As a huge fan of Amazon in general (as a customer), I still find it difficult to believe they released a hobbled Android phone that is AT&T exclusive and starts at $650 into a world where the $350 fully unlocked Nexus 5 already existed for almost 8 months prior to their release.
I'm just really seriously confused by what they were thinking here.
It is almost like seeing one of those "fail" videos where a kid piledrives his friend off the roof into the backyard and both kids end up badly injured -- of course that was the end result, there was no reasonably plausible path from the starting point to any sort of non-failure ending.
My honest assessment, (having worked for a company that supplies parts and SW to Lab126 [1] in the past) is that the hardware design and specs were nailed down quite some time ago, but they took so long to execute and launch that the world they launched into was vastly different from the one they had targeting against when they first started designing the phone and coming up with the battle plans.
[1] Lab126 is Amazon's hardware arm that makes these phones.
You are probably right about the specs being nailed down a long time ago, but I don't think it really would have made a difference. The only possible scenario where Amazon can reliably sell smartphones at a price of $650 would be if they scored exclusive rights to distribute the iPhone 6.
I can see how that could be the case. They wouldn't have had my $650 even two years ago, but its possible they would have had a better result than they did in 2014.
In the future, I think Amazon still may have a shot at producing a decent phone at a reasonable price.
Hell, I just bought a Galaxy Nexus (from Amazon) to replace the LG G2 that I broke (didn't feel like spending $600). In spite of its age, its hands-down a better phone than the G2. If they get the form-factor and the software right, there are lots of people who won't even care if the CPU isn't the latest and greatest iteration.
One thing that's great about the GN phone is that you can swap out the batteries to obviate the need to carry around a portable battery. You can't do this with the N4 (can't take off backplate) or the N5 (you can take off the backplate, but there's a metal brace holding the battery in place).
My friend still has his GN phone from its original launch and carries 2 extra batteries with him at all times (he's a real estate broker so he needs to always be available via phone)
Just curious: what does a real estate broker do where he needs to be away from electricity for the time it takes to replace his batteries twice? Maybe he works in a big city and uses public transit?
Many people who own and use smartphones don't know they can charge them while driving by attaching them to the car's power by way of a cigarette lighter power adaptor.
The irony of the cigarette lighter outlet in a modern car is that it's not likely to be used for its original purpose, but it won't disappear from cars because it's a convenient way to charge a small electronic device.
> The irony of the cigarette lighter outlet in a modern car is that it's not likely to be used for its original purpose, but it won't disappear from cars because it's a convenient way to charge a small electronic device.
I subscribe to a car-sharing service that uses exclusively Volvos and they all have USB ports. And the cigarette lighters are marked "12V" instead of "cigarette lighter". I can see the 12V ports disappearing in favor of USB in a couple years.
That would be a major shame since there are AC power inverters that run off of 12V ports in cars. Some people rely on those for different reasons. For example, it's a really nice way to recharge a laptop while traveling.
I drive a Jeep Wrangler. 2012+ they have a 120v AC outlet, cigarette lighters (one in the front, and one in the back where you can connect refrigerators and such), and multiple USB ports. Including a USB port inside the center console which locks, allowing you to charge your phone securely while away from your vehicle with the top off.
It's also worth noting that an adapter that connects the 12v in any car to a USB outlet can be had for less than $10 on Amazon.
With USB PD, you can recharge your laptop through USB, which will now provide up to 100W. No doubt there will be USB PD - AC power inverters for other use cases when 12V ports are obsoleted.
That sounds more practical. A lot of equipment exists that assumes the presence of a cigarette lighter socket, but I wouldn't be surprised if they declined over time because the USB socket is cheaper and more versatile.
The joke going around is "can you unplug your book, I need to charge my cigarette": the lighter will be obsoleted too in favour of e-cigs. Generally it's better for things not to be on fire.
If the only reason for not getting the Nexus is the ability to change batteries, he could just carry around one of those portable phone charger batteries, and then he could enjoy a Nexus and be always charged.
Grandparent post: One thing that's great about the GN phone is that you can swap out the batteries to obviate the need to carry around a portable battery.
