[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

According to Amazon's brass, yes their main driver of profit with the Fire is the content, but their intent is to make a small profit on the hardware as well.

With the 3rd party estimates in November of the manufacturing cost of about $202, that sounds about right. With changing parts costs and increases in manufacturing efficiency, I could see manufacturing costs drop 15-25% next year, while they keep the $199 price constant.

They need to add features to stay competitive. These will offset economies of scale.

[andi*pandi]

$199+ $79 amazon prime = profit?

The review I just saw of the Kobo vox was scathing.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by ort888 

That's the real question though. How much cash do you really make on content?

Apple doesn't make much on content, and they have the largest digital content store in the world many times over. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't digital content sales something like 2% of Apple's total profit?

I know this is pretty anecdotal, but everyone I know who wants a Fire wants it because it's a cheaper iPad. Keyword cheaper... key factor... CHEAPNESS. In other words, these people are cheap. They aren't going to blow a ton of money on movies songs and apps. These are people who make sacrifices to save a buck... and that has to be a big chunk of the people interested in the device.

I don't have a doubt that they can make some money from the device... the question is how much...

Good points. If you read their annual report you'll see how much Amazon, the content provider, really makes. Operating profits are a fraction of a hair of 1% of total revenue. They essentially operate at break even.

It reminds me of Groupon. If you look at the feedback from the businesses, there's a large corpus of negativity against Groupon. The businesses complain that the people coming in are too cheap. They don't buy any extras, and they don't convert well into repeat customers. They just use their coupon, leave, and several never return. They jump from one deal to the next, because their cheap.

In other words, they're not the kind of customers you want.

Just because someone buys a Fire, doesn't mean Amazon is going to make a bunch of money from them. It's a major gamble, and one that has a very low payout. And the Fire isn't exactly going to magically transform Amazon into this huge, global, profitable company. It's going to be stuck in the US for at least the first year, with maybe a few million sold. You won't notice hardly any change in their operating profit.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

$199+ $79 amazon prime = profit?

The review I just saw of the Kobo vox was scathing.

I spent 1 hour with the Kobo Vox yesterday. There's effectively nary a difference between it and the Fire. It's just people copying each other. 7" Android tablets, only so many ways you can skin that cat.

Vox has the same issues as the Fire. Constrained 7" screen and slow Android. Sucks as a full-featured tablet and sucks as a full-featured colour eReader.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

They need to add features to stay competitive. These will offset economies of scale.

What for? It's a Kindle.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What for? It's a Kindle.

It's called Kobo and Barnes and Noble. If they put faster processors, better screens, a front facing camera in... etc. Amazon will have to respond, or else people will look at it as less value for the same price as the competition, and something that seems to not be changing. Wake up.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Amazon is losing money on every sale. It's not just hardware costs. There's R&D. Service and Support. And all the rest.

Their margins are razor thin on their content.

Overall.

Not on electronic content. Margins are MUCH higher without all the overhead of physical media.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

It's called Kobo and Barnes and Noble. If they put faster processors, better screens, a front facing camera in... etc. Amazon will have to respond, or else people will look at it as less value for the same price as the competition, and something that seems to not be changing. Wake up.

Will the books read faster?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Overall.

Not on electronic content. Margins are MUCH higher without all the overhead of physical media.

You're talking out of your ass. If you have read Amazon's annual reports, and quarterly reports, that ass statement would make sense to you.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Will the books read faster?

Do you ever make sense?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

You're talking out of your ass. If you have read Amazon's annual reports, and quarterly reports, that ass statement would make sense to you.

I've read their annual report for 2010, and their latest quarterly report.

They don't break out electronic media from sales of "media".

Unless you're reading different reports, all we have to go on is Amazon's own note (in the 2010 report) that they expect the growth in electronic media, and the lack of shipping costs to those, to offset the higher shipping costs incurred by an increase in premium members and free shipping offers.

Plus basic common sense that state that, the larger the number of customers, economies of scale VASTLY favor digital download markets over physical media — no shipping, no warehousing, no over-/understocking, no expensive buffering for market fluctuation, etc.

THAT is what Kindle Fire (and the other new Kindles) are aimed at: shifting their media market to non-physical goods.

