SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (72737)8/8/1999 11:10:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Glenn,
I've missed a few posts. 26,697 of them to be precise. Just dropped in to see who was still around. I hope your efforts here have paid off.
Best Regards,
Bob



To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (72737)8/9/1999 1:24:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
>>We seem to agree except on a step back for business. I believe short term (the next five years) we will see very few commodity retailers.<<

you mean like the 150 book sellers we have already? ;-)

>>Long term we should see a weeding out of the inadequate retailers and have retailers offering better price and service combined.<<

agreed. but the nets compete w/ bricks and mortar. if their prices aren't seriously discounted to bricks and mortar, regardless of their costs, they will have difficulty. also, keep in mind the hype factor. everyone is getting on the net. literally everyone.

>>These retailers will still be able to turn a profit although a lower percentage profit due to the fewer efficient retailers in the same space. This is in a way a continuation of the weeding out of independants that has been going on for the last decade but the net will speed this process up.<<

i have no problem with net profits. i think some will be profitable. making $1,000,000,000 in profits for amzn isn't going to happen. not now nor ever. and that is what this stock is priced for.



To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (72737)8/9/1999 2:19:00 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684
 
Glenn -- this new format for SI seems inferior to me. Can we get the old message format back ?????? <g>