If they're selling so many and the sales are accelerating, then how come the unit was only back-ordered for a brief 1-2 days immediately after release? It has been "in stock" ever since. They're either producing massive numbers of these things or there's something not quite right with what they're claiming. I've only run into one Kindle Fire user so far.
I'd like to know why analysts don't try to delve into Amazon's supply channels to "guesstimate" how many Kindles are being sold. In fact, since Wall Street is always asking for transparency, why don't they press Amazon to report sales of every model Kindle made. I'd say it was rather unfair that some companies are given a free pass. Shouldn't Amazon be under the same scrutiny of Wall Street that Apple is? Why should Jeff Bezos be able to tell investors something like "We sold an awful lot of Kindles." and everyone is satisfied. There really doesn't seem to be equal treatment of companies as far as sales are concerned. The media is going around claiming that the Kindle Fire is stealing sales of millions of iPads from Apple but they never say how many millions. It's just left up to investors' imaginations to imagine the worst case scenario.
They treat Apple different from everyone else. Its not FAIR!
If they're selling so many and the sales are accelerating, then how come the unit was only back-ordered for a brief 1-2 days immediately after release? It has been "in stock" ever since. They're either producing massive numbers of these things or there's something not quite right with what they're claiming. I've only run into one Kindle Fire user so far.
HP should've went with the Amazon strategy..buy market share first then raise the price. Oh wait they don't have any content for WebOS. They need to pay developers to develop for it.
For every Kindle Fire sold at $199, Amazon LOSES $50...they are following Sony's PS3 model in hopes of making the actual profit on content sales.....so, If Amazon sold 3 million units, they have lost 150 MILLION Dollars!!!!!! (GENIUS)....Not to mention, they have already predicted a loss for next year because of this model....whats even more disastrous is that all the reviewers basically said the Kindle Fire sucks as far as user experience and performance.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
I'm assuming this is just trolling, but I'll take the bait.
Processors: Desktop PC processors were dominated by the CISC based Motorolla 68K family and the Intel/AMD x86 family (which pretty much dominated the space). IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together and formed the AIM alliance which took an ISA from IBM's POWER series, combined it with some IP (memory controller I think) from Moto's line, and created the PowerPC processors, which were very nice and much lower power than x86. Apple then switched to PPC. Intel reacted by changing their core architecture and focusing more on power and reducing complexity than before, eventually making the x86 line competitive and Apple then switched over again. Consumers benefited from having the additional choices.
Processors again: AMDs Opteron chip was a very nice architecture and had a great memory system because it moved the memory controller on-die. It allowed it to jump ahead of Intel for a few months, and pushed Intel to do the same (move the MC). AMD also pushed Intel by offering its own 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 ISA at a time when Intel wanted everyone to move to the horribly blighted IA-64 architecture. In both cases consumers benefited from the additional options.
OSes: At a time when Microsoft Windows dominated desktop computing, Apple offered MacOS, which allowed consumers a very nice alternative. As a consumer, I still find this particular additional option (MacOS) very beneficial.
Maybe a better question would be: are there cases where a single company, without any viable competition for a long period, continues to relentlessly innovate and invest in new products?
I'm assuming this is just trolling, but I'll take the bait.
Processors: Desktop PC processors were dominated by the CISC based Motorolla 68K family and the Intel/AMD x86 family (which pretty much dominated the space). IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together and formed the AIM alliance which took an ISA from IBM's POWER series, combined it with some IP (memory controller I think) from Moto's line, and created the PowerPC processors, which were very nice and much lower power than x86. Apple then switched to PPC. Intel reacted by changing their core architecture and focusing more on power and reducing complexity than before, eventually making the x86 line competitive and Apple then switched over again. Consumers benefited from having the additional choices.
Processors again: AMDs Opteron chip was a very nice architecture and had a great memory system because it moved the memory controller on-die. It allowed it to jump ahead of Intel for a few months, and pushed Intel to do the same (move the MC). AMD also pushed Intel by offering its own 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 ISA at a time when Intel wanted everyone to move to the horribly blighted IA-64 architecture. In both cases consumers benefited from the additional options.
OSes: At a time when Microsoft Windows dominated desktop computing, Apple offered MacOS, which allowed consumers a very nice alternative. As a consumer, I still find this particular additional option (MacOS) very beneficial.