If you have different numbers that might allow a different interpretation, please feel free to present them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Do you ever make sense?

If I *don't* make sense, you're either not getting the joke, or you're freudling.

Or both, as it were.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I've read their annual report for 2010, and their latest quarterly report.

They don't break out electronic media from sales of "media".

Unless you're reading different reports, all we have to go on is Amazon's own note (in the 2010 report) that they expect the growth in electronic media, and the lack of shipping costs to those, to offset the higher shipping costs incurred by an increase in premium members and free shipping offers.

Plus basic common sense that state that, the larger the number of customers, economies of scale VASTLY favor digital download markets over physical media — no shipping, no warehousing, no over-/understocking, no expensive buffering for market fluctuation, etc.

THAT is what Kindle Fire (and the other new Kindles) are aimed at: shifting their media market to non-physical goods.

If you have different numbers that might allow a different interpretation, please feel free to present them.

Amazon's operating profit last quarter was .006%. There's no profit in what they're doing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Amazon's operating profit last quarter was .006%. There's no profit in what they're doing.

It makes complete sense to try and shift business to higher-margin markets then, doesn't it? Which is the point of selling the Kindle at-cost (or slightly lower).

Are you going to get around to disputing my point, or are you really not getting it?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It makes complete sense to try and shift business to higher-margin markets then, doesn't it? Which is the point of selling the Kindle at-cost (or slightly lower).

Are you going to get around to disputing my point, or are you really not getting it?

You're hilarious.

[Spheric Harlot]

So, no?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So, no?

I'm not going to spoon feed this stuff to you. You know where to find Apple's, Amazon's, Microsoft's, etc. Annual and Quarterly Reports. And if you read through them, they're very interesting because they show you where these guys make their money. Well, in Amazon's case, they don't make shit.

My prediction: Amazon will struggle and go bankrupt within the next 5 years. The Fire will fail to gain significant tablet marketshare.

The reason Amazon will face this reality is for multiple reasons, not the least of which is because their business isn't really profitable now, nor has it been, for several years. Profits on eBooks sold, for instance, after COGS and expenses, are next to nothing. They have to do so much volume that in the end, profits are shattered.

On their whole business, profits are next to nothing. They've low balled themselves so much that the only way for them to sustain their business is to keep offering super cheap stuff. But it's not sustainable anymore because... for one, Apple has matured so much... and there's new, growing players on the market like Kobo who provide real competition to Amazon. Kobo was just bought by a Japanese company and will be effecting a global expansion over the next 2 years.

Not only this, but the mentality of cheapskates aren't typically very good customers. They don't spend that much money, and are always seeking a deal. If you think a Fire, for instance, will be a vehicle to make a ton of money on content, you're going to probably, in my view, be very mistaken.

We know this from many examples in business. Groupon is a quick one. But Android smartphones are another. The amount of revenue generated from people buying cheap feature phones or cheap or even expensive Android phones pales in comparison to the amount of revenue generated from iPhone users, for instance. When you look at mobile carrier data, and see how little revenue they get from cheapskates... how many delinquent accounts there are... etc., you realize that it's precarious and literally foolish to chase these customers as your sole source.

With global expansion, the cost of Amazon's business has ballooned even more, and the barriers to entry in new markets are substantial.

My advice to Amazon would be to stop trying to do everything. Try to keep focusing on some core stuff, like the eBooks, eReaders, etc. and make those premium products. A sort of rebrand. If you look at the financials you'll realize how much of a mess they're business really is. It's funny because Amazon really does come off as an eBook etailer with eReaders. But they actually sell everything, from condoms to groceries, to lawnmowers, etc. I don't know how much all this extra stuff makes sense to them anymore when you look at their financials.

Even if Amazon focusses on tablets, eBook distribution, etc., they're still a baby hardware maker. Apple will continue to spank them in the creation of hardware and software, and dare I say it, but MS will too. MS and Nokia may be the real competition to finally hit the iPad over the next year. Once some other big company like MS/Nokia figure out the tablet, Amazon will be in even more trouble trying to grab what little marketshare is left over in the tablet space. They're like a fox trying to get scrapes from a lion kill.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'm not going to spoon feed this stuff to you. You know where to find Apple's, Amazon's, Microsoft's, etc. Annual and Quarterly Reports. And if you read through them, they're very interesting because they show you where these guys make their money. Well, in Amazon's case, they don't make shit.