I do the same thing, deliberately have a phone that has user-swappable batteries. Why? I can insert a second battery that is fully charged instead of having to plug in the external battery (along with keeping track of the charging cable) and let it charge the internal battery. As a nice side bonus, I can also buy batteries which are larger than the stock battery. My Galaxy S4 GPE has aftermarket batteries available (mine is from Anker) that are essentially two stock batteries strapped together, or 5200mAh of capacity versus 2600mAh stock. Yes, the phone gets one "battery height" thicker but having two solid days of my normal use is outstanding.
If his need is the actual PHONE (as in, the part you make calls with), I think he'd be better off with an old RAZR or other flip-phone - those things are a dime a dozen and last days if not the better part of a week on a charge, while making tons of calls.
Im not sure about the old RAZR specifically, but there are still a number of feature phones available that not only will provide similar battery life you are talking about, but also require a much cheaper plan.
But as a real estate agent, he is probably leveraging other uses from his smartphone that would make this an unattractive option. I guess it would either be carry a smartphone and a feature phone, or a smartphone with some spare batteries.
I bought a Samsung E2370 as a hiking phone for 70USD. The usual one-day battery time is no good if you plan to hike for weeks. According to the specs it has 90 day standby. According to the web site its only 65 (not sure why it differs).When I had it idling on my desk I had to charge it after 70 days. I guess this is what you get with a modern bulky battery if you just scale down on features.
The G2 was one of the best Android phones I ever used (and I used a lot - GS2, GS3, GS4, Note, Nexus One, Nexus 4, Nexus 5). The G2 has outstanding battery-life, great UI tweaks, great size, minimal bezels, great audio, etc.
The G2 is definitely a nice phone. I was rather sad when I dropped it and smashed the screen. I just happen to think that the Galaxy Nexus is the best Android phone ever made.
Stock Android really is the best experience. You can tell it was designed with a sort of consistency and fluidity that all of the manufacturer skins lack. I would also take a Galaxy Nexus over any skinned Android device; with the exception of HTC Sense, which has really improved since the disastrous Gingerbread days.
I just install Aviate or some other thing on top of TouchWiz on my Galaxy 5. Who cares what the default UI is like, you can replace it is enough on Android. I think you can get any kind of Android UI you like, you're not stuck with what you get from the manufacturer.
Not all of it. In one of the recent HTC updates they pushed some incredinly inane "features", for instance a "volume warning" that forces you to click ok to move the volume past about the halfway point - even if it's the BLUETOOTH volume.
I'm pretty fond of Sony's (generally mild) changes from stock from the 4.0 era on. These days they seem to put most of their efforts into apps (where it belongs) to differentiate the camera, media players and so on.
I worked at Lab126 on this project when this project was just started (a number of years ago). Given the environment in the team and the people hired to lead it, the fact that anything shipped at all is a miracle of gargantuan proportions, trust me.
Given the fact that entire 'Lab126' commented on the matter[1], I had the chance to read some of these people's resumes... Which makes your quote hard to believe :-)
Sometimes the best individuals make the worst teams. Almost correlated, actually: those with the best resumes tend to think that products are made by individuals.
As an owner of Amazon stock, I was very dismayed to see Amazon release a phone. The market is completely over-saturated. And worse, knowing Jeff Bezos, he will double down and double down and double down on this thing and never give up. That it's a fundamentally bad idea is not something he will even consider once he's decided to go this route. I expect the Fire Phone to take a very big chunk out of Amazon over the coming decade.
Where has he doubled down and double down and double down and lost where it cost the company dearly? I'm not saying that because I believe you are wrong, but because I could be missing something.
Two weeks ago at the Verizon store, they were selling Note 3's for $99 which appear to be at least spec-wise a far better phone.
In between the $99 Note 3 and the $650 Amazon phone there's an entire universe of better phones.
While there's some cool software included with it, I honestly don't think any of the things on show are killer features worthy of the price difference. The main special feature appears to be a "identify this item" which is basically what the amazon app on android already does, except now there's a dedicated button for it.
Do people really walk around identifying items for purchase to comparison shop on Amazon so often a dedicated button needs to be built into the device?
>Do people really walk around identifying items for purchase to comparison shop on Amazon so often a dedicated button needs to be built into the device?
