Thread: How much is Amazon missing by not having a waterproof Kindle?
View Single Post
Old 11-30-2016, 10:19 AM   #74
Strether
Guru
Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Strether ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Strether's Avatar
 
Posts: 765
Karma: 2825929
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fresno
Device: Kindle 1; iPad Air; iPhone 7; Kobo Libra; Kindle Oasis 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop View Post
Other manufacturers of waterproof devices have not typically needed to significantly increase the price to cover waterproofing.

The Aura HD was sold for $170, the Aura H20 sold for $180.

The Nook Glowlight sold for $120, the Glowlight Plus started at $130, only $10 more than the Paperwhite. And I'd bet B&N don't have the economy of scale that Amazon has.

You could argue that waterproofing while not raising the price cuts significantly into profit. Who knows. Maybe it does. Neither you or I run Amazon. But if waterproofing is prohibitive, why did Kobo keep it in the Aura One?
One of the Kindle Oasis developers was interviewed by Len Edgerly and when asked about the lack of waterproofing, replied that it would have added additional weight so they decided not to do it. I suspect Amazon is content to have Kobo in business. Having no competitor in this market is bad juju.

Jim
Strether is offline   Reply With Quote