Maybe a better question would be: are there cases where a single company, without any viable competition for a long period, continues to relentlessly innovate and invest in new products?
Does BMW make better BMWs because Ford sells millions of Focuses? No. But they probably try a little harder to make better BMWs because of Mercedes. That's what I'd like to see held up as competition to the iPad that might make Apple up its game... Someone to Apple what BMW is to Mercedes.
"
BMW and Mercedes were a stagnating duopoly until Lexus rang the bell.
For every Kindle Fire sold at $199, Amazon LOSES $50...they are following Sony's PS3 model in hopes of making the actual profit on content sales.....so, If Amazon sold 3 million units, they have lost 150 MILLION Dollars!!!!!! (GENIUS)....Not to mention, they have already predicted a loss for next year because of this model....whats even more disastrous is that all the reviewers basically said the Kindle Fire sucks as far as user experience and performance.
That $250 manufacturing cost was the highest end estimate. It has since been debunked. the fact that you still quote that bad number shows where you are coming from.
Very likely, the Fire costs somewhere around $210 to manufacturer. Since so many around this website find the Fire has cheap build, bad screen, generally horrible hardware, etc etc etc, why would anyone believe it costs $250 to manufacturer? Fanboys are so inconsistent with their bias.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
If it was up to you, we would still be driving a black model T from Ford. Take your head out of the sand and see the light. Pick up a good college level marketing book and you will see what good competition brings. Or you can just continue to cling to ignorance.
Consumer electronics basic statistics is a ~10% return rate during the Xmas shopping season. Although I read and article in this mornings paper that reported an ~15% spot return rate this shopping season based on current flow thrus to a couple refurbishment companies that do business with WalMart and Best Buy. I think they called it the Black Friday Hangover.
If your statistics are true, then they must also be true for other consumer electronics like those from Apple. It would be awful strange if those statistics only apply to the Fire.
. Shounldn't Amazon be under the same scrutiny of Wall Street that Apple is? Why should Jeff Bezos be able to tell investors something like "We sold an awful lot of Kindles." and everyone is satisfied. There really doesn't seem to be equal treatment of companies as far as sales are concerned. The media is going around claiming that the Kindle Fire is stealing sales of millions of iPads from Apple but they never say how many millions. It's just left up to investors' imaginations to imagine the worst case scenario.
Amazon should be under a 1000% higher scrutiny than Apple: Amazon is barely profitable while Apple delivers a wild and wildly growing bottom line. Also, AMZN is priced 96 times it's earnings, while AAPL gets a piss-poor 13 P/E. That's just MORONIC. In a reasonable world I wouldn't invest a single cent in AMZN.
And then people wonder why we have cyclic market collapses like in 2008...
If your statistics are true, then they must also be true for other consumer electronics like those from Apple. It would be awful strange if those statistics only apply to the Fire.
The 10% traditional, and 15% 2011 return rate applies to bog standard consumer electronics from retailers such as Wal Mart, and Best Buy. The story said other retailers were clients to the refurbisher but didn't name them. Since Apple does not contract out it's device refurbishment this would totally exclude Apple hardware. Kindle (not specific to Fire) was mentioned as significant recognizable item in the refurb firm along with off-brand 42" LCD TVs. They also said almost all the pre Xmas returns were simple test and repackages, not returns for repair needed.
I'm sure there is some buyers remorse returns of Apple hardware, but since Apple reports returns of a percent or two year-in and year-out it is pretty safe to extrapolate that the folks that buy Apple are less likely to over-buy and then need to return in order to pay the December bills. Like 5 to 10 times less likely to return items than other retail electronics during the Xmas season.
The 10% traditional, and 15% 2011 return rate applies to bog standard consumer electronics from retailers such as Wal Mart, and Best Buy. The story said other retailers were clients to the refurbisher but didn't name them. Since Apple does not contract out it's device refurbishment this would totally exclude Apple hardware.
The newspaper article on this story included a picture of a woman inspecting an iPod for refurbishment.