As mentioned, I've READ Amazon's reports. And I can see that they're not turning a profit now.

WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BUILDING THESE NEW KINDLES AND PUSHING HIGHER-MARGIN DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION.

Even if Amazon focusses on tablets, eBook distribution, etc., they're still a baby hardware maker. Apple will continue to spank them in the creation of hardware and software, and dare I say it, but MS will too. MS and Nokia may be the real competition to finally hit the iPad over the next year. Once some other big company like MS/Nokia figure out the tablet, Amazon will be in even more trouble trying to grab what little marketshare is left over in the tablet space. They're like a fox trying to get scrapes from a lion kill.

THEY AREN'T AFTER THE TABLET SPACE. IF THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TABLET SPACE, THEY'D TRY TO MAKE A PROFIT ON TABLET HARDWARE.

They want to sell their electronic media. And, unsurprisingly, that is the ONE thing the Kindle Fire is actually really, really good at, according to all reviews I've read.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

As mentioned, I've READ Amazon's reports. And I can see that they're not turning a profit now.

WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BUILDING THESE NEW KINDLES AND PUSHING HIGHER-MARGIN DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION.




THEY AREN'T AFTER THE TABLET SPACE. IF THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TABLET SPACE, THEY'D TRY TO MAKE A PROFIT ON TABLET HARDWARE.

They want to sell their electronic media. And, unsurprisingly, that is the ONE thing the Kindle Fire is actually really, really good at, according to all reviews I've read.

Yes Spheric, I know. I understand. But there's not a ton of money in digital content. Enough that a company like Kobo can do alright, sure, but Amazon is a fragmented mess that sells so much junk besides music, videos, and books, which is why they might need to refocus/rebrand. Because all that other junk isn't profitable. And content isn't that profitable either my man.

And Amazon does need to be concerned with other tablets on the market, because it's competition. I'm certain this PlayBook firesale is going to hurt their initial sales, for instance. And other, new tablets that come on the scene just detract away from the Fire.

I predict the market will settle, and is doing it right now, on the 10" tablet. The 7" tweeners will root themselves into a niche market. The question is, does Amazon have too big of an ego to not cut out some of the fat they have? Will they not change and continue as it is?

[Spheric Harlot]

Gotcha.

Time will tell, I guess.

[Eug]

The PlayBook is now $199.99.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'm certain this PlayBook firesale is going to hurt their initial sales, for instance.

Why aren't you as concerned about RIM's viability as you are about Amazon's?

[Spheric Harlot]

I don't think there's any doubt that the PlayBook is stillborn.

The Kindle Fire will sell well — but it will only *continue* to sell well if the 7" form factor proves useful for what it's aimed at (which, as mentioned, is a distinct and limited subset of what iPad can do).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The Kindle Fire will sell well — but it will only *continue* to sell well if the 7" form factor proves useful for what it's aimed at (which, as mentioned, is a distinct and limited subset of what iPad can do).

Indeed. It feels quite bizarre to be debating that the Fire is only mediocre, no more than what it needs to be for Amazon's business model, and not a "POS!!1!11!!!"

[Wiskedjak]

Whoops ... I was wrong. It looks like you *can* get email on your Playbook ... if you install DOS
The Only Reason to Use a PlayBook Is DOS

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Indeed. It feels quite bizarre to be debating that the Fire is only mediocre, no more than what it needs to be for Amazon's business model, and not a "POS!!1!11!!!"

You know it's funny. I wonder what people think of other people... like there is this magical divide between us geeks here, and the general consumer. Sure, there is a divide, but in this information age, it may be a lot smaller than we all think.

My point is, the world has just replaced baby boomers and their parents... it's a younger generation of people who grew up with tech. These people might be more choosy and knowledgable when it comes to technology.

