Slashdot Mirror


The Fire Phone Debacle and What It Means For Amazon's Future

HughPickens.com points out an article at Fast Company that dug into the creation of Amazon's floundering Fire Phone to figure out why the company pushed so hard to bring it to market. The piece is an indictment of Jeff Bezos's determination to make the Fire Phone into a competitor for an already-saturated high-end smartphone market. "This wasn't some vague guideline from an executive busy running other parts of the business; based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former employees, most of whom were deeply involved with the project, the CEO drove every aspect of the phone’s creation from the outset."

Now that Amazon's growth is slowing and profits have yet to be seen, investors and analysts have run out of patience for gambles like this one. "What makes the Fire Phone a particularly troubling adventure, however, is that Amazon’s CEO seemingly lost track of the essential driver of his company’s brand. It’s understandable that Bezos would want to give Amazon a premium shine, but to focus on a high-end product, instead of the kind of service that has always distinguished the company, proved misguided."

155 comments

  1. where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > "but to focus on a high-end product, instead of the kind of service that has always distinguished the company, proved misguided."

    What service suffered as a result of this? The product ended up not being what was desired by the public, but what specifically would have fixed this? Just saying "with 20-20 hindsight, that wasn't a good use of your time" is meaningless. When you have built a multi-billion dollar business, you can claim that you have better judgement, until then you are just making noise

    David Lang

    1. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you have built a multi-billion dollar business, you can claim that you have better judgement, until then you are just making noise

      Because if I wanted to own shares in a VC fund, I'd buy shares in a VC fund. Investors in AMZN are generally trying to buy shares in a potentially-profitable retailer, not trying to fund Bezos' personal whims.

    2. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Amazon has been a fairly open marketplace, at least as far as what one can find, and who one can buy from (ie, third-party sellers), and the Fire Phone, by de-Googling Android and essentially making it impossible to use Google's Android-supporting applications, they made a device that ran contrary to their perceived openness. Amazon's appeal is that one isn't going to multiple stores to buy things, one just logs in and orders them and they show up. They're the new replacement for the Sears Roebuck catalog of old, with faster turnaround and a better indication of stock. They're stuck being the brand that has no brand because it has no reason to have products of its own as it's a service, not a product.

      The only way I expect them to move stock is to fix it so one can use all of the normal stock Google-written and Google-interfacing applications, and to forget this whole Amazon-specific tie-in.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Firephone will go down as the Atari ET of phones, and didn't I read somewhere that Amazon has got a new phone coming out for 2015? They should stick to what they're good at, people already know how to find Amazon when they want to.

    4. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Indeed. You fail at 100% of the risks not taken.

    5. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      You know they are a crap tech company because the "amazon" app on the kindle is harder to use than the browser, pointed at the amazon.com website.

    6. Re: where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember when he got into virtual hosting on a whim? How about when he got into the Ebooks market on a whim? No one can forget the crazy time he decided to become a digital media provider...on a whim!

      The real reason that this is an issue is that people know how much money flows through amazon and when they saw the stock offering they thought they could pump and dump the stock like Facebook and a thousand others.

      This whole "running a business" thing is an abstract concept to these people as it is so far disconnected from how they make a living.

    7. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have built a multi-billion dollar business, you can claim that you have better judgement, until then you are just making noise

      Why? People were saying this was a silly endeavor before Bezos embarked upon it and then ultimately it failed so suggesting that somebody need build a multi-billion dollar business to have better judgement is ridiculous, Bezos did that and it still failed. Investors in online retailers like Amazon aren't looking for risky gambles, that's what venture capitalist firms are for. Maybe he'd have better judgement in this area if he didn't build a multi-billion dollar online retail business as that has little correlation to being a smartphone manufacturer.

    8. Re: where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Fuck that. I like the idea of an android anything that is free from google.
        Amazon tracks what I want to buy and tries to offer me similar things. And they're horrible at it. Sometimes I bought something and don't need another. Sometimes I was just looking. It's very easy to just shrug and say "naaaah".

      Google on the other hand wants to track my location, my contacts, my health, my documents....they want it all. Not do they can sell me more crap, but because they want to sell my eyeballs to people who want to sell me crap. And you know what? There is no "naaah". You cannot decide that you don't want to be tracked and sold.

      It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to be an android fanboy these days. "It's open! You can do anything you want! But don't! Because it's bad!". If that's the freedom android offers, I will pass.

    9. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Proudrooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So don't buy Amazon shares. Jeff Bezos is an innovative maniac always looking for the next hit and willing to gamble big. Amazon is down $100 since 2013, but if you are longer term (multi-year investor) that bought in Dec 2012 you are still up $50 a share or you still made 15% or 7.5% per year. Sounds pretty good to me. Seriously, if you want to cry go look at energy companies right now.

      It is just whining from people who want more, more, more. We hear it time and time again: Apple isn't giving us important shareholders enough money, Jeff Bezos isn't giving us investors enough money. We want more, we're important, we're shareholders. Go buy a dividend stock and be quiet. It is a stock, there is no such thing as a sure thing. Just ask everyone who lost 10-years of retirement savings as the banks crashed the world economy and then were bailed out by the US Government. So much for the invisible hand of the market.

    10. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Herkum01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jeff Bezos isn't giving us investors enough money

      Amazon has never given ANY investors any money, speculators on the other hand and Jeff Bezos himself has done remarkably well. If you your benchmark for wildly successful is wrapped in the stock price you are 100% correct. If you are an investor looking for a return, Amazon has basically done nothing.

      So what if their sales have been wildly successful, can they actually make any money doing it is the problem.

    11. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Glarimore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the S&P 500 went up 45% in that same time period. Meaning, that if you were invested in index funds you would have tripled your Amazon return.

      Not such a great investment after all...

    12. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Nurf · · Score: 1, Informative

      I hear arguments like this a lot, in general, but they forget that the S&P 500 (or whatever) is a selection of stocks which is continuously changed, and if you "held" the S&P 500, you'd have to sell the companies that drop out of it or go bankrupt, and buy into the companies that enter it. And suddenly, the amazing returns of whatever basket of stocks disappears. It doesn't take many lemons in the mix to ruin the supposed gain.

      --
      ---
    13. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by dcollins · · Score: 5, Informative

      False, the effect is not very great. Plus, do you not know what an index fund is (per GP)? The fund management takes care of that for you.

      For example, the Vanguard 500 Index fund is indeed up 48% in that time period. If you'd invested $10,000 in the fund on 12/1/2012, then the value in your account would today be $14,843.15, with zero additional work on your part.

      http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/VFINX/f?t=VFINX

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    14. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hear arguments like this a lot, in general, but they forget that the S&P 500 (or whatever) is a selection of stocks which is continuously changed, and if you "held" the S&P 500, you'd have to sell the companies that drop out of it or go bankrupt, and buy into the companies that enter it. And suddenly, the amazing returns of whatever basket of stocks disappears. It doesn't take many lemons in the mix to ruin the supposed gain.

      Which is why you buy a S&P 500 index fund or ETF. The S&P 500 index fund I own is up 47% from YE 2012 to YE 2014. I think the reason you hear arguments like that a lot is that people are trying to explain investing and you are not getting it.

    15. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you are an investor looking for a return, Amazon has basically done nothing.

      Moron. If you "are an investor looking for a return", buy stock that gives you return. Sell those Amazon shares for 3 time what you bought them a few years ago, and buy dividend stock.