Also, not trying to be picky but do you have some links to claims of 1-2% return rates being reported by Apple "year-in and year-out"? I know of the single report comparing the Galaxy Tab and the iPad from several months ago which only took into account Verizon iPad returns, along with the 1.7% that Jobs reported on the iPhone in 2010. I have apparently missed the others from other years covering Apple's product line. I wouldn't consider just one real mention of one specific product at a point in time to extrapolate to the entire model lineup as of today. If so I have no doubt that Apple would announce it loudly and proudly.
EDIT: This link would be evidence that you're perhaps mistaken. The image linked here is of a Liquidity Services employee inspecting a plainly marked Apple product before it's released back into the market.
The newspaper article on this story included a picture of a woman inspecting an iPod for refurbishment.
Also, not trying to be picky but do you have some links to claims of 1-2% return rates being reported by Apple "year-in and year-out"? I know of the single report comparing the Galaxy Tab and the iPad from several months ago which only took into account Verizon iPad returns, along with the 1.7% that Jobs reported on the iPhone in 2010. I have apparently missed the others from other years covering Apple's product line. I wouldn't consider just one real mention of one specific product at a point in time to extrapolate to the entire model lineup as of today. If so I have no doubt that Apple would announce it loudly and proudly.
EDIT: This link would be evidence that you're perhaps mistaken. The image linked here is of a Liquidity Services employee inspecting a plainly marked Apple product before it's released back into the market.
Interesting, that's the same story, but my paper didn't run that picture. I guess third party folks use their own return processors even for the Apple stuff, I thought they all went back to Apple.
The Apple 1-2% return rates have been cited in quarterly results teleconferences. They got the biggest press during the iPhone4 antenna brouhaha, and didn't even go up much then. Apple compared the spot rate on iPhone 4 to the approximately same established iPhone return rate previously. I don't know how often the rates get cited directly, but the analysts dug into Apples numbers last year because they didn't believe them and the issue completely died.
I am making the mild assumption that that is because the analysts that couldn't believe iPhone returns didn't skyrocket over previous return rates because of the death grip suddenly found they were incorrect and didn't want to advertise their own incorrectness. Is it hard fact, no. But is is reasonable extrapolation given the stakes of the involved players? I think so.
Interesting, that's the same story, but my paper didn't run that picture. I guess third party folks use their own return processors even for the Apple stuff, I thought they all went back to Apple.
The Apple 1-2% return rates have been cited in quarterly results teleconferences. They got the biggest press during the iPhone4 antenna brouhaha, and didn't even go up much then. Apple compared the spot rate on iPhone 4 to the approximately same established iPhone return rate previously. I don't know how often the rates get cited directly, but the analysts dug into Apples numbers last year because they didn't believe them and the issue completely died.
I am making the mild assumption that that is because the analysts that couldn't believe iPhone returns didn't skyrocket over previous return rates because of the death grip suddenly found they were incorrect and didn't want to advertise their own incorrectness. Is it hard fact, no. But is is reasonable extrapolation given the stakes of the involved players? I think so.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. Some others here disappear from the conversation in light of a correction or challenge.
I do think it's more likely that return rates on Apple products overall are somewhat higher than 1-2% for the same reason I mentioned earlier. If they were that low consistently and across the board Apple would proudly announce it, often and loudly.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
It's more lack of competition results in stagnant products, and competition does not always result in cheaper products or services. Equivalent mobile device plans for example have gone up in price over the past decade with significant competition there. This applies all the way down to the cheapest most basic phones. Look at a company like Adobe. On products where there aren't any fully viable alternatives, they've slowed development for years. I should reiterate slightly here. Competition forces companies to differentiate themselves. Either they find a way to improve on an existing product, or they minimize costs and cut prices. Note how intel has been adjusting their strategy as they're concerned about ARM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo
BMW and Mercedes were a stagnating duopoly until Lexus rang the bell.
That's a better example than my own, but yeah they basically just paced against each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy
For every Kindle Fire sold at $199, Amazon LOSES $50...they are following Sony's PS3 model in hopes of making the actual profit on content sales.....so, If Amazon sold 3 million units, they have lost 150 MILLION Dollars!!!!!! (GENIUS)....Not to mention, they have already predicted a loss for next year because of this model....whats even more disastrous is that all the reviewers basically said the Kindle Fire sucks as far as user experience and performance.