In other words, I think you might have been able to fool people days past, but today, the consumer is well researched, and people aren't going to waste money on something that performs like a POS, no matter whose name is on it. Both small and large companies have outright failed, and it's embarrassing. The cool, innovative company, Apple, is the king of the hill now. All those business geeks using MS and RIM are old and haggard now.

I don't know if Amazon is completely in touch anymore. Yes, I could be wrong, and time will tell. Amazon has 1 thing going for it that, RIM, for instance, doesn't: that's content. But if the content is on a POS, I don't see it penetrating.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Whoops ... I was wrong. It looks like you *can* get email on your Playbook ... if you install DOS
The Only Reason to Use a PlayBook Is DOS

? I just use Safari on my iPad to access my Yahoo! email.

The Mail account is linked to my GF's Y! email account because idiotically, like other ARM tablets, this iPad has no independent multi-user email support. You'd figure a $519 machine could at least handle multiple user accounts.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why aren't you as concerned about RIM's viability as you are about Amazon's?

I'm actually concerned about RIM to a point, because it's in Canada and a big part of our tech vibe. But I also have zero respect for Mike and Jim for a lot of reasons I've already mentioned in other threads. Because of that, I don't give a shit what happens to them, because those 2 bozos are the ones responsible, and they don't deserve even an open casket funeral.

I feel sorry for the good employees there, though. But I've said for years that RIM was dying and would be dead sooner rather than later. I had no confidence in those fuxktards, and knew they'd undo the whole company.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Eug 

? I just use Safari on my iPad to access my Yahoo! email.

The Mail account is linked to my GF's Y! email account because idiotically, like other ARM tablets, this iPad has no independent multi-user email support. You'd figure a $519 machine could at least handle multiple user accounts.

Webmail, sure. Playbook can't access Exchange (outside of Outlook web).

[Eug]

Outlook webmail is only OK, but I dare say Yahoo! webmail is quite good on the iPad. It's one of the very few iPad specific web pages that doesn't actually suck. It looks and feels like a good app, without requiring you to launch a separate app.

I wonder if MS will get with the program and develop improved web mail for Outlook.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I wonder if MS will get with the program and develop improved web mail for Outlook.

Under Exchange 2010, Outlook Web is actually somewhat comparable to Outlook 2007.

[Eug]

Nice to know. I guess I'm behind the times - forgot I'm on an older version. So webmail is really maturing, making dedicated apps less important for stuff like this. Sure we'll still need apps for stuff like video games, but I don't understand why YouTube needs to be a dedicated app. It's quite annoying to be kicked out of Safari just to watch some lolcat video.

[Eug]

The app is dead. Long live the web app?

I didn't know that Angry Birds is now a web app.

PS. This is my local newspaper's IPad web app: http://read.thestar.com/

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The app is dead. Long live the web app?

I didn't know that Angry Birds is now a web app.

PS. This is my local newspaper's IPad web app: The Star

The App isn't dead. People love to pigeon hole this stuff. Both HMTL-5 and Apps can and do co-exist. It's not a zero sum game. Games are better as Apps for instance.

Heavy programs like Pages for the iPad is also better as an App. The Web has its limits. Also, magazines on the iPad... you need to take direct advantage of the hardware for better acceleration... local content... etc. That experience is much better in an App with Objective C than it is online.

Online/HMTL-5 has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is a lack of its ability to take advantage of all of a mobile OSes APIs. One example: notifications. If you have a newspaper App, it can send you notifications. But a Web App... as soon as you leave the page, your cut off...

No, Apps are not dead. There're here to stay. A better way of looking at this is simply native Apps on desktops and Apps on the Web. Most people haven't given up native Apps like MS Office, iWork, iMovie, Photoshop, Adobe After Effects... etc. for Web versions. Try using Google Docs then dive into iWork or MS Office. Both latter are much better, more feature rich, and more robust than the Web versions.

HTML-5 is more hype than anything, but promising and useful.

The way I view this is in human terms. Who gives a shit if something is in a browser. The human using the tool has to sit in the same position, on the same computing paradigm, and make inputs. If a native App gives the human a better experience, then do the native App. Apple has figured this out flawlessly.

Only geeks like us contemplate this stuff. But in the end, the user experience should win out.

