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: Bearded One who wrote (56190)	5/9/1999 11:45:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Bearded, yes I know what you are saying for sure, and mostly agree (btw we talk about a lot of stocks here not just amzn), however this is where I disagree with you: Dell actually creates things out of raw materials. Amazon is nothing more than a middleman. OK, this is my opinion only. The Dell business model actually leverages R&D by Intel and Msft. Dell is merely an advertising and distribution machine. Putting together a PC is a 2 minute task... it is not true "manufacturing" - it is really assembly if I had to characterize it. The whole aim is to do as little assembly as possible too, where intc puts more and more stuff on their chip vs 3rd party parts (2nd level cache is an example). Dell's aim is to do as little design/engr as possible. Their value proposition lies in the supply chain which is centered on purchasing I would say at Dell, whereas if I had to guess amzn is transportation centered. In this sense internet retailing companies share similarities, they build up distribution infrastructure which is costly, spend a whole bunch on advertising and try to sell their product for cheaper than the competition. The key is volume.

To: Bearded One who wrote (56190)	5/9/1999 11:57:00 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>>Oh yes, and did I mention that bookstores are profitable? Barnes and Noble has not generated positive free cash flow since going public.

To: Bearded One who wrote (56190)	5/10/1999 2:28:00 AM
From: dbblg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Bearded One, Interesting posts. A couple of thoughts... >>Amazon's value is only in its Web site and location of storage areas. As has been shown, web site creation is relatively easy. Creating a website is relatively easy. Creating a website at which people feel comfortable spending time and money is surprisingly difficult. Personally, I loathe Amazon's site, and anyway don't care much about "community" when I am shopping. Amazon's record strongly suggests that I am in the minority. People treat Amazon's site like programming, and, evidently, they like what they see. >>Oh yes, and did I mention that bookstores are profitable? How is Amazon going to profitably sell a book much cheaper than a bookstore when you add shipping costs? Bookstores are efficient-- they ship hundreds of books to one location at a time, saving on shipping costs. First, the major bookstore chains, last time I checked, didn't generate any free cash flow. Leasing space, and furnishing it as comfortably as Barnes and Noble and Borders do, isn't cheap. Second, the efficiency in shipping costs you refer to relies on extremely generous return policies on the part of book publishers. The big chains negotiate contracts which allow them to return around 40% of the books they order if they don't sell. (Given shipping costs, the "return" is usually effected by massive publisher-sponsored discounting; these are the "books near $5.00", etc.)Even with the shift from a no-inventory model, Amazon should be able to keep unsold books to a fraction of its offline competitors. As online book sales become a more significant part of the book market, offline chains will, IMO, have a much harder time getting the kinds of deals on returns they get now. Third, some of the highest-margin sales for the "profitable" offline bookstores are promotional displays, preferred placing,etc. Online bookstores should be able to offer analogous services for lower prices, yet with higher margins. >>But by expanding so irresponsibly, they are demonstrating an intent to lose investor's money in a wide variety of fields and stretch themselves too thin to manage their losses. This certainly bears watching. I am a little lost as to how auctions fit into the plan. I would like to see them expand their gift offerings, for example.