Oh I didn't even know that was a feature. That actually sounds pretty cool to me. I know it's not a strong user behavior at the moment, but plenty of people price shop in brick and mortar stores (I certianly do it every time I'm at Best Buy, but it's just to get Best Buy to price match with Amazon), but maybe if (a) the phone comes down in price and (b) they offer some kind of brownie on top of the feature (like a N% discount over the brick and mortar store's matched price with Amazon, if you physically scan an item and the phone detects via GPS that you're at a storefront?), maybe it can slowly tide people over and change user behavior.
It is a strong behaviour. The 1st ranking website in Greece is a price-comparison website called 'Skroutz'. That's because every one I know, makes 'Skroutz search' before buying an item and compares the price of the item with the online counter-part.
The thing with Skroutz is that you know the shipping cost is about 2 to 4 EUR. But with Amazon you can't tell how much the shipping cost might be, from Amazon-UK/FR/DE/IT to GR.
I simply cannot believe anyone was selling a Note 3 for $99 dollars. $99 dollars down payment on a multi-thousand dollar contract seems far more likely.
Which, along with similar comments I see on nearly every US-focused tech site, leads me to conclude that basically no-one in the US knows how much phones cost, not even literate techies of the kind that hang out on HN.
My best guess as to why Amazon thought they could sell a ho-hum phone for $650 dollars is therefore: to a large degree no-one in the US knows or cares how much their phone costs so reducing the price has little to no impact on sales.
Off contract the phone is $700. You can usually find it on Amazon for ~$500-600.
There's like a $10/mo discount buying the phone then bringing it to VZ to use. At a $600 difference in price (vs. $99 on contract), you can't make the difference up with a $240 reduction in service cost.
So yeah, technically you're right, it's $99 with a 2 year contract, the problem is that people do know what these devices actually cost. Hell, you can look them up on Amazon and ebay while you're in the store and the sales reps will even help you do it. It's just not always cheaper to roll your own.
The problem with Amazon's phone is that when you go phone shopping you just don't see one in the phone stores. If they can only be bought off contract, your effective price for the phone is still north of $400, at least on Verizon. Not even the latest iPhone or Galaxy <whatever> sells in that price range on contract.
> ... to a large degree no-one in the US knows or cares how much their phone costs so reducing the price has little to no impact.
But it's worse than that. Many Americans are such complete consumers that they'll pick the higher-priced item solely because it has a higher price, "reasoning" that, if it has a higher price, then it must have a higher value.
> Many Americans are such complete consumers that they'll pick the higher-priced item solely because it has a higher price, "reasoning" that, if it has a higher price, then it must have a higher value.
App stores and the rush to freemium with IAPs are a counter to your point.
It is a serious addiction of some kind. It wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't constantly seeking my approval for it.. I point out that we haven't used the last juicer and she expects the new one to make me happy because it was half price! I suppose it is just a first world problem.
Amazon brand means to me that it'll be more convenient than the brick and mortar competition also slightly cheaper, and faster to deliver than all of the online competition also usually cheaper than online competition.
If their phone were a book, it would cost about twice as much as barnes and noble, and take 8 months to arrive, and wouldn't be any more convenient. So that's fairly mystifying.
The convenience factor is the strangest aspect of this phone. How are they making the ordering, delivery, and activation phase more convenient than a competitor like republic wireless? Oh they aren't. Well then.
So... I've heard the top down of why they're doing a phone, but whats the bottom up of why they're shipping something that is almost the opposite of the amazon brand?
Its not really an Amazon Phone. Its just a crappy overpriced underspec'd phone that happens to be sold by Amazon.
Looking at this post as well as the Firefox OS phone ($33 one) on HN today, I was wondering whether it makes sense for Amazon to release an FFOS device with Amazon's product's on centre stage (Prime video, Amazon store (not the Amazon app store), Kindle etc.). If they came out with a phone that had specs comparable to the Flame (or slightly better) and price it competitively($175ish), both companies can do well.
If the 2-year development timeframe is correct, one can see how Amazon couldn't even have thought of FFOS as an alternative, but now, FFOS is slowly but surely getting there. If Amazon uses it's engineering chops to advance FFOS – and I am sure that a lot of developers at Amazon will be happy to contribute to FFOS too – perhaps they could compete with Android and iOS?