You're beyond troll here. If the analyst said something bad about Apple you'd dismiss it. Since they're talking about Amazon you aren't just accepting his statement, but using it to extrapolate data without any basis. I can think of many words worse than troll and analyst to describe this post.
Comments
In the 1970s-1980s there was a specialty Word Processor computer named Wang (there were several models).
I can remember a talk by Guy Kawasaki where he described the typical business computer user...
Guy said that this user sits around with his Apple in one hand and his Wang in the other...
True story!
Edit: Oops... posted to wrong thread
I'd like to know why analysts don't try to delve into Amazon's supply channels to "guesstimate" how many Kindles are being sold. In fact, since Wall Street is always asking for transparency, why don't they press Amazon to report sales of every model Kindle made. I'd say it was rather unfair that some companies are given a free pass. Shouldn't Amazon be under the same scrutiny of Wall Street that Apple is? Why should Jeff Bezos be able to tell investors something like "We sold an awful lot of Kindles." and everyone is satisfied.
They treat Apple different from everyone else. Its not FAIR!
If they're selling so many and the sales are accelerating, then how come the unit was only back-ordered for a brief 1-2 days immediately after release? It has been "in stock" ever since. They're either producing massive numbers of these things or there's something not quite right with what they're claiming. I've only run into one Kindle Fire user so far.
HP should've went with the Amazon strategy..buy market share first then raise the price. Oh wait they don't have any content for WebOS. They need to pay developers to develop for it.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
I'm assuming this is just trolling, but I'll take the bait.
Processors: Desktop PC processors were dominated by the CISC based Motorolla 68K family and the Intel/AMD x86 family (which pretty much dominated the space). IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together and formed the AIM alliance which took an ISA from IBM's POWER series, combined it with some IP (memory controller I think) from Moto's line, and created the PowerPC processors, which were very nice and much lower power than x86. Apple then switched to PPC. Intel reacted by changing their core architecture and focusing more on power and reducing complexity than before, eventually making the x86 line competitive and Apple then switched over again. Consumers benefited from having the additional choices.
Processors again: AMDs Opteron chip was a very nice architecture and had a great memory system because it moved the memory controller on-die. It allowed it to jump ahead of Intel for a few months, and pushed Intel to do the same (move the MC). AMD also pushed Intel by offering its own 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 ISA at a time when Intel wanted everyone to move to the horribly blighted IA-64 architecture. In both cases consumers benefited from the additional options.
OSes: At a time when Microsoft Windows dominated desktop computing, Apple offered MacOS, which allowed consumers a very nice alternative. As a consumer, I still find this particular additional option (MacOS) very beneficial.
Maybe a better question would be: are there cases where a single company, without any viable competition for a long period, continues to relentlessly innovate and invest in new products?
I'm assuming this is just trolling, but I'll take the bait.
Processors: Desktop PC processors were dominated by the CISC based Motorolla 68K family and the Intel/AMD x86 family (which pretty much dominated the space). IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together and formed the AIM alliance which took an ISA from IBM's POWER series, combined it with some IP (memory controller I think) from Moto's line, and created the PowerPC processors, which were very nice and much lower power than x86. Apple then switched to PPC. Intel reacted by changing their core architecture and focusing more on power and reducing complexity than before, eventually making the x86 line competitive and Apple then switched over again. Consumers benefited from having the additional choices.
Processors again: AMDs Opteron chip was a very nice architecture and had a great memory system because it moved the memory controller on-die. It allowed it to jump ahead of Intel for a few months, and pushed Intel to do the same (move the MC). AMD also pushed Intel by offering its own 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 ISA at a time when Intel wanted everyone to move to the horribly blighted IA-64 architecture. In both cases consumers benefited from the additional options.
OSes: At a time when Microsoft Windows dominated desktop computing, Apple offered MacOS, which allowed consumers a very nice alternative. As a consumer, I still find this particular additional option (MacOS) very beneficial.
Maybe a better question would be: are there cases where a single company, without any viable competition for a long period, continues to relentlessly innovate and invest in new products?
Nicely written. You should post more.
Does BMW make better BMWs because Ford sells millions of Focuses? No. But they probably try a little harder to make better BMWs because of Mercedes. That's what I'd like to see held up as competition to the iPad that might make Apple up its game... Someone to Apple what BMW is to Mercedes.