    16. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by blang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a short sighted midget.
      How do you think Amazon ended up as on of the world's largest companies, completely dominating all retail ecommerce, and being the sole leader in the booming cloud industry. If Bezos had asked VCs, banks or or anonymous cowards for advice advice he'd probably be the operator of a couple of walgreen's or McDonald's stores now. Or maybe owner of Blockbuster franchise. You can't build something new and successful if you don't take a few risks.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    17. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by blang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because for now, it is still far more important to become a more and more dominating player in commerce than it is to make a big short term profit.
      In most categories, you can buy a product on amazon, with free 2-day shipping at a 10% discount compared to most local shops.
      The revenue flowing through amazon is mindboggling. Sure they could shrink that discount a bit, and grab a larger margin.
      That would make it possible for other players to move in on amazon's market, and slow the company's growth.
      The fact is that wall street, and amazon's investors are strongly supportive of the huge cash flow and slim profit margins of the company.
      This is evidenced by the amazon shares sharply dropping every time the company makes a real profit. Investors still wants the company to grow, not make a profit.
      And they have proven to be right. Some hack report in a trade rag won't change that.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    18. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once amazon make a real android device, one that isn't a sales vector locked into their own store, they'll do well enough to be a player. They may not touch Samsung, HTC et al in demand, but they have the most eyeballs and will pick up plenty of sales from their homepage. People like you said the same thing about their e-reader and even pooh-poohed the kindle fire.

    19. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      How is this informative? Do you not know what an index fund is?

    20. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Not collecting sales tax for nearly 2 decades let them undercut brick-and-mortar store prices. Also paying your warehouse employees shit wages allows you to drive prices down even further allowing you to sell at margins unsustainable by other companies. This allowed them to gain huge marketshare and could then bully their suppliers akin to WalMart. All the whole Bezos becomes a billionaire on the backs of his underpaid, overworked employees. There's nothing noble about what Bezos did.

    21. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You first say the Fire Phone will only succeed with non-forked Android. You then use the Kindle Fire as a success story. Do you not see the glaring contradiction?

    22. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Building a billion dollar service business is one thing. Making products is a different ball game.

      Not saying the transition's impossible (IBM did it in reverse) but, you know, halo effect and all that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "one that isn't a sales vector locked into their own store"

      That runs totally counter to everything Amazon has done up to now. I don't expect that they will ever do that willingly.

    24. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, you could sell it for 75 percent of what you paid for it one year ago.

    25. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by rochrist · · Score: 1

      See Funds, Index.

    26. Re:where did Amazon service suffer as a result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not collecting sales tax for nearly 2 decades let them undercut brick-and-mortar store prices.

      Isn't that a bit like blaming firearms manufacturers for firearms misuses? The onus was not on Amazon to collect sales tax for out-of-state purchasers. This has been settled for nearly as long as magazine ordering has been a thing.

      paying your warehouse employees shit wages

      I don't know anything about this so cannot comment on it. I only include it so you don't get the wrong idea and assume I am deliberately ignoring parts of what you said.

  2. growth is good... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Growth is good and all, and short termism is bad, butyou can't "make a loss on every sale but make up for it in volume" forever.

    The window is closing. Amazon is huge, but so big now they face similar logistics problems to bricks and mortar stores. In addition all the nice little tax loopholes they used to profit from are rapidly closing so they from a tax perspective have to compete on an even footing with those bricks and mortar stores.

    So, what's the future? They were massively dominant, but recently I've noticed they are not reliably the cheapest source for stuff any more. There are often better deals to be had elsewhere.

    I don't see them vanishing any time soon, but think the glory days are ending.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:growth is good... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amazon has tried to create their own product lines with the Kindle and Fire branding, but unlike Sears' branding for Craftsman and Kenmore, the Kindle and Fire devices are less ends, and more means, at least in my eye, and when they hamstring the phone version by basically taking everything useful out of Android that made it popular (ie, Google's through-the-internet connectivity for 'cloud' stuff) they take away most of the means for which I would use the device.

      I honestly don't care what brand of smartphone I have any more than I care what brand of business computer I have at work, in that the phones I buy run vanilla or close-to-vanilla Android, and the computers my work supplies for me generally run Windows, or I install Linux on them myself. The Fire Phone isn't really Android in that what I want to use Android for isn't there, and the experience would be just as foreign to me as using an iPhone or a Blackberry or a Windows phone.

      Amazon over-valued their own brand. Amazon is a service more than a product, and attempting to be a product hasn't worked as well for them as they expected.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:growth is good... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      In addition all the nice little tax loopholes they used to profit from are rapidly closing so they from a tax perspective have to compete on an even footing with those bricks and mortar stores.

      Way to learn the wrong lesson ... instead of "huh, high taxes kill businesses, how about that", the lesson is {evil voice}"let no one escape"{/evil voice}?

    3. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the ad for Amazon Fire phones was literally two small children dressed as 20 or 30 something hipsters showing off their cool phones to some adults who didn't know what to make of it. What demographic were they thinking this would sell to? Soccer moms maybe? Who wants to be a hipster who looks like a kid? That sort of ad must look a lot better on paper than the final video.

    4. Re:growth is good... by FirephoxRising · · Score: 2

      While I don't want to harm business, I am sick of paying lots of tax (and GST on top, and fuel tax with GST on top of that) while big multinationals can "move" their profit offshore and pay no/minimal tax. Close the loopholes! Get rid of diesel fuel excise exemptions. That's all corporate welfare.

    5. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the ad for Amazon Fire phones was literally two small children dressed as 20 or 30 something hipsters showing off their cool phones to some adults who didn't know what to make of it. What demographic were they thinking this would sell to? Soccer moms maybe? Who wants to be a hipster who looks like a kid? That sort of ad must look a lot better on paper than the final video.

      What other kind are there?

    6. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, the taxes are not high. Government is not always evil. Some taxation is necessary. You are the one who drank the kool aid. We have tried the Reagan idea of cutting taxes relentlessly. We are in worse shape than ever. High time we stop trickle down and start feeding the roots. By taxing the super rich, ones making more than half a million dollars a year. Exempt first 200K and tax all the rest at some flat 25% or so. ALL, earned income, capital gains, gifts, inheritance, dividends, interest, carried interest everything.

      Some 33% of the fortune 400 have inherited their wealth. All six children of Sam Walton are in fortune 400. The Koch brothers, for all their manipulation and access to the government would have more money if they had just invested their inheritance in index funds.

      People without inheritance, even if they make it to top 1% by income, most of them will not be able to accumulate to make it to top 1% by net worth. Of the 97% of the Americans who don't inherit much, about 2% barely make it to a million net worth including their home equity. It takes 4 million to crack the 1% by networth mark. These low end millionaires with home equity are what counted to tout "95% of the millionaires are self made". Most of the people below the fortune 400 but in the top half of the 1% are all inheritors, with more than 15 million dollars of financial net worth. Working stiffs never get a shot at getting there.

      These trust fund babies are not as smart as their daddy or mommy who made the dough. How many children of Nobel prize winners win Nobel prizes? It is called regression to the mean, and these trust fund babies are below average. They control some 50% of all the investments. They reward loyalty not competence. That misallocation of capital is detrimental to all of us. We need to tax estates with more than 5 million dollar worth significantly.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:growth is good... by Phurge · · Score: 1

      I think in essence Amazon is a VC funded charity. Amazon has been great for consumers, driving down the cost of all sorts of products. For their VC backers, the returns have been less than stellar Amazon's model is to be the low margin competitor in each segment, ostensibly to drive out competition in the hopes of raising margins later. This doesn't seem to be happening as other competitors are matching or bettering their prices.

      The washup being that Amazon will continue to exist, continuing to make minimal profits (especially in comparison to their VC backer's investments). Hence my view that their VC backers are essentially making low interest loans/donations to a charity whose purpose is to deliver lower prices to consumers.

      --
      I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
    8. Re:growth is good... by TWX · · Score: 1

      I never saw an ad for it that I can remember. I just looked up the device on various phone, gadget, and Android sites after it was announced that it had a pending price-cut to see if it'd be worthwhile, and even free it would be a downgrade compared to my almost four year old Galaxy SII as I'd lose most of the features that I use on a daily basis, and I suspect that since most early buyers of devices are interested in the devices enough to figure out how they work before buying them, and then mainstream buyers often make their decisions based on the experiences of the early buyers, it's just not gone anywhere.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:growth is good... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Way to learn the wrong lesson ...

      Tax is the price of civilisation and I happen to like it. I live in a conutry with good transport infrastructure, almost perfectly reliable power, water and sewage, a decent emergency service system, safe food, safe products and so on and so forth.