[Wiskedjak]

I agree. The web app might eventually replace the native app, but not until it can improve gesture performance and deal with offline storage.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

The 7" tweeners will root themselves into a niche market.

A niche market is still a market. Even after the 10" Kindle tablet comes out, there will still be interest in the Fire simply because it's cheap and it's a Kindle tablet. And, though you personally vehemently oppose a 7" tablet, there are people who do prefer the 7" screen size.

And honestly, I think the market is ready for a $199 MSRP tablet. The Fire isn't promising to be an iPad killer, and I don't think Amazon envisions it to be an iPad killer. The two can exist side-by-side in the market, IMO. Yes, there absolutely will be some crossover between the two devices, but I certainly believe that there is room in the market for two success stories (and Honeycomb isn't one of them, yet).

[Wiskedjak]

Here's the most even review I've seen so far, speaking about both positives and negatives and aware that it's in a completely different category from the iPad.

Don't call it a tablet: the Kindle Fire reviewed
The Good:
Screen is detailed and bright
Battery life is pretty robust for the price
Interface for managing books, movies, and apps is visually appealing
Speakers are loud

The Bad:
Keyboard is difficult to type on for more than a few words
Stores for buying content are too disparate, and sometimes forced in front of your face as with the Video section
6GB of storage is very small. We know, clouds and everything, but there's not even a microSD card slot to give us some flexibility

The Ugly:
Amazon way over-promised on the browser—it's slow, for a device as well-specced as this
OS is generally pokey, even with simple tasks like returning the home screen
Screen is sometimes unresponsive, requiring multiple pokes to register an instruction

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here's the most even review I've seen so far, speaking about both positives and negatives and aware that it's in a completely different category from the iPad.

Pretty scathing, no? It reads like the majority of the reviews.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I agree. The web app might eventually replace the native app, but not until it can improve gesture performance and deal with offline storage.

There are certain apps which shouldn't have to exist. These include dedicated website apps and YouTube for website embedded YouTube videos.

I basically never download dedicated website apps and find getting kicked out of the browser to watch a YouTube video a very clunky end user experience. I'm glad the websites are now starting to figure this out. Having the requirement of dedicated apps when they are not necessary is just annoying.

Furthermore having dedicated apps which leave out very basic functionality that even a web app can provide is just bizarre. The prime example of this is the Mail app's lack of support of multiple independent users.

[andi*pandi]

Eug, I'm not sure why you say that the mail app can't handle multiple accounts... sure the ipad as a whole doesn't have separate users, which would be handy, but you can import as many email accounts as you like into Mail. I have 4 accounts in Mail. ?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Eug, I'm not sure why you say that the mail app can't handle multiple accounts... sure the ipad as a whole doesn't have separate users, which would be handy, but you can import as many email accounts as you like into Mail. I have 4 accounts in Mail. ?

Not independent private accounts. Once imported, all are visible for all users.

I'm not going to buy a separate $519 machine for every single user just to have email privacy. This wouldn't be a problem if the iPad supported multiple user accounts, but Apple refuses to support that too.

If I'm just surfing, reading email, and consuming some multimedia, it seems ludicrous to spend 2.5X as much on a tablet just to get the same lame user account limitations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Pretty scathing, no? It reads like the majority of the reviews.

It's only scathing if you ignore these sentences and that Amazon clearly wasn't aiming to be an iPad-Killer (which, of course, you will):

ars
As a vector for Amazon's video and music stores and huge e-book selection, it's great. As an e-reader, it's merely OK.

if you're looking for an e-reader and don't mind a smallish LCD screen, a lightweight video player, and a limited-use browser, the Kindle Fire can fill those niches—in its own ambling way.

we can't fault it for not being an iPad. It's only a few hundred fewer dollars, and Amazon has never marketed it as a tablet. This is a basic media consumption device.

The best way to think of the Kindle Fire is as a decent e-reader that can do some extra stuff—namely, play videos and browse the Internet. For $200, that's not a bad deal—but just make sure that it's one you're willing to make.

Bottom line, it's worth $200, and not one penny more. If Amazon had tried to release an iPad-Killer, the product would most certainly have failed, just as the TouchPad did. IMO, the TouchPad didn't fail due to poor marketing; it failed because it was too close to the iPad in every way, without offering any obvious advantages.

