Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: John May who wrote (3803)	5/1/1998 5:18:00 PM
From: Mark Myword	Respond to of 164684

John - thanks for the link - I saw this the other day - no surprise that a "net insider" would be partial to AMZN - with all the incestuous links , tie-ins , and cross ownership going on , I'm not sure just what you can trust to be objective in this arena.

To: John May who wrote (3803)	5/3/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: WAH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

That story was so bizarre I have to throw in my $ .02 (insert joke about amzn's earnings here) Some observations: First, where is the evidence that AMZN is close to profitability ? Second, maybe the "bricks & mortar" crowd isn't going to rush on to the net precisely because of my first observation. Third, why must B&N & Borders "get its act together on books before it gets into music or video"? If "getting its act together" means earning a single solitary cent, then AMZN should avoid music & videos too. Fourth, BKS disappointed with only 15mil in approx. 6 months of 1997 operation. But AMZNs first year sales were? Fifth, AMZN becoming a global brand, replacing "local" brands like Barnes & Noble? This guy Keenan is ridiculous. This story along with such brilliant commentary as "every internet sale for Barnes & Noble is a loss of a sale in there store" simply flabbergasts me.