      And the lesson for taxes is most definitely: let no one escape. Otherwise you end up propping up some businesses at the expense of others. I don't see why on earth local shops should prop up amazon by paying for the infrastructure that amazon use.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon's price advantage has eroded because retailers "price in" the online discount. For example, today's $40 hardback is yesterday's $25 hardback because prices have increased to price in the 40% discount and free shipping everyone expects. The same is true of most items. Yesterday's $10 t-shirt is today's $20 t-shirt. Basically, MSRP means that the price of an item has doubled so retailers can mark it 40% off. Now all retailers can offer the same discount. Amazon's own success has ironically eroded its pricing advantage, because retailers have "priced in" the online/Amazon discount into their MSRP/cover price/etc.

    11. Re:growth is good... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Taxes were higher during the 50s and 60s when the country had a booming economy and huge middle class.

    12. Re:growth is good... by Drewdad · · Score: 1

      "and these trust fund babies are below average"

      Well, usually they're closer to the average than their parents. That doesn't necessarily make them below average.

      (Although we're speaking in very general terms, and we haven't defined what we're measuring, or how we're measuring it, or what "average" looks like....)

    13. Re:growth is good... by TWX · · Score: 1

      What other kind are there?

      Ones that look like Johnny Depp when he goes on late-night TV for interviews?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      When it comes to making money by themselves, without the inheritance, the trust fund babies have to be below average than others. Children of Sam Walton, without inheritance would be lucky to make median pay by their ability. The inheritance of Koch brothers, if it had been invested in plain index funds back in 1960 and if these guys had spent their lives playing golf, they would have more money than what they have today. With all their dalliance and cultivating of the politicians, taking the long view to cultivate think tanks to push their point of view, subverting the integrity of academic and scientific research, after all that, they made less money. Shows they are below average in their ability to manage the investments for the long haul and below average in their ability to make money on their own. It is the same story all the way down to your local business owning a chain of three restaurants or four gas stations or the lawn equipment dealership.

      If you take ALL the heirs and measure their ability to make money it has to be below average. Only then when you add all their parent's above average ability to make money you would come to average. This is the principle of Regression to the mean. Which means, very high portion of the investments are made by people with below average ability to deploy capital wisely.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    15. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why is your solution to this taxing income? It should be an overall tax on assets, like the property tax that already exists for home values. Just add it onto the assessed value of automobiles, jewelry, bank, and investment accounts. Leave it up to the individual to state whether they paid tax at the location where they reside or the location of the asset, and let them deduct tax paid as needed. It's not too different from paying your federal income tax and deducting income taxes paid to the state.

    16. Re:growth is good... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      No, the taxes are not high.

      Exactly. Effective income and corporate tax rates are at historical lows. So according to the GP we should see a roaring economy with next to no unemployment. Oh wait...

      Instead if you look back in history the times that had the highest effective tax rates, the 40s through the 60s, saw tremendous economic growth, huge swelling of the middle class and the wages of workers vs inflation wasn't effectively stagnant.

    17. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably correct with those numbers, but 25% tax on everything has huge dangers.

      It means that a lot of companies will be broken up / sold due to inheritance payments. The most likely buyers for those are undying venture capital funds and other ruthless entities. This is probably not good for employees, which will still be the majority of people.

      It would also mean that the government is tasked to meaningfully spend an *additional*, say, 20% of the nation's wealth. I am highly unsure that this would help everyone. Most decision-making government positions are overburdened anyways; the risk of them making silly and bad decisions if they have to manage even more is big. Never mind that corruption and the like also is not entirely absent.

      I think it's more elegant to distribute more of the corporate income to workers, lift everyone's salaries below the top income levels, without any sudden movements that involve 25% of someone's accumulated wealth and companies.

    18. Re:growth is good... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      When you are as rich as the Koch brothers, it becomes difficult to match market returns. The problem: you are a big enough player that your actions influence the market.

    19. Re: growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think they have some 3d image patients from the innovative camera use. If so the device could be repackaged as a small easy to use 3d scanner. A growth industry like that is missing this obvious synergy.

      The device could connect via Amazons cloud to give people access to an additional market, copyrighted 3d designs that are for sale.

    20. Re:growth is good... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      That ad was so far beyond obnoxious, it met itself coming around the other side. Or something. Gah! I hated it!! "I've been on the surf 8 years...."

    21. Re:growth is good... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Really? They blasted that ad out /heavily/ for a fair while.

    22. Re:growth is good... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      So...you don't live in the US I gather. :)

    23. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      There is some truth to that. Almost all the fund managers do very well, till their funds reach 1 or 2 billion. Then they struggle. There was a nice paper that looked at beta between a fund and the underlying index, and adjusted the expense ratio to account for the actual "active management". But still the Kochs control so much of investments, but they clearly are not in the top 10 smartest investment managers. That was my point.

      A handful of these trust fund babies spent some 400 million dollars in a heavy public relations campaign to label inheritance tax as death tax and had a long relentless campaign to reduce it. It was fear, uncertainty, doubt and outright lies. But eventually they succeeded in cutting 1 trillion dollars out of their tax burden. That trillion is going to flow to more trust fund babies, most of them mediocre and they will control the economy far more than any of us working stiffs. I am not talking about the median household (58K a year) or even the 80 percentile at 100K. I am talking about the top 1% of the professionals, doctors, lawyers, top programmers. We are the working stiffs, even if we make 200K a year, we do not stand a chance of cracking 5 million net worth to make it to top 1%. The only people at the 99.5% are heirs, or an extremely lucky small business owner. I say lucky because for each such business owner making to 15 million networth, there would 10 or 50 who worked equally hard who was equally smart, who did well, but did not crack the top 0.5%.

      [*] If S&P500 is the benchmark for a fund, and it has a beta of 0.75 with S&P 500, then only 25% of the fund is actually "actively managed". So if its expense ratio is 1.1%, it is actually 3.6% assuming index fund expense ratio is 0.2%. (1.1 - 0.2) * /0.25 = 3.6%

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    24. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      The formula to calculate the "true" expense ratio of a mutual fund:

      ERc = (ERr - beta * 0.2) / ( 1 - beta)

      Where

      ERc is the corrected expense ratio

      ERr is the reported expense ratio

      beta is the correlation coefficient with an underlying index, what fraction of the fund is made up of the index. Expressed as a fraction not percentage.

      0.2 is assumed to be the typical expense ratio for an index fund.

      A US Large cap fund bench marked against S&P 500 with an expense ratio of 1.2% and high correlation with its benchmark, beta = 0.85 is actually costing you 6.9% for the actively managed portion. Unless that part beats the index by 7 points, you are better off shoveling the money into an index fund. This is why most money managers do not beat the index. The trading cost, the commission, research staff salaries, their own pay and bonus just overwhelms any marginal value the manager brings to the fund.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    25. Re:growth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The regression to the mean argument is valid, especially for the "small fry" millionaires. But the example of the Koch Bro & Co social engineering endeavors is missing some perspective I think. If Wealth is taken as zero-sum in terms of distribution, then an individual with a large portion could take part of their share and pass it to other individuals, which would cause the original individual's wealth to decrease. But wealth is also closely analogous to power. So when operating at the level of wealth being discussed, by funding the installation and development of other individuals and organizations, they are effectively just converting power from one asset class to another.

    26. Re:growth is good... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I don't any more. I did for a while.

      Actually I really liked it. The UK just doesn't have anything which can match New Mexico in a number of ways.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Actually not a bad idea. We can even exempt cars, jewelry, home equity etc for the first million. Then tax the assets, at some rate that brings in the same value. We can slowly transition from one system to next to reduce shock.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    28. Re:growth is good... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      There are things that could be fine tuned. For really long term assets, I mean 5 year is long term, not 12 months, we could provide inflation adjustment on cost basis. Something bought for 100$ in 2009, sold at 125$ in 2015, should not pay tax on all that 25$ gain. Some of the gain is due to inflation, we can provide for it. We can provide for inheritance tax to be paid in installments over a longer stretch based on the cash generation potential of the asset. There are highly valued but low cash flow assets.

      It is the principle of the thing. The system is structurally biased. If you can't make it to top 1% even after making it to top 1% by income, it is not good for the country, not for the future, not even for the people in the top 0.5%.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    29. Re:growth is good... by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      And a huge leg up on manufacturing thanks to our competitors (Germany, Japan, UK) all having been bombed in the 40's.