The reality is that customers just don't want to use Firefox OS. Even with Amazon's support, it would still be very inferior in many ways to Android and iOS, and even to some of the other less-popular mobile OSes that are already out there.
Given that Firefox OS apps written in HTML5, CSS and JavaScript should run just as well on Android and iOS, anyone actually wanting to use such apps is better off just getting an Android or an iOS device. That way they can run the Firefox OS apps, as well as all of the other apps that Android or iOS support.
> The reality is that customers just don't want to use Firefox OS.
Is a Firefox OS device on sale in any US retail store? I've never even talked with another person that had heard of Firefox OS. How could you possibly know that customers don't want it?
I've never even talked with another
person that had heard of Firefox OS.
How could you possibly know that
customers don't want it?
I could pick anyone who didn't have the slightest clue what FLOSS means, besides something they should do at least once a day, and ask them about a FFOS phone. Here's how that conversation would go down:
Me: Hey, did you know you can get a smartphone for $33?
Them: Cool! That sounds great, and $66 cheaper than my iPhone.
Me: Yeah, that would totally pay for 3 weeks of your cell phone bill.
Them: Sounds good, so I can get Instagram on it, right?
Me: Yep, except you won't be able to post photos.
Them: Oh. How about Flappy Bird.
Me: Nope, sorry.
Them: Darn, but that's ok. Too addictive. How about Uber, Whatsapp, and Facebook?
Me: Totally! Mobile web all the way, baby! HTML 5!
Them: Awesome!
<2 Weeks Pass>
Them: I went back to my iPhone. Those mobile websites suck.
You obviously wouldn't be having that conversation with me. You might want to consider that others might not use a phone the same way you do. ("Anyone" is a pretty bold claim.)
Though I would really love it if you could show me where to get a $99 iPhone.
I realize that, but there are a lot of people out there that are smart enough to take the monthly cost of the contract into account, however you want to describe them. I do a lot of programming, but am a "non-tech" guy myself.
More people bought 1958 Edsels than 1958 Volkswagen Beetles too, that doesn't make the Edsel a better car than the Beetle. Popularity is not the same thing as value.
Emotion is totally irrelevant here. I don't "hate" Firefox OS, nor do I "like" Firefox OS.
It's just a tool, so I give it an objective, unemotional analysis. That analysis shows that it lacks the features and functionality that are needed for it to be a useful tool for the vast, vast majority of users.
Most people use a phone for practical reasons, not ideological ones. They don't care how "open" it may be if it doesn't run the apps they need or want to use. Firefox OS will have no chance of succeeding in the long run as long as it continues to provide a sub-par user experience.
Amazon investing into the Firefox OS would be super beneficial for both companies long term. With AWS, Amazon is already powering a big chunk of the web so supporting Firefox /OS and help it become the best mobile web client makes sense and will make a ton of developers happy, which is all they need to do for now if they want a larger piece of the mobile market.
And you know, makes sense branding-wise. A Fire phone runs Firefox!
Well, it's most likely that their product development cycle for this phone was just too long - the smartphone market moves really fast. Couple that with not having supply chain heft that comes with time and big orders from your asian suppliers and mfgs, the phone wasn't going to be cheap either.
But I think they knew all this. It starts the water flowing for them to get into the game. they have staying power, and over time, could start gaining market share. It's a long play, like most of Bezo's moves. The phone is really a just going to be part of the AMZN ecosystem too - they'll start lumping services on it for prime members, etc.
It seems they really tried to get into the market as a no-nonsense top player, with a phone that they perceived could go head-on with the flagships of Apple, Samsung and Google.
It would have made more sense (at least as a way of putting the foot into the door) to release a cheap, decently specced phone, which would have leveraged on Amazon services to subsidise the price, with strong client apps for kindle, video streaming, and the main Amazon shop.
Hasn't Amazon built their empire with the high volume/thin margins mantra ?
It's worse than that, though. The Amazon app store is crippled, like on the Amazon tablets. My current edition Kindle Fire has no YouTube app! Almost everything shows up later than in the stock store, if at all. The only thing that isn't worse is that the prices are essentially competitive, but overall it's a total pain.
