6 ms·
I think its somewhat common, and even occasionally successful: Amazon prime costs amazon money, and the original fire tablets were sold at cost - i suspect the
by unprepare 11y ago
I think its somewhat common, and even occasionally successful:
Amazon prime costs amazon money, and the original fire tablets were sold at cost - i suspect the new 50$ tablets are not very profitable either
Walmart has commonly been accused of this practice for various products
Google's original Nexus 7 tablet
I believe Apple ended up losing money at least a quarter or two on the app store/itunes
Granted there are few examples, but its certainly prevalent enough that its a legitimate business concern - the bigger disparity is that it takes a pretty enormous size for a company to succeed in such a tactic, I doubt turing has the kind of capital to lose that the likes of Walmart, Apple, Google and Amazon do.
- nickff 11y agoThose are good examples, but I would argue that if a practice is sustainable (and often sustained), it is not problematic. If Amazon wishes to provide Prime at a loss to encourage customers to buy products which Amazon will make money on (enough to compensate for Prime), is there a problem? Would there be a problem if Amazon offered to ship things sooner in exchange for a promise that you would shop at their site more often (even if this promise plan cost them money)?