"
BMW and Mercedes were a stagnating duopoly until Lexus rang the bell.
For every Kindle Fire sold at $199, Amazon LOSES $50...they are following Sony's PS3 model in hopes of making the actual profit on content sales.....so, If Amazon sold 3 million units, they have lost 150 MILLION Dollars!!!!!! (GENIUS)....Not to mention, they have already predicted a loss for next year because of this model....whats even more disastrous is that all the reviewers basically said the Kindle Fire sucks as far as user experience and performance.
That $250 manufacturing cost was the highest end estimate. It has since been debunked. the fact that you still quote that bad number shows where you are coming from.
Very likely, the Fire costs somewhere around $210 to manufacturer. Since so many around this website find the Fire has cheap build, bad screen, generally horrible hardware, etc etc etc, why would anyone believe it costs $250 to manufacturer? Fanboys are so inconsistent with their bias.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
If it was up to you, we would still be driving a black model T from Ford. Take your head out of the sand and see the light. Pick up a good college level marketing book and you will see what good competition brings. Or you can just continue to cling to ignorance.
Consumer electronics basic statistics is a ~10% return rate during the Xmas shopping season. Although I read and article in this mornings paper that reported an ~15% spot return rate this shopping season based on current flow thrus to a couple refurbishment companies that do business with WalMart and Best Buy. I think they called it the Black Friday Hangover.
If your statistics are true, then they must also be true for other consumer electronics like those from Apple. It would be awful strange if those statistics only apply to the Fire.
. Shounldn't Amazon be under the same scrutiny of Wall Street that Apple is? Why should Jeff Bezos be able to tell investors something like "We sold an awful lot of Kindles." and everyone is satisfied.
Amazon should be under a 1000% higher scrutiny than Apple: Amazon is barely profitable while Apple delivers a wild and wildly growing bottom line. Also, AMZN is priced 96 times it's earnings, while AAPL gets a piss-poor 13 P/E. That's just MORONIC. In a reasonable world I wouldn't invest a single cent in AMZN.
And then people wonder why we have cyclic market collapses like in 2008...
If your statistics are true, then they must also be true for other consumer electronics like those from Apple. It would be awful strange if those statistics only apply to the Fire.
The 10% traditional, and 15% 2011 return rate applies to bog standard consumer electronics from retailers such as Wal Mart, and Best Buy. The story said other retailers were clients to the refurbisher but didn't name them. Since Apple does not contract out it's device refurbishment this would totally exclude Apple hardware. Kindle (not specific to Fire) was mentioned as significant recognizable item in the refurb firm along with off-brand 42" LCD TVs. They also said almost all the pre Xmas returns were simple test and repackages, not returns for repair needed.
I'm sure there is some buyers remorse returns of Apple hardware, but since Apple reports returns of a percent or two year-in and year-out it is pretty safe to extrapolate that the folks that buy Apple are less likely to over-buy and then need to return in order to pay the December bills. Like 5 to 10 times less likely to return items than other retail electronics during the Xmas season.
The 10% traditional, and 15% 2011 return rate applies to bog standard consumer electronics from retailers such as Wal Mart, and Best Buy. The story said other retailers were clients to the refurbisher but didn't name them. Since Apple does not contract out it's device refurbishment this would totally exclude Apple hardware.
The newspaper article on this story included a picture of a woman inspecting an iPod for refurbishment.
Also, not trying to be picky but do you have some links to claims of 1-2% return rates being reported by Apple "year-in and year-out"? I know of the single report comparing the Galaxy Tab and the iPad from several months ago which only took into account Verizon iPad returns, along with the 1.7% that Jobs reported on the iPhone in 2010. I have apparently missed the others from other years covering Apple's product line. I wouldn't consider just one real mention of one specific product at a point in time to extrapolate to the entire model lineup as of today. If so I have no doubt that Apple would announce it loudly and proudly.
EDIT: This link would be evidence that you're perhaps mistaken. The image linked here is of a Liquidity Services employee inspecting a plainly marked Apple product before it's released back into the market.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/take...ays/singleton/
The newspaper article on this story included a picture of a woman inspecting an iPod for refurbishment.
