3 ms·

This peice, and the comments there, seem really out there to me. "[apple] haven't produced anything of major interest to consumers in a long time." "Ap

This peice, and the comments there, seem really out there to me. "[apple] haven't produced anything of major interest to consumers in a long time." "Apple has been taking a beating from Samsung who have come at them aggressively." Weird. Does "taking a beating" refer to market share? Certainly not mobile net-profits. head scratching

rodgerd 13y ago
Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing.
- stock_toaster 13y ago
  > Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing. Fat margins implies you have room to bring your price down and pick up additional market _if desired_. Your example of retail vs e-store is also odd, because retail space has its own costs (floor space/power/personnel/supply-chain/shipping/stock costs/etc), and thus margins are usually thinner. Also, someone selling 100 widgets for $1 each, has to support customers/returns/fix for 100 customers. Someone selling 5 widgets at $20 each only has to support 5 customers. It would generally cost less to do so (fewer customers). So.. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but maybe it was lost in the snark?
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    The other poster was trying to say "mobile net-profits" don't really mean anything. He used amazon because they are perfectly happy with little to none net profits.
- melling 13y ago
  I think Amazon wanted to get big first and capture the market then slowly raise prices. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa... You thought they were different and just wanted to give you cheap stuff because they're nice and they like you?

rodgerd 13y ago

Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing.

stock_toaster 13y ago
> Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing. Fat margins implies you have room to bring your price down and pick up additional market _if desired_. Your example of retail vs e-store is also odd, because retail space has its own costs (floor space/power/personnel/supply-chain/shipping/stock costs/etc), and thus margins are usually thinner. Also, someone selling 100 widgets for $1 each, has to support customers/returns/fix for 100 customers. Someone selling 5 widgets at $20 each only has to support 5 customers. It would generally cost less to do so (fewer customers). So.. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but maybe it was lost in the snark?
- nemothekid 13y ago
  The other poster was trying to say "mobile net-profits" don't really mean anything. He used amazon because they are perfectly happy with little to none net profits.
melling 13y ago
I think Amazon wanted to get big first and capture the market then slowly raise prices. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa... You thought they were different and just wanted to give you cheap stuff because they're nice and they like you?