Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers more than help users

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @01:28PM (#33987642)

I'm not sure I agree that losses on Alexa translate to higher prices, opposed to just cutting into profits. Most profitable businesses set prices too optimize unit profit times sales. That is to say, they they won't increase prices if sales will go down as a result. They aren't running a non-profit

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by jqpabc123 on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @03:11PM (#33989637)

They aren't running a non-profit.

Precisely the point.

$10 billion is a decent hit to the bottom line. If they choose to absorb it, it typically rolls down to the consumer somehow.

If not, I can see a dead simple way to add $10 billion to profit --- shut down Alexa.

Neither of these options inspires a lot of confidence in the future of the product.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @03:41PM (#33990217)

The point I'm trying to make is that the cost don't typically roll down to to the consumer in the way that you describe specifically for the reason you call out. If Amazon is already doing everything I can to maximize profits and other sectors, they can't just make more money there to make up for a loss on Alexa. If there are leaving money on the table when it comes to e-commerce, they should raise prices whether or not Alexa is at a loss.

This is a separate question on whether you can get $15 a value out of a speaker before they cancel the program.

Uber might not have a long-term viable business model, but that won't stop me from taking a ride if I like the price. I'm a consumer not a investor.

If your point is that consumers might care about the long-term support for Alexa, then I agree that those consumers should be wary.

[ Parent | on HN ]