Indeed. And it was so abundantly clear that this phone was going to fail that I have to speculate that Amazon themselves must have known this. Maybe the sunk costs involved in such a project gave them no choice but to continue deluding themselves?
It just goes to show, even the big boys make things nobody wants.
Mostly at this point I'm curious whether Amazon will attempt to iterate themselves into a second version. Thinking they can just improve the phone, maybe alter the pricing, and try again.
I know exactly which video you are referring to and I have also never seen anything with a higher and more obvious likelyhood to fail than that. I also have never seen an Amazon phone in the wild. But at least Amazon is not permanently damaged like the guys in the video.
There is the advertising too. My wife asked if we should buy one for our daughter. She assumed it was a cheap sturdy phone for kids because the ad was about a nine year old using one.
I'm not anywhere close to that part of the business, but I would be highly skeptical that she had much input at all. The kindle division, which this falls under, is highly command-and-control. Co-workers in the Kindle buildings say that they regularly see Jeff Bezos in their hallways (like 2-5 times a week), whereas I have only seen him once at a company meeting. Scope creep is a huge problem because you have dictator managers that all have their favorite feature that is priority 1, and there are so goddamn many of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some VP somewhere delayed the launch for a year just so they could launch with the cool-but-completely-useless 3d maps.
She was no doubt a part of the process, but there is no way she ran the show.
So what happened to the Amazon "Working Backwards" methodology of writing up a one-page PR release & customer FAQ, and working back from that to designing/creating the product? Wasn't that designed to reduce scope creep? Is Amazon still using that method?
Well, they probably did that and then subsequently ignored it. Happens all the time really.
For the most part, starting with the customer and working back is really successful. But we also have this sort of escalation culture where anybody above you can raise an issue that forces you to drop everything and answer the question. In general, its also a pretty good thing when it is truly used for "WTF you dunces, how did a customer get 100 boxes for their 100 unit order?" situations. But the power gets abused by a decent share of upper level managers like some sort of power trip. They interrupt major projects, take the steam out of sprints, and occasionally it forces major scope change. I just left an org where this was my sr manager's sole purpose in life. A shame, really...I really enjoyed my job but I wasn't allowed to do it.
That's quite enlightening. My comment was due to my industry-related naiveté. I thought a principal PM has the final say on both the features and the business side of a product. I didn't realize VPs add additional filters.
Principal is a job level. It is above Senior. A single product frequently has multiple Product Managers, some of whom are Senior PMs, some are Principal PMs, and some are "just" PMs. You could even have a Senior Principal PM.
Let's nip this trend in the butt. Outside the organization in question we really have no idea what's going on and who is or is not responsible for a particular poor outcome. It's not fair to the individual - or to the real executives who fucked up - to call out one person in this way.
I bought a Fire tablet and I swore "never again" after that experience. I sold it on Craig's list and bought a Nexus 7. Couldn't be happier.
The fact that Amazon has a separate store really ticked me off. Lots of apps I was used to on my phone couldn't be used on the Fire. And, the fact that the Fire was based on Android 2.x and really never got better, well, that was really annoying, too.
So, when their phone was announced, even before I knew one thing about it, I was completely uninterested.
It's not Google Play Services so much as most app developers won't even bother with doing the app submission process for Amazon, which to date is a PITA (clunky web interface, smaller user base, waiting for someone to review your app which may get rejected when you can just go the easy route with Google Play).
Imho the "Google Services as blocker" is way worse than it's normally recognized:
If you want to use a faux-taxi or similar service, Lyft, Sidecar, Flywheel and Uber all need the Google Play Services to work.
The sad thing, is that Sidecar is available on the Amazon store, but since there's no way to explicitly state the dependency of an application on Google's libraries, it will just crash at installation/runtime with a segfault (due to not being able to load a .so)
Only after going back to a device with the Google services I realized that you can actually use Uber from your mobile browser (it's at m.uber.com, but if you visit uber.com from your mobile there're no prominent links that point to the former)
Those are all apps that I'd expect to use Google's location service, which costs money to keep updated so I can understand Google restricting it. Maybe Amazon should provide (or buy) their own location service and provide a common API?
granted, this might not be as fully-featured as Google's (I never used either), but given the existence of Openstreetmap and other efforts like