[MR_T3D]

I love this, everyone is assuming that all the cool things about Newegg are going out the window.  AFAIK, the management and day to day operations aren't changing, they're just going public because publicly traded companies tend to make more money.  Money they can use to sweeten deals and expand they're business.

Economics is NOT a zero-sum gain.  If you take a big slice out of the economic pie, it doesn't mean there's less pie for everyone else, it means the pie got bigger.

a similiar thing happend with tim horton's. when they went public, and began expanding stateside, i noticed a decline in their product quality (mainly donuts, but i ****ING LOVE DONUTS). so i think Its safer to assume similiar circumstance with newegg.
but that's my crazy opinion.

[Bob-san]

Amazon.com


Public company with basically the highest ratings, customer loyalty, service, &c, second only to Newegg and only when considering technology. Newegg is a fraction the size as Amazon, though again making stocks and selling stocks will produce a LOT of cash for Newegg. To point it out again, more money equals expansion. There's a good chance that NewEgg will expand sooner, rather than later, to Europe or Australia, or open more warehouses (such as one in BC and another in Toronto, as well as one in Texas and, say, Florida).

[Kosh]

I'm...not seeing how this is automatically a terrible thing.  So they're selling stocks.  Does that somehow equate to suddenly-reduced quality because of some nebulous reason or another?

It means they will start putting more emphasis on short term profit over long term viability. We've seen this game be played out a number of times during the last 15 years.

[Liberator]

It's hysterical how this is playing out along political lines.  The Liberals/Socialists/Commie pinkos are conditioned to think "STOCKHOLDER BAD!! FORCES COMPANY TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS!"  and the Conservatives/Free Market/rednecks are like "STOCKHOLDER GOOD!  MAKE COMPANY BETTER IN LONG RUN!"

It's just funny to me.

[General Battuta]

But, uh, I would kind of **** up that analysis, being a moderate with a strong background in economics nonetheless opposed to this move...just like most of the country.

Scientific studies have already established the free market doesn't work quite perfectly (since it's predicated on perfect information). Data-based, rather than ideology-based, viewpoints are valuable.

[karajorma]

It's hysterical how this is playing out along political lines.  The Liberals/Socialists/Commie pinkos are conditioned to think "STOCKHOLDER BAD!! FORCES COMPANY TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS!"  and the Conservatives/Free Market/rednecks are like "STOCKHOLDER GOOD!  MAKE COMPANY BETTER IN LONG RUN!"

It's just funny to me.

So if NewEgg does turn to **** does that mean you'll admit that the Liberals were correct?

[Liberator]

Perhaps, but more likely I'll chalk it up to poor management and brownnosing.

[General Battuta]

I concur. I'm not completely certain NewEgg will go downhill, and even if it does, it might've happened anyway. My feeling is that the website is already so quality that any change will probably be a negative one.

[Liberator]

I suppose that it hasn't occurred to any of you that NOTHING might change.  As Battuta pointed out, the reason they're everyone's favorite site to order parts through is they're service and competitive pricing.  Why fix something that's not broken?

[General Battuta]

Your local co-op gets bought out by a big international grocery chain. Do you honestly think that 'nothing will change'?

[Liberator]

Funny thing that, around here the big national conglomerate grocery store(s) went outta business, but the local/regional ones are still around.

[General Battuta]

But...that's completely unrelated...to the topic or the metaphor it's addressing.

Anyway, I think the point stands. Since NewEgg is excellent, we have reason to be concerned at possible changes.

[karajorma]

Funny thing that, around here the big national conglomerate grocery store(s) went outta business, but the local/regional ones are still around.

So in other words you're arguing that small, independent companies are better able to avoid going out of business than big national companies?

I fail to see how this advances your argument. If anything it supports the opposing one.

[General Battuta]

And to make things worse it was just one local branch of a big corporation that went out of business in his example...whereas those mom-and-pop outlets can't afford to lose their single store.