    30. Re:growth is good... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I don't know - there's convenience. I can get many many things via Amazon in 2 days, often before I could go to a store (I have to drive 20 miles from my house to any appreciable store like Target). I can subscribe for things so they just show up. I don't have to search a store to find them. And I know the security and return policy.

      Is cheapest best? Sometimes, but if it means I need to wait a week or a month vs 2 days, that's maybe too long. If it means that I might not be able to return something if it arrives broken without eating shipping costs (Newegg), that's not great...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  3. AT&T only phone, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would have considered it if it hadn't locked you into AT&T. You want a phone to take off but you only support one provider? This made no sense to me and I will not use any carrier with metered service. FAIL!

    1. Re: AT&T only phone, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, it's a different field today, but the iPhone was originally availabke only on att, and it seemed to take off pretty well.

  4. "Growth is slowing" by pipedwho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gotta love investors that shiver at a slowdown of the second derivative of the growth curve. Amazon is still growing and the growth is increasing, just not a fast enough increase of growth growing.

    Amazon is a huge successful brand with multiple obvious methods of income from product retail to cloud services.

    This seems like a bunch of investors not liking how Bezos is spending their money.

    1. Re:"Growth is slowing" by werepants · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Second derivative of the growth curve would be the rate of change in the rate of change of growth... maybe you mean the second derivative of revenue? First derivative being growth (better be positive more often than not) and second derivative being change in growth (hopefully positive, but whatever).

    2. Re:"Growth is slowing" by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Only in America would a company that has never turned a profit be considered "wildly successful."

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  5. They got spanked. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0

    They will pay attention.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  6. Amazon's hardware sucks by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of their hardware sucks. Largely because the software in their hardware sucks. They're using Android, fine, but it's a locked-down version of Android customized to exclusively use their own store (I believe you can get Google Play back, but it takes work). Which is them giving both the user and Google a big "fuck you."

    And then they're trying to break into a saturated market with big name competitors. What's the killer feature? Where's the value added? What aspect sufficiently differentiates them from their competitors? The Amazon name isn't known for phones and won't carry the product. Their shaft of the customers by tying the phone to their own app store doesn't help. Their help system? Few enough people want to admit they need help, much less have the foresight to improve the experience. And Android is so easy to use, who really needs that much help anyway, especially help they can't get from say, their kids or their friends?

    The rest of Amazon's hardware sucks too. They're copies of other products that might visually be nice, but lack usability sense. Google's USB fob can go anywhere. Amazon can only go where Amazon wants you to go. How can that even compete?

    And then there's the other stuff that's not even worth mentioning. Like the speaker. What is that even for? Listening to music from Amazon only? Where's the direction? Where's the strategy? It's like they're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Except said wall is the glass back of an elaborate toilet that also is a waterfall.

    Actually, I know what it is. They had so much success with the Kindle, they had no idea what made the Kindle successful: they already had the dominant online book store and they were the first to market. Of course it would be successful. But they don't dominate anything else, and they're late to the game everywhere. How can they expect the same success?

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:Amazon's hardware sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of EC2. I didn't say EC2 was good but they think it is. They think they changed computers forever. Well, they did, but not in a positive way.

      That's how clueless Amazon is - they figured this phone was going to be their next EC2.

    2. Re:Amazon's hardware sucks by blang · · Score: 1

      They were not first to market with ebook readers.
      But kindle WAS a very well executed product, perfect for reading books.
      And their propriatary browser and server side caching technology is innovative.
      Looks like you're making your argument by throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
      To me it just looks like the fire phone was just a bit too ambitious, and slightly missed the targeted market.
      It is not the end of the world for the company. Maybe they will revise and try another phone launch, or abandon that market and try something else.
      I am sure they will both fail and succeed at many future ventures with and without Jeff Bezos being personally vested in each.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    3. Re:Amazon's hardware sucks by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      All of their hardware sucks. Largely because the software in their hardware sucks. They're using Android, fine, but it's a locked-down version of Android customized to exclusively use their own store (I believe you can get Google Play back, but it takes work). Which is them giving both the user and Google a big "fuck you."

      So? Why shouldn't Amazon be allowed to create a walled garden? You make it seem like it's a right that all Android devices must be open and all that. Amazon wants to make their own walled garden, and the Android license lets them. take it up with Google.

      In fact, why do you think "Google Play Services" exist? To help narrow down Android fragmentation? No, it's to lock developers into the Google Play APIs so they can't easily port to Amazon - I mean why ignore one of Android's biggest issues for years then come up with a solution?

      Anyhow, you have to realize Amazon's trying to be an Apple, and Amazon's got a pretty big market clout. "Amazon" might not make phones, but everyone's ordered products from them, and a significant number of people have Prime. So you already have brand recognition right there.

      Except unlike Apple, Amazon makes no money on hardware. They sell content, so allowing you to load up another store's content is verboten - the goal is to use Amazon for music, movies, books and TV. Of course, Amazon isn't completely pure, either given their DoJ handout and everything. (Hint: monopsonys can be evil too).

      Apple wants to sell hardware, so they sell content merely to help them sell the hardware - what's the point of a music player without music? Hence, the iTunes store.

  7. Seriously by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They risked a gamble, so what. Companies build products that fails - it's not even a headline. Amazon built something that people think is a failure, then everyone went to bed, woke up the next day and everyone moved on.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Seriously by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Same as "Ginger", the product that was supposed to change both transportation and the way we build cities. But the Segway is pretty much a segfault to the general population, and cities have banned it on their streets.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

  8. It would help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...if the Fire phone wasn't locked down to the point wherein you have to root it just to do things that don't directly involve Amazon.

    Worst of all is the way that Amazon has wired this directly into their app store, and don't include the Play store. While the Play store is supposed to be available via an app you can install, I can see plenty of users being somewhat leery about installing that, and rightly so; most people aren't used to screwing with their phones the way they might be used to screwing with their PC.

    That probably didn't coincide with their plans for the phone, but most people aren't terribly keen on spending good money for a machine that does little but resell a company's services (quite so blatantly, at least).

    I looked at the phone several times over this Christmas season and would have purchased it or the tablet in a heartbeat, but that stopped me, especially since the company might void the warranty if I did try to root it (whether or not voiding the warranty is legal in this case; I'm not sure it is). I know that they make a loss on each unit in hopes of making it up with sales, but I'm buying a phone or tablet because I want them to be a phone or tablet, not what Amazon wants them to be.

  9. How did OnePlusOne launch successfully? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is plenty of space in the market, the whole 'privacy' space. Amazons phone had cameras watching you all the time as its unique selling point. Those cameras did fancy things to the display, but who the hell wants to be watched?

    This is Amazon, it would be tracking faces to see what adverts and products you're looking at, it would pull up face biometrics to see who is viewing the screen, it would dig into Facebook via its link to pull all that data. Nobody wants that for the gimic of a a map that tilts when you look at it from a different angle.

    1. Re: How did OnePlusOne launch successfully? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoke another one.

      The tilt doesn't need biometrics and a server back end to work. My two year old samsung tab has a feature to stay on when it knows I'm looking at it. It does that by looking for two moist reflective orifices in a peachy oval, also known as my eyes.

      Unless of course...samsung is also part of the illuminati.

  10. VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was an an engineer in that team during the first incarnation of the project. The article is very very inaccurate.

    - team was not scrapped by jeff, at least not until large number of people walked out due to mismanagement
    - prototypes that worked (and were of phone size & shape) existed more than 2 years before launch but then (as mentioned) team walked and it all had to be scrapped
    - hw team often undercut sw team by replacing components and not telling anyone about it
    - hw team often made mistakes of the very basic variety (two separate sets of pull-ups on a single i2c bus)
    - some parts choices were motivated by personal interests of people in the hw team, even against their own data & analyses. This was allowed to proceed
    - some of the management made the team look very foolish in front of vendors (asking questions that made no sense in the current millennium)
    - sw team was kept busy by endless meetings with no end in sight, which significantly cut into any chance of productivity

    1. Re:VERY INACCURATE by pipedwho · · Score: 4, Funny

      For a moment there I thought you were talking about the last two companies I worked for. But neither had a CEO called Jeff.

