOS (iPhone/iPad) user… is that alright with you?
I occasionally have opinions about competing products and companies, to which I say, INNOVATE AND COMPETE! PLEASE! Just don't 'slavishly copy' or steal ideas… otherwise, go for it, and I'll happily opine...
I think Bezos has masterfully run Amazon over the past 15 years or so. I've been both a customer and investor from time to time. I don't think the Fire will take any markets by storm like the iPad has, but it will massage revenue streams for Amazon, help to keep them relevant, and will keep their fingers in more pies… (their 'diverse product portfolio' is what helps to keep them alive).
I'm not an investor now. I prefer companies with a P/E below 25, and those are getting much harder to find. And, like Apple, when you do find them they're less affordable.
Wait… do I need to do some rabid fanboy stuff too? OK here….. iPad is the KING, Apple rules! M$ Surface and Google Android are just slaves to Apple's lead….
OK, there you go… have fun with that…
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is certainly a case to be made for Apple releasing a smaller tablet.
1) They have an iPod-like domination of an entire market that could broken if they other vendors can make 7" tablets popular.
2) They shell game used to locate a 7.85" display size that could still use original iPhone's 163 PPI display investments could reduce costs thus making it feasible to play the low cost tablet game whilst turning a healthy profit.
3) If Apple can lose out to a 7" tablet market to Android it will create a market for tablet apps on Android which would make it harder to fend off larger tablets or create a smaller tablet once an ecosystem is established.
It's all looking very feasible to me.
I agree. A smaller iPad would be an entry level device that requires no contract. Once in the ecosystem, you sell these same customers an iPhone, a full sized iPad, and even perhaps a Mac when the time comes that they can afford such devices. Think teenagers and young adults.
Related, and something I've not seen mentioned here yet: Like Apple, Amazon has also purchased their own 3D mapping company, UpNext. They can currently be found in the AppStore, tho I wonder how long that will last. After all, Face.com pulled their app from the appStore, even discontinuing developers API support, after Facebook acquired them. That despite Face.com assurances to the contrary.
http://upnext.com/press.html
http://gigaom.com/2012/07/02/exclusive-amazon-buys-3d-mapping-startup-upnext/