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: H James Morris who wrote (14117)	8/19/1998 9:23:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I really question that 42 mil are using the internet. This is another myth that the Internet co's keep hyping. Its not important here but I would not be surprised that the Internet as we know it, has < 10mil people using it in a fashion that would generate any significant financial revenue. Aol, being the exception. H, I agree with your assessment. There are a lot of kids on the net too that cannot make purchases. This has been touched on in the past but tonight was a good example. The son of one of my neighbors who is a friend of my son asked if he could use my charge card to order some CDs fron CDnow. He then paid cash to me for the purchase. This youg man is 18 years old and has never made a purchase on the internet due to no charge card. CDNow was less expensive then the local National Record Mart and he orderd about 6 CDs. I suspect 30% of the people active on the net do not have charge cards due to age. Glenn

To: H James Morris who wrote (14117)	8/20/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

The exact number is irrelevant, IMO. The inevitable entry into to the market of the mega brand name companies and mass marketers is an example of "flies being drawn to honey" - the internet is just now starting to attract the heavy hitters to compete with the early adopters such as Amzongonenuts.com. If many of these companies want to, they can afford to lose hundreds of millions of dollars per year for several years in order to squash the Amazon scarlet beatles - companies that have put on a glimmering outer skin that attracts huge amounts of attention to the stock but underneath the flashy exterior they are poisonous. "But Amazon is more efficient than traditional companies". Yea, right. Efficient at losing millions and driving the company into debt and huge options commitments that will drive down the high-flying stock price. The internet is an "enabling technology" that allows content creators and manufacturers, such as Bertelsman, to cut out two levels of middlemen to sell directly to the consumer. Now that's efficiency; Bertelsman and other publishers and music producers through their own web sites and massive associates programs directly to the consumer. And that's just one company thqat will jump on the internet now that there is a sizable market to go after. Why didn't they start internet sites two or 3 years ago? Why, so they could lose money for three years? Amazon is the glamour queen babe in the woods (jungle) with only a roach-motel logo stamped towel around her for protection. The stock is now feeding on the small retail customer and the pimping brokerages are more than happy to rake in huge commissions on the darlings of the sector; millions of shares per day are trading hands - hundreds of millions of $ per month in commissions are paying for Mercedes and trips to Fiji. To expect more "holds" or outright "sells" from these scam "advisors" to the small investor is like asking Clinton to keep his zipper shut.