    2. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And all of this must have been very demoralizing and irritating for the people who worked on it, but at the end of the day: the only issue which matters for the Fire Phone was the Kindle Fire being a shitty tablet.

      Without Google Play the Android operating system is worth less than Windows 8. I was dumb enough to buy a Kindle Fire. Fantastic device, aside from being totally useless. That's not a contradiction either: It's like a gorgeous car with no engine.

      A smartphone does one thing: lets you install apps from the official App store. Your device doesn't have the official app store? I don't care how pretty the user interface is, I'm not going to deal with a version of Android which only lets me use the Amazon App store, when I can get Google Play AND the Amazon App store on a Nexus 5. Duh!

    3. Re:VERY INACCURATE by JanneM · · Score: 2

      I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that you possibly were in the software team? I wonder what a hw team members version of this would read like. Or that of a manager overseeing both teams.

      Rashomon is a really good movie, apropos nothing in particulal.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      - sw team was kept busy by endless meetings with no end in sight, which significantly cut into any chance of productivity

      I worked at Amazon for many years (on two different teams, nothing to do with the phone) and I can attest to this being true. Endless meetings, status reports, on-call duty, interviewing new dev candidates. It was a huge drain on engineer productivity.

    5. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess: you're a sw guy.

    6. Re:VERY INACCURATE by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      I wonder if the problem with the pullups is that one team measured them in inches and the offshore team measured them in centimeters?

      (before you reply, yes, I'm kidding. I know perfectly well about pullups and i2c; but was just having a bit of fun, here. I'm too fat, myself, to do ANY pullups, these days, but that's for another thread, another day...)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is just the nature of a combined software / hardware solution that hardware teams tend to win. They have tangible manufacturing, costs and physical limitations that managers understand. While software has very different kinds of limitations -- often human limitations -- that managers don't understand. So if a hardware engineer wants to go with a different chip, he / she can provide a good explanation from a cost, space, supply, power usage and many other reasons. However a software engineer's reason to not use the different chip being that it complicates the software and is harder to develop for sounds like complaining. Just make him work harder right?

      So for better or worse, hardware tends to win. The best team involves careful tradeoffs between all factors. There will always be disagreements between engineers on what that is right. When software has an harder battle to convince non-technical managers, the best tradeoffs are missed.

      It certainly is not hardware or software engineers fault. I have known both very smart and very dumb of both. It is the problem of how companies do management. The people who are the best engineers are at the bottom and the people who know very little about engineering are at the top. So people who don't know what they are deciding end up making the important decisions. Go figure, companies are a mess!

    8. Re:VERY INACCURATE by JanneM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is just the nature of a combined software / hardware solution that hardware teams tend to win. They have tangible manufacturing, costs and physical limitations that managers understand. While software has very different kinds of limitations -- often human limitations -- that managers don't understand.

      Basically so, yes. Although - and I say this as a software person - there's good reason for that to be the case. Hardware incurs per-unit costs, so any design change that makes it cheaper to build will be paid back million-fold. If that increases the cost/time of developing the software you have to show that increase is higher than all the money you save in manufacturing. Unless the hardware changes are truly extreme, that is unlikely to be the case with a volume consumer product. Software has no unit margin cost, so the same logic doesn't apply in reverse.

      The Rashomon reference was not an idle one, by the way. No matter how honest and well-intentioned, you're unlikely to have an unbiased or particularly correct view of what happened if you were involved directly in something. It's great to hear the point of view - but that's what it is, a point of view. Other teams and people at other levels certainly have others, and it'd be foolhardy to try to understand what happened based on ony one or two of them.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    9. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the Bureaucratic Corporations of America, brought to you by expertly trained Project Management Professionals. Check your hat and soul at the door as you enter. But please don't worry, as we certainly have no intention of using your soul for anything - we haven't used our own souls in years.

    10. Re:VERY INACCURATE by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Rashomon is a really good movie, apropos nothing in particulal.

      Or apropos of everything. I guess it depends on your point of view.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    11. Re:VERY INACCURATE by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Let us guess. You were part of the sw team. Now we need a member of the hw team to blame the sw team and we'll be all set.

    12. Re:VERY INACCURATE by rochrist · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than any other large hi tech?

    13. Re:VERY INACCURATE by Altus · · Score: 1

      Rashomon is a really good movie, apropos nothing in particulal.

      That's not how I remember it!

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  11. First derivative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well its the velocity that's slowing so not second order derivative, its the first derivative, Amazon is still growing but the rate of growth is slowing, Google [Forbes Amazon Growth].

    It makes no profit and already has successful and yet unprofitable cloud services. Cloud services won't fix the loss making business. The Fire phone doesn't work, and the Fire TV device doesn't sell enough to turn the company profitable.

    Investors want returns, not brand. But when he starts making returns, then he gets a PE and then they'll realize that he has a very low/sometimes negative margin discounter business which won't generate large profits.

  12. Amazon is waiting for a competitor by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At this point in Amazon's key markets such as the US there is no Pepsi to Amazon's coke. This is actually a dangerous thing for a large company for they could start attributing their wild success to all kinds of the wrong things including simply a divine blessing. The risk for Amazon is that if this situation continues for too long that the competitor won't simply be competitive but will actually leverage any weaknesses that Amazon develops.

    For instance I heard a rumour that Microsoft wanted to really take on Word Perfect. So they looked at WP's finances and realized that WP was not a lean company at all. Yet profit margins were really slim. So Microsoft didn't need to really go head to head with WP in all markets in a giant slug fest but that they only needed to reduce WP's revenue by 5% which would mean they would start taking losses. So MS found the easiest 5% to go for and took it with ease. Then with WP on the ropes MS was able to clean up the other 95%.

    I also read that in the early days of MS getting into the C++ IDE world that they couldn't make any headway against Borland C++. So a new guy running the C++ project asked the marketing people what C++ programmers wanted; which turned out to be templates. But those were the elite of C++ programmers. So he re-asked the question to the typical C++ programmer and they said that they wanted to find an easy way to make Windows programs (windows was new and much programming was still in DOS at the time). So he released VisualStudio 1.0 which had easy wizards to get a windows program up and running and it was years before VS eventually got around to noodling with templates. But I remember the last version of Borland C++ that I used was all blah blah blah about their wonderful implementation of templates.

    So I see Amazon as Borland C++ or Word Perfect 4.2. They are kings of their universe and there is no real competitor on the horizon. And then boom headshot and they were gone. I am certain that if you went to a tech conference 6 months before each of these two products died and suggested that in 2 years the products wouldn't basically be in use that people would have laughed you out of the room.

    So at this point Amazon looks eternal and each of their many many mistakes seem to be tolerable. But I will give an example of a WP mistake. They were slightly worried about MS Windows and this crappy little word product. So they thought by dragging their feet with on Windows version that they stood a chance of actually killing windows entirely and keeping the world on DOS. I suspect that many seemingly smart executives nodded approvingly at this brilliant plan.

    1. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Amazon is the underdog in the smartphone market and they undercut MS in their EC2 pricing.

    2. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alibaba is coming. Once Alibaba becomes mainstream Amazon as we know it will turn into the next Blackberry. The collapse will be sudden, swift, but(!) the man holding the strings will not let it go down the way BlackBerry did.

      The chinese are here and their pricing models are terrifyingly competitive.

    3. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to you that this is precisely the strategy Amazon is using to destroy other businesses? That is, steal the most profitable customers? That leaves Amazon last man standing.

      And how are you going to play the same game against Amazon? All the obvious ways requires _massive_ capital expenditures.

      One remote possibility is that the culture shifts and all of a sudden Amazon's most profitable customers _don't_ prefer the convenience of home

      The other alternative is Amazon grows to rely on low-end customers for a significant portion of their income, and so you steal Amazon's low-end customers. But Amazon is trying to push the cost of shipping to near zero, which means no brick+mortar store will be able to out-price Amazon on the low-end.

