• Emily (she/her)
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s a good thing their reason is explained very clearly in the article linked in this post. They believed Alexa would have a high “downstream impact”, i.e.generate sales or subscriptions elsewhere in the company. Which it has so far failed to do.

      • Emily (she/her)
        link
        fedilink
        68 months ago

        Can you explain to me exactly how moving where profit is recorded from one division to another in the same organization reduces their tax burden? Because, excuse me, I know I only did a year or two of accounting courses before dropping the degree, but that’s not how I understand taxes to work.

        Also to be turning a profit by “doing well collecting data”, the open market value of the data Alexa alone annually generates would need to be around 8% of the entire global data market. If you can justify how millions of instances of “Alexa set a timer for 10 minutes”, “Alexa what is the weather”, or “Alexa play despacito” generates that much value, maybe you have a point.

          • Emily (she/her)
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            Yeah well, apologies for being a little sassy, but I’m not exactly a big fan of your tone either.

              • Emily (she/her)
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You used polite words, but you were condescending. I’m not interested in whether that was intentional or not, but that is the vibe you gave.

                  • Emily (she/her)
                    link
                    fedilink
                    18 months ago

                    As I said, I don’t care if you “intended” to be condescending, I’m saying you were. Judging by your comment history you often are, so maybe get used to people responding with a bit of attitude.