Also, not trying to be picky but do you have some links to claims of 1-2% return rates being reported by Apple "year-in and year-out"? I know of the single report comparing the Galaxy Tab and the iPad from several months ago which only took into account Verizon iPad returns, along with the 1.7% that Jobs reported on the iPhone in 2010. I have apparently missed the others from other years covering Apple's product line. I wouldn't consider just one real mention of one specific product at a point in time to extrapolate to the entire model lineup as of today. If so I have no doubt that Apple would announce it loudly and proudly.
EDIT: This link would be evidence that you're perhaps mistaken. The image linked here is of a Liquidity Services employee inspecting a plainly marked Apple product before it's released back into the market.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/take...ays/singleton/
Interesting, that's the same story, but my paper didn't run that picture. I guess third party folks use their own return processors even for the Apple stuff, I thought they all went back to Apple.
The Apple 1-2% return rates have been cited in quarterly results teleconferences. They got the biggest press during the iPhone4 antenna brouhaha, and didn't even go up much then. Apple compared the spot rate on iPhone 4 to the approximately same established iPhone return rate previously. I don't know how often the rates get cited directly, but the analysts dug into Apples numbers last year because they didn't believe them and the issue completely died.
I am making the mild assumption that that is because the analysts that couldn't believe iPhone returns didn't skyrocket over previous return rates because of the death grip suddenly found they were incorrect and didn't want to advertise their own incorrectness. Is it hard fact, no. But is is reasonable extrapolation given the stakes of the involved players? I think so.
Interesting, that's the same story, but my paper didn't run that picture. I guess third party folks use their own return processors even for the Apple stuff, I thought they all went back to Apple.
The Apple 1-2% return rates have been cited in quarterly results teleconferences. They got the biggest press during the iPhone4 antenna brouhaha, and didn't even go up much then. Apple compared the spot rate on iPhone 4 to the approximately same established iPhone return rate previously. I don't know how often the rates get cited directly, but the analysts dug into Apples numbers last year because they didn't believe them and the issue completely died.
I am making the mild assumption that that is because the analysts that couldn't believe iPhone returns didn't skyrocket over previous return rates because of the death grip suddenly found they were incorrect and didn't want to advertise their own incorrectness. Is it hard fact, no. But is is reasonable extrapolation given the stakes of the involved players? I think so.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. Some others here disappear from the conversation in light of a correction or challenge.
I do think it's more likely that return rates on Apple products overall are somewhat higher than 1-2% for the same reason I mentioned earlier. If they were that low consistently and across the board Apple would proudly announce it, often and loudly.
It never fails, talk about a "competing" product and inevitably someone has to say "well the competition is good for us consumers".
Can anyone in these threads come up with at least one or two actual & verifiable examples of where competition resulted in better products. I've seen competition produce CHEAPER products. I've seen competition result in poorer products (netbooks anyone?).
Anyone? Bueller?
It's more lack of competition results in stagnant products, and competition does not always result in cheaper products or services. Equivalent mobile device plans for example have gone up in price over the past decade with significant competition there. This applies all the way down to the cheapest most basic phones. Look at a company like Adobe. On products where there aren't any fully viable alternatives, they've slowed development for years. I should reiterate slightly here. Competition forces companies to differentiate themselves. Either they find a way to improve on an existing product, or they minimize costs and cut prices. Note how intel has been adjusting their strategy as they're concerned about ARM.
BMW and Mercedes were a stagnating duopoly until Lexus rang the bell.
That's a better example than my own, but yeah they basically just paced against each other.
For every Kindle Fire sold at $199, Amazon LOSES $50...they are following Sony's PS3 model in hopes of making the actual profit on content sales.....so, If Amazon sold 3 million units, they have lost 150 MILLION Dollars!!!!!! (GENIUS)....Not to mention, they have already predicted a loss for next year because of this model....whats even more disastrous is that all the reviewers basically said the Kindle Fire sucks as far as user experience and performance.
You're beyond troll here. If the analyst said something bad about Apple you'd dismiss it. Since they're talking about Amazon you aren't just accepting his statement, but using it to extrapolate data without any basis. I can think of many words worse than troll and analyst to describe this post.