      No company can last forever. But Amazon knows this better than most.

      While your story is fascinating and enlightening (thanks!), it also reeks of being a classic business school case study. (I assume; I don't have an MBA.) So I'm guessing Amazon's MBAs are not unfamiliar with such strategies.

    4. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they sell countless counterfeit items. How exactly are they going to break into the West in a big way doing that?

    5. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I know of the Borland story... You've got some of that wrong (or at least incomplete)... The solution to the Borland problem was to offer the a significantly better compensation. There is a fairly small set of people with deep expertise in developing compilers and specifically C++. (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-279561.html)

      I believe people made similar statements about Google fairly early on in there history (at one point it was stated that Google employed 60-70 of the top 100 researchers at Search in the world). That it was impossible to compete, everyone wanted to work with the best colleges, and it was hard to get enough of the leftovers to form a solid team.

    6. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is what occured. Iirc, they hired the Borland team. On the WP thing, it is woth mentionning that word took 5 years to be implemented (5x longer than the original 1 year plan), so I doubt at the reality of a pre-existing strategy.

      Onr that I remember well was Netscape, where they fucked spyglass by giving them a percentage of internet explorer sales (at those time, browsers were sold, beleive it or not), and undercut everyone by setting the price of spyglass-derived IE at zero...

    7. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by blang · · Score: 2

      Let me rephrase that question.
      And why do you think the Western man has a fundamentally different attitude towards counterfeit items than the rest of the world?
      eBay also sold tons of counterfeit items.
      craigslist sells tons of counterfeit items, as well as contraband.
      The flooding of the market with counterfeits only has the effect that the pricing of the genuine items go down to compete against the ripoffs.
      Western man has been buying cheap chinese products from Walmart for decades now, and if I am not much mistaken, the products are nearly 100% chinese made, and most product had a US equivalent brand that is more expensive, or the cheap chinese product is indeed now the US branded product, but made in china using extremely cheap labor and inferior raw materials.

      Alibaba should be taken as a serious competitor, most of all because the chinese are simply ruthless. They will break any and all laws to make a few bucks more. Anti-corruption laws, anti-dumping laws, international trade agreements, human rights, are routinely just ignored. They will simply not compete using the same playing ground, which will force every one to become just as dirty, or just surrender. They'll pay off any african greedy president to get access to local mining or oil rights. The president will in turn make sure to follow all chinese demands, such as not talking to Dalai Lama. The Chinese and Russian are not that very different I guess, except the chinese are just much bigger and craftier when it comes to commerce.

      I have seen first hand how they operate, how deals are won and lost.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    8. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by blang · · Score: 1

      And don't forget another success factor.
      Don't expect a quick win. Just keep doing what you're doing and hope the other guy screws up and you don't.
      Just wait for the top dog to miss a step.
      That's how Sybase database died. They released a buggy version of their DB that caused a lot of data losses.
      Instead of the enterprise scale DB market being a mostly 2 horse race, it became a 1 horse race with just Oracle(and a couple of also-rans).

      With Web browsers, you could say netscape eventually killed itself. Eventually it became more and more buggy, crashing more often, and did not not perform well, as web pages became more and more heavy to render.

      and performed

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    9. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      If so then MS was even more cunning in finding out where Borland could be severely damaged with a simple blow. That compensation probably didn't total up to an accounting error in Visual Studio sales.

    10. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll buy from Alibaba as much as I buy from Amazon.

      That is to say, maybe once every 4-5 years, if I can't find the product anywhere else.

      They're going to have to compete on more than just price.

    11. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Amazon has been successful because it has been diversifying into various revenue sources instead of relying on only online sales. Amazon makes money from: (1) Kindles and their content; (2) Amazon Web Services; (3) online advertising to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year; and (4) selling on Amazon.

      Amazon's misfires on the Fire tablet and phone are not the mistakes of a company that is trying to preserve a monopoly. It is a company trying to expand their revenue base and not succeeding at first. I have an Amazon TV Stick. Now I look at Amazon Prime Videos all the time. At some point in time, my cheap ass will be buying or renting videos from them.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    12. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Or you could say based on the actual court monopoly findings that MS put out libraries that were intentionally made or left broken so their primary competitors would fail to make a good product that requires them to work on windows 3.1. Please re-read the MS monopoly findings. You might learn more about why some products died.
      Or read Amiga magazines article from the 90's where a Phd Amiga Dev found 2 loops, in the OS that MS was paid to create, that did nothing but slow the whole thing down by about 50%.
      Or about DR DOS
      Or about many other things that made it impossible to compete when the fox had the keys to the hen house gates.

      Amazon pissed off a lot of retailers, or you could say ALL of the retailers. They have now pissed off all of the mobile manufacturers.
      You might want to look at what happened when Pepsi went from a vendor to Fast food restaurants to direct competitor, and how those chains promptly stopped supplying Pepsi for their customers.
      Amazon has now pissed off all the makers of everything really and now have enemies on every front. Not sure what they were thinking.

    13. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that AWS is making money. I think that this seems to be a debated topic.

      I can say that at this point one American that I know will check Amazon first for pretty much every purchase. The question is can that be translated to another company or collection of companies? Amazon isn't like ebay in that ebay is a terrible auction site but they have all the people bidding which attracts all the products which attracts... So breaking into that market against ebay would be very hard. But alibaba.com seems to look like they might weasel in on both ebay and amazon at the same time.

      After it someone comes along and eats amazon's lunch it will probably be completely obvious in hindsight as to why they were able to.

    14. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Yes your last point of pissing off makers can be very important as if they stay pissed off long enough they will be actively searching for an alternative and will jump onboard as fast as makes economic sense; whereas if they too were fat and happy they might stick with Amazon even when it didn't quite make sense. For instance I know a pile of people who hate google adsense yet they can't find an alternative. But if one comes along and they switch, Adsense would pretty much not be able to ever get them back as they hate google because how they feel adsense has been treating them.

      But the fat and happy is how companies relate to their suppliers and customers when they want to stay in business for centuries vs being an MBA driven flash in the pan.

    15. Re:Amazon is waiting for a competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They released a buggy version of their DB that caused a lot of data losses.

      Which one?

      I used sybase 4.2, and most oracle since oracle 5, and I only really lost data to oracle (oracle on nt4, what a joke).

      Remember reading about ugly data loss with informix and data blades, too.

      Imo, what killed sybase is that they just stopped improving their database and milked their financial market customers. They sold the tech to ms (sql server us sybase 4.2 codebase), and died slowly up to their acquisition by sap...

      One could argue that Netscape killed themselves with buggy software, but imo this have never prevented a software company to succeed (ms, for instance). I'd say that the cut of the revenue stream was the real problem.

      Btw, was nice to get a reply, fellow ac!

  13. They're allowed to have a dud by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Apple's released duds and no one gives them any crap. Amazon is using this time to try new avenues and good for them. I think their stock is way over priced, but as a company they're doing extremely well. They also threw a lot of money into Amazon Studios to start creating content for Amazon Prime streaming. An excellent idea that, if Bezos lets them do the things the existing providers are too risk averse to do, will result in huge dividends for the company down the road. You're not going to get that from a Target or a Walmart.

    1. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by dottrap · · Score: 2

      Stock holders are forgiving to Apple because they constantly show profits. Even during the dot-com implosion, Apple continued to show growth and profits in their Mac lines as the rest of the PC industry struggled.

      Amazon is the opposite. Amazon has never had a profitable quarter. Instead their spending always outstrips their revenue. Stock holders have been amazingly patient because Amazon has been doing this for like 20 years now. But a $170 million write-down is a lot of money (unless you are Microsoft, and they at least have enormous profits to offset their huge billion dollar losses), especially for a company that has never had a profitable quarter.

      And this is for a product that everybody sees as outside Amazon's strengths. And the market reaction shows there is little interest and demand for this product, yet Amazon intends to double-down.

      Considering it has been over 20 years, I'm surprised Amazon hasn't seen a lot more criticism. Kudos I guess to Amazon's ever-patient shareholders.

