????如果舒適牌剃須刀（Schick's）的刀片能夠與吉列剃刀配合使用，“剃刀和刀片”戰(zhàn)略是不會起作用的，反之亦然。再比如，如果利盟打印機(Lexmark)的墨盒與惠普(Hewlett-Packard) 墨盒完全一致，也會出現(xiàn)同樣的結(jié)果。

????然而，亞馬遜或多或少面臨著這個問題。同樣的電影和視頻游戲，消費者能在很多平板電腦上購買，不一定非要選擇Kindle Fire平板電腦。當然，亞馬遜為Kindle Fire平板電腦設(shè)計了安卓操作系統(tǒng)和Silk瀏覽器，對通過亞馬遜進行購物而進行了優(yōu)化。但這與蘋果公司(Apple)開創(chuàng)的“生態(tài)系統(tǒng)”是不同的，蘋果控制著iTune和iOS的所有零部件。此外，周五發(fā)布的分析報告只計算了硬件成本，亞馬遜其實還外包了Kindle Fire的軟件業(yè)務(wù)，這意味著亞馬遜每臺Kindle Fire平板電腦的損失實際上遠不止數(shù)美元。具體損失目前尚不清楚。

????亞馬遜唯一的優(yōu)勢在于其商店的質(zhì)量。Kindle Fire平板電腦同時搭載了包括針對回頭客的項目“亞馬遜優(yōu)惠項目”，類似美國最大實體書店巴諾（Barnes & Noble）這樣的競爭者無法與之競爭。問題在于，公司受歡迎的程度不僅僅取決于廣泛的選擇和高水平的客戶服務(wù)，還取決于公司定期進行的折扣活動，這一點是非常重要的。折扣可能會刺激需求，但同時也會嚴重削減利潤。

????如果Kindle Fire平板電腦能夠達到iPad的質(zhì)量，而價格比iPad還要低上幾百美元，那自然非常好。但實際情況遠遠不是這樣。最近，亞馬遜股票下跌，顯然是投資者們因亞馬遜為拓展平板電腦市場投入過多對公司及其首席執(zhí)行官貝佐斯實施的懲戒。然而投資者也許恰好切中了要害。

????譯者：李玫曉/汪皓

????Razor-and-blades wouldn't work if Schick's blades fit into Gillette's razors and vice-versa, or if Lexmark's (LXK) ink cartridges were identical to Hewlett-Packard's (HPQ).

????That's more or less what Amazon is facing. Consumers can buy the same movies and video games on many tablets -- you don't need the Fire. Amazon has designed the Fire's Android-based operating system and its Silk browser to be optimized for buying through Amazon. But that's not the same as creating an "ecosystem" like Apple's (AAPL). In that case, Apple controls all the components of iTunes and iOS. What's more, Amazon is losing more than just a few bucks on each Fire it makes. The analysis released Friday counted only hardware costs. Amazon is also licensing software for the Fire, which means it's actually losing more on each unit sold. How much exactly is unclear.

????The only advantage Amazon has is the quality of its store. The Kindle Fire comes loaded with extras competitors like Barnes & Noble can't hope to compete with, including membership to Amazon Prime, the company's frequent buyer program. The trouble is that the popularity is driven not only by the vast selection and the high level of customer service, but also -- and mainly -- by the deep discounts the company regularly offers. That might boost demand, but it also cuts even more deeply into profits.

????It would help if the Fire were so good that it approached the quality of the iPad even at hundreds of dollars less. Unfortunately, that's not anywhere near the case. Investors recently punished Amazon and its chief Bezos for spending too much to gain traction in the tablet market. They might have had a point.