[Eug]

I'm looking forward to checking out a dual-core A15 Android 4.2 Ice Cream Sandwich based $199.99 16 GB tablet in 2012, in about a 7"-8.5" size. I do NOT want 3G, accelerometer, Bluetooth, GPS, or a camera, since for my needs they are completely superfluous, and I think those features will only detract from making a good $199.99 tablet.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's only scathing if you ignore these sentences and that Amazon clearly wasn't aiming to be an iPad-Killer (which, of course, you will):


Bottom line, it's worth $200, and not one penny more. If Amazon had tried to release an iPad-Killer, the product would most certainly have failed, just as the TouchPad did. IMO, the TouchPad didn't fail due to poor marketing; it failed because it was too close to the iPad in every way, without offering any obvious advantages.

Bottom line. It is not worth $200. It's only your opinion and my opinion. It's worth whatever each person is willing to pay for it. Since they've sold some already, it's worth $200 to those people.

All this coming from a guy who has never even used a Fire before. You're an armchair critic... lol

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Bottom line. It is not worth $200. It's only your opinion and my opinion. It's worth whatever each person is willing to pay for it. Since they've sold some already, it's worth $200 to those people.

All this coming from a guy who has never even used a Fire before. You're an armchair critic... lol

Most of the reviews I've read, even the ones you've posted, indicated it's worth $200 (the part of all the reviews that you constantly ignore).

Also, you're the one acting as a critic. I haven't said a single word about it's performance or quality. I've only pointed out that it's feature-set appears to be consistent with a low-cost device targeted at ebook customers who don't need high performance.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Most of the reviews I've read, even the ones you've posted, indicated it's worth $200 (the part of all the reviews that you constantly ignore).

Also, you're the one acting as a critic. I haven't said a single word about it's performance or quality. I've only pointed out that it's feature-set appears to be consistent with a low-cost device targeted at ebook customers who don't need high performance.

You said:

Bottom line, it's worth $200, and not one penny more. Period. And you haven't even used the device. You lost all credibility.

As for the TouchPad, once again, you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't used the device. It is differentiated from the iPad much more than most any other tablet out there. Some solid, differentiating features include:

1. Wireless charging built in. No stupid cases to put on. No large mats. It just works.
2. Synergy. If you had actually used the device, you'd know what this is.
3. A significantly better front facing camera.
4. Beats audio. The sound is quite good.
5. A unique, multi-tasking rich OS.

The problem is that HP's management pulled the plug too fast. In fact, the TP was swooped up by a company wide decision to dump their entire PC line. The TP was collateral damage. It's not a perfect device, and not as good as the iPad, but it has several merits, particularly compared to other tablets on the market.

Being a newcomer to the tablet space, and having hardly any marketshare in mobile OSes, HP would have had to dig in for the long-haul to get traction. But it's all dead now, and not worth discussing anymore. It's been beaten to death on here in other threads.

[Eug]

Yep. The TouchPad is already dead. It's a moot discussion, which is why I said before that anyone recommending it now has no credibility.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

As for the TouchPad, once again, you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't used the device.

I've already said that the software development team I work with has one for testing. I have indeed used a TouchPad and quite extensively to test our products on it and learn about it's UI in case we were to develop apps for it. I have no idea how you jumped to the assumption that I haven't used one.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you sure about that, or are you just making wild assumptions? The software development team I'm working on picked up a Touchpad shortly after launch to test our websites on and to eventually develop apps for. I actually don't mind the Touchpad.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yep. The TouchPad is already dead. It's a moot discussion, which is why I said before that anyone recommending it now has no credibility.

If a car maker stopped making a model, and offered that car for 80% off, which included the full warranty and customer service support, backed by a legitimate company, would you say the person recommending it had no credibility? No, you would not.

You just lost all credibility.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I've already said that the software development team I work with has one for testing. I have indeed used a TouchPad and quite extensively to test our products on it and learn about it's UI in case we were to develop apps for it. I have no idea how you jumped to the assumption that I haven't used one.

The fact that you stated there wasn't anything differentiating it from the iPad shows you haven't used it, or are simply ignorant.