    2. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Revenue doesn't mean an awful lot when you're not paying dividends. Sure, it's a metric and you can play with price to earning ratios and whatnot but if you're not putting $$$ in peoples palms, the stock price is really what counts.

    3. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Apple's released duds and no one gives them any crap.

      "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." The first-gen iPod that statement was written about was a bit of a dud. It wasn't until they added Windows compatibility a year or two later that it finally took off. G4 Cube? Utter and complete dud. Beautiful aesthetic, horribly overpriced, designed for a niche that simply didn't exist (i.e. professionals who were willing to trade expandability for good looks). Still talked about today as one of Apple's stupidest ideas. Even Apple's non-duds are given crap. The iPad was dismissed as "just a big iPhone" by huge swaths of the press and online commentary at the time. The iPhone was given crap by various people (and continues to be given crap) because it lacks a physical keyboard, Flash, expandable memory, and a host of other features.

      All of which is to say, Apple gets plenty of crap too, so Amazon should take this in stride, since it's nothing out of the ordinary. Good companies mess up. It's how they learn from mistakes and do better. Just because the Fire Phone is a dud doesn't mean that Amazon is suddenly doomed, that Bezos is out of touch, or that whatever they try next will also fail. It just means that the Fire Phone is a dud. That's an anecdote, and as we're so fond of saying around here, "an anecdote does not a trend make."

      Even so, they need to learn from this mistake, otherwise they may very well make a trend out of it.

    4. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the point of this response was exactly, since Apple also pays dividends and has for some time?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Amazon does not.

    6. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's duds are overlooked because they have legions of rabid fanbois who descend upon any who dare mock the be-turtlenecked-one or threaten to tarnish his memory. According to them not only can Apple do no wrong, but for these people that is a definition, and not just an assumption.

      Compare the Applephiles to Amazon's half-dozen droopy groupies. If you're still in doubt, google for "apple logo tattoo" and then for "amazon logo tattoo", and see just how many people are willing to tattoo that smiley 'A' logo on their bodies.

    7. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Apple's released duds and no one gives them any crap.

      Apple released the iPhone 5c, with only the iPhone 5s and maybe the Samsung Galaxy S4 selling more units - and everybody calls it a dud and gives them crap.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's duds are overlooked because they have legions of rabid fanbois who descend upon any who dare mock the be-turtlenecked-one or threaten to tarnish his memory. According to them not only can Apple do no wrong, but for these people that is a definition, and not just an assumption.

      Compare the Applephiles to Amazon's half-dozen droopy groupies. If you're still in doubt, google for "apple logo tattoo" and then for "amazon logo tattoo", and see just how many people are willing to tattoo that smiley 'A' logo on their bodies.

      Bezos should get it tatooed on his head, Last-Airbender-style.

    9. Re:They're allowed to have a dud by mcarthur · · Score: 1

      "It finally turned its first profit in the fourth quarter of 2001: $5 million (i.e., 1 per share), on revenues of more than $1 billion."

  14. Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by erp_consultant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Amazon phone takes something cool (Android) and locks it down Apple style. Apple can get away with it because they have perceived value in better quality hardware/design/vertical integration/app selection, etc. Amazon doesn't offer any of those benefits. So it ends up coming off as a cheap, locked down Android phone with crummy hardware and many of the good parts of Android missing. There are other cheap Android phones you can buy that offer more than the Amazon phone.

    What Amazon needs to do is offer something the other guys can't offer. Give customers free shipping on anything they buy from Amazon using their phone. Or maybe a half price Amazon Prime deal for the duration of the 2 year contract. Make it possible to add Google Services without having to root the phone. Stuff like that.

    Simply putting out yet another cheap Android phone is simply a race to the bottom. But a mostly stock Amazon branded Android phone with some cool Amazon services bundled in with it - now you're cooking with gas.

    1. Re:Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Amazon have offered it with 1 year of free Prime (that was back when they were also offering them at $200). I guess that's just a sign that they're not doing so well though. That was contract free also.

    2. Re:Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      I think the Google services thing is a Google restriction. Though Amazon possibly could have got on board with that, it possibly would have locked them out from some of the things they wanted to do with the phone. Google services have really turned into an Apple style lock-down on Android unfortunately.

    3. Re:Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their app store is awful and I don't trust it. If you remove the app store the apps you installed through it don't work anymore. I have a bunch of apps that I "bought" on sale when free on the Amazon app store but I can't bring myself to install that monstrosity unless I have to.

    4. Re:Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by gweeks · · Score: 1

      The fire phone is currently $189 for an unlocked phone and it includes a year of prime. That means free shipping for a year no matter what platform you order on as well as free video and music streaming for a year.

    5. Re:Amazon phone is the Apple/Google Frankenstein by lexman098 · · Score: 1
      You're missing the point, even though you stated it perfectly.

      There are other cheap Android phones you can buy that offer more than the Amazon phone.

      This is all it comes down to. People are going to pay high dollar for a weird 3rd party OS, hardware gimmicks, and lock-in unless the price is right. That's why the earlier cheap kindle tablets succeeded and the overpriced phone failed.

  15. Whattaya mean "Barb"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Whattaya mean "Barb"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha! Truly, a slashdot classic...

  16. Article Misses the Central Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The central point of the Fire Phone is for it to be a content-delivery device. The fact that it's a phone is only of passing interest. The goal is to get people into the Amazon digital media ecosystem so that they consume all their music, movies, etc. by downloading or streaming from Amazon. For $ per download/stream of course.

  17. Channelling SJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the CEO drove every aspect of the phone’s creation from the outset.

    Does he think he's Steve Jobs?

  18. two issues Bezos is blind to by swschrad · · Score: 1

    (1) it's a crap phone, and we've all got phones that make the Fire look like 1982.

    (2) it's a pushback against "we will be your only store, your company store, and in fact we will put an agent in bed with you to make sure you never think of another supplier for anything."

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  19. Fire Phone by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    The wife likes hers. We did get it at the $200 discount price and she's already an Amazon Prime member though. I think I would find it troublesome

  20. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 2

    There is a US company with the physical presence, logistics experience, and deep pockets to fulfill your prediction.

    WalMart.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  21. What about Fire tablet? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I had thought the Fire tablet was actually getting OK uptake, in part because it could play Prime video.. not sure if Amazons video ventures will succeed long term (I still greatly prefer Netflix even though I have a Prime membership and can watch Prime video).

    So in a way, it doesn't even matter that the hardware and software sucks, because the Fire tablets are meant to be consumption devices in a way the iPad never was. So the mistake was a Fire phone actually trying to offer function outside that specialized realm...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

    Henry Blodget is a clown. What business does he have still being around and giving opinions after all he said and did in 1999? Why would we care what he and others of his ilk say about the future when they have been so spectacularly wrong where it counts? "We think Amazon is just one of many stocks for which this narrative will ultimately prove false." Keep thinking douchebags while people at Amazon create something new and useful.

    I have long suspected that Business Insider is junk content-wise, and now seeing that Henry Blodget is its editor-in-chief I know for sure. If FastCompany takes it seriously, they are not any better. Forbes always smacked of empty, they had an article a couple years back about how Jobs was wrong for not introducing a tablet earlier, so it was clear they have nothing of value to offer either.

    It's all essentially entertainment on the topic of finance with no substance behind it whatsoever. Like that guy Cramer that yells booya.

    1. Re:Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, it's like reading an @GSElevator tweet. I love it!

    2. Re:Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Keep thinking douchebags while people at Amazon create something new and useful.

      OK, when will that start? You still can't fucking even sort items by price until you drill down to a specific category, what year is it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by pherthyl · · Score: 1

      Except there's nothing new or useful about the fire phone

    4. Re:Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      OK, when will that start? You still can't fucking even sort items by price until you drill down to a specific category, what year is it?

      Are you kidding? They made a revolution in buying, reading, and learning about books. AWS made a revolution in online services. The rest may be convenience -- buying things on Amazon prime (been a member for years), watching stuff with Fire TV (I own it), and their line of tablets (of which I have none), but it's still useful and they did it. (Yes their price sorting sucks.) Amazon made a big change in the world, and mostly for good. IMO. And what good have those analysts done? Well maybe you can say Henry Blodget helped jack up the price of Amazon stock in 1998. From Wikipedia: "[Blodget] is permanently banned from involvement in the securities industry."

