biz 101: losses in business commonly happen anytime. losses are not wrong or right. they just happen, for various reasons. it is called an occupational hazard. if getting profits all the time was guaranteed, every tom, dick and harry would be running a business.
so companies know about the possibility of losses before they start up.
>and consumers didn't have their expectations met.
naive. companies don't do businesses for that reason. that is kind of a side effect, although a desirable one for companies, because it makes customers continue as customers. companies do business to make money (i.e. profits, not even just sales), plain and simple.
whether we like that or not, and whether their behaviour is ethical or not, and legal or not, are separate, though related issues.
how many times has this been stated on hn, even if in other words? plenty, I bet.
apart from that, it is sheer common knowledge.
>>is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits
>You're describing the main reason for owning one.
Yes. Is that not obvious?
>This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist.
you are jumping around, and skirting my question. you, i, or we, may or may not wish to allow them to exist, but what the heck does that have to do with my original question? :
>>>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales.
>>is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits.
I doubt that there is any company that envisions a product that will decrease sales, or even keep them flat. then why go to the trouble?
Don't make 8 generations of products that do not profit while simultaneously changing nothing other than their form factor.
> companies don't do businesses for that reason.
I didn't say they did. Perhaps you should slow down and use fewer insults while you craft your replies. In any case, if you are losing money and customers are happy, that's certainly different than losing money and customers are not happy. Would you not agree this is "sheer common knowledge" as well?
> and skirting my question.
The product is a full decade old. This does not seem to factor into your question or arguments at all. Perhaps it should?
not everywhere. different strokes for different folks, I guess. in fact, that would be more the case where I am from, India, where people in general seem to have thinner skins, compare to the US at least. I know this because I have a background of both places. and also, a senior software architect from a US company where I once worked (in the Indian branch, he was in the US) came on a visit once, and told me personally (I was a dev manager in the Indian branch) that if our US colleagues sometimes seemed to talk a bit roughly, in our conference calls, it was not intentional, but just in the spirit of getting into the topic, making their views felt, and with the goal of coming to a good outcome. and I understood that point and had no issues with it.
in any case, i had no intention of insulting you, sorry if you felt that way.
maybe I was talking in the same way as that architect described, possibly due to having picked up on that trend, after having worked in that company.
>Yes. They are losing billions on the deal
biz 101: losses in business commonly happen anytime. losses are not wrong or right. they just happen, for various reasons. it is called an occupational hazard. if getting profits all the time was guaranteed, every tom, dick and harry would be running a business.
so companies know about the possibility of losses before they start up.
>and consumers didn't have their expectations met.
naive. companies don't do businesses for that reason. that is kind of a side effect, although a desirable one for companies, because it makes customers continue as customers. companies do business to make money (i.e. profits, not even just sales), plain and simple.
whether we like that or not, and whether their behaviour is ethical or not, and legal or not, are separate, though related issues.
how many times has this been stated on hn, even if in other words? plenty, I bet.
apart from that, it is sheer common knowledge.
>>is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits
>You're describing the main reason for owning one.
Yes. Is that not obvious?
>This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist.
you are jumping around, and skirting my question. you, i, or we, may or may not wish to allow them to exist, but what the heck does that have to do with my original question? :
>>>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales.
>>is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits.
I doubt that there is any company that envisions a product that will decrease sales, or even keep them flat. then why go to the trouble?