      My point is, these people -- analysts and journalists -- in my opinion are not qualified to give opinions on things that matter. They should stick to reporting facts, to the degree they are able to without distorting them.

    5. Re:Fuck Wall Street "analysts" and journalists by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I have zero interest in the fire phone but that statement is not true: there is hardware and software engineering work done that make this product both new and useful, except not as much compared to market alternatives. But those engineers and designers and so on made the damn thing, unlike these idiot analysts who make nothing of value and give their opinion without having any skin in the game (or stand to make a profit in not-quite-not-yet-illegal ways -- there's a book called Conflicted by Michael Pulp which gives a good insight at what goes on in that world).

  23. ATT only killed it by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    ATT only killed it that was the major fail.

  24. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly what I've been thinking for years. If/when it happens, it'll seem like it happened overnight.

  25. There's another name for what Amazon has done by msobkow · · Score: 2

    There's another name for what Amazon has done that the rest of the civilized world uses: "Pyramid Scam".

    Instead of turning a profit selling products or services, they sell stock to pay off the existing stockholders. Then they sell more stock to pay off those shareholders.

    The problem with pyramid scams is eventually you run out of potential shareholders to bilk, you still haven't turned a profit, the whole damned thing comes crashing down, and everybody loses their shirt except the guy at the top of the pyramid: Bezos.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  26. Amazon does it the wrong way by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

    --start rant--
    Amazon is too aggressive in trying to bind customers to their ecosystem. Customers appreciate that much less than Amazon's managers might think. Case in point: Because Google for inexplicable reasons did not let me buy anything with my well-working Paypal account, I had to install Amazon's app store. Now that means you have to allow 3rd party apps so they can fully control your phone. Very insecure, but okay. Then I had to buy some 'Amazon coins" because any other payment method did not work, even though I customarily order books to my country from this account. Fine, I bought them and got the apps. But then I realized to my horror that Amazon injects code into them that only allows you to use the aps when you are currently logged into your Amazon account on the phone! Not only that, they also automatically activated the 1-click buy function!

    Not only do these apps take an eternity to start now (boy, this log-in check must be complicated), if somebody grabs my phone he can now order anything with one click and has full access to my Amazon account! How crazy is that?

    On the plus side, their customer service is top quality. The only thing they aren't allowed to tell you, but probably wish they could, is that you should not use Amazon's "app shop" under any circumstances ....
    --end of rant--

  27. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I don't know about this one. It seems to me that Walmart has stagnated. They have something that works well but seemed to have stopped innovating. It seems that their cash registers are from 1970 and their inventory just isn't changing. It is not that they are screwing up but they must understand how they ate everyone else's lunch is that their competitors stagnated and stopped innovating while Walmart did.

    Things like their website might win "best retail website of 2006." Plus other oddities like their stores are getting dirtier and shabbier. I suspect that at Walmart HQ that they have a zillion expressions like: Don't rock the boat, Don't jiggle the jello, Tallest blade of grass gets cut first, Highest nail gets hammered first. And they probably feel smug looking at great profit margins while they avoid all this costly innovation.

  28. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    Yes and it won't be done by someone who just builds another Amazon. It will be something fresh and innovative. Sort of like when Geiko went whole hog and completely cut out the insurance broker. Their simple reasoning was, "OK we are paying a 15% commission to salesmen who are selling a product that people are legally required to buy? How about not anymore and then we sell for 15% less than anyone else?"

  29. UK launch was a disaster as well by TAZ6416 · · Score: 1

    Was launched on O2 only at £42 a month, totally bombed. Now down to £27 a month and a frankly insane £399 on PAYG still locked to O2. I pop in now and again to see if the price has dropped anymore and last time I was there the chap who knows me by now said they had sold one since Christmas. https://www.o2.co.uk/shop/phones/amazon/fire-phone/

  30. Re: Amazon is waiting for X... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walmart could try to out-amazon amazon, but doing so would at least partly cannibalize their bread and butter business. A bold move that would be hard to swollow by own investors, and likely a move they will only attempt after amazon is already eating their lunch. I find a walmart amazon merger more likely. But could be doomed similar to the aol time warner merger. Google could be a credible competitor, with their new approach of partnering with local brick and mortar shops.

  31. Hand in your MBA card at the door by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Sell for 5% less than the competitors and trouser the other 10.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Re: Amazon is waiting for X... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You should never be afraid of cannibalising your existing business; it will happen eventually and it's better done by yourself than some other bastard.

    I'm sure Kodak's employees would agree. Both of them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Amazon made mistakes by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    1) They tried to locked down the Android environment ala Apple.
    2) They failed to include an expandable SD memory slot. (Sure, you can have cloud, but that costs data.)
    3) They failed to leverage their services. [Namely, expanded personal cloud access for cheap.]

  34. Citation needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shares outstanding 2/18/2004: 404,330,593
    Shares outstanding 1/22/2009: 428,583,135
    Shares outstanding 1/17/2014: 459,264,535
    Shares outstanding 10/17/2014: 463,006,452

    The increases have virtually entirely been based on stock-based compensation to employees or stock issued as a method of acquiring other businesses. There have been no "stock sales to pay off existing shareholders".

    Retained earnings at 9/30/2014: $1,735,000,000, i.e. inception to date they have accumulated more net income than net losses (albeit fairly thin compared to the sheer volume of revenue). They have indeed "turned a profit".

    Meanwhile, they are fairly liquid depending on the time of year you look at them (they tend to be flush with cash right after Christmas, imagine that) and had added almost $5 billion in infrastructure between 12/2013 and 9/2014 alone, mostly with cash.

    It's fine to hate on teh evil corporations but you should at least accuse them of things they actually do instead of things they don't (no pyramid schemes).

  35. How dare they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare Amazon, or ANYBODY, try to challenge Apple selling the exact same grid-of-icons iDevices generation after generation, or the untold numbers of nearly identical vanilla Android phones? Don't they know Apple has already won and NOBODY wants to be different from anybody else or ever try anything different EVER AGAIN?

    And the hyperbole in these comments by the Amazon haters really reeks. Their tablet hardware sucks? You didn't spend $800 on it, so for the price its damn nice hardware. The FireTV is quickly and easily becoming the nicest and fastest little TV streaming gadget out there. And Amazon had nothing to offer in their ecosystem? Prime movies, music, books, cloud drive, and a fully stocked app store, that's all a bunch of nothing? This is the worst phone ever? Nobody remembers the Oreo-tastic Palm Pre or the can't-get-it-off-the-market-fast-enough Microsoft Kin phones?

  36. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    This has to be more highly rated. Amazon has its fingers in many pies, but in terms of putting physical products in your hands, Amazon is really facing off with Walmart. We've all read the crazy articles about Walmart's distribution network where suppliers have a ten minute slot to show up and unload their trucks into Walmart's warehouses. Well, this pretty much applies to their online sales as well.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  37. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, there's a WalMart within X miles of every American; they already operate an over-the-road delivery network with top tier logistics and tracking that rivals UPS; they have an added incentive to undercut Amazon prices -- if they can get all your items delivered to the nearest store, they'll get additional in-store revenues from a percentage of those visits. "Hey, while I'm here I'll get groceries".

    You could imagine the strategic value of adding grocery departments; they want to make WM a regular weekly visit -- and you can pick up your WalMartAzon purchases on your regular run.

    And the data! Think of the value of the knowledge they would gain about their customers.

  38. Re:Amazon is waiting for X... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walmart is not stagnating, you're just looking at what you can see in the stores themselves. Wallmart's innovation is in supply chain management & logistics. You might be surprised how high-tech it is, and it's also most of what makes Amazon successful.

  39. Amazon's hardware sucks by anwer_khan · · Score: 1

    What the Fire phone needs to nr Android 5. Its cool if you want the Fire interface but let users access stock android. Some way to display streaming Prime content on a TV. Minimum 32GB storage. No stupid gimmicks

    --
    http://www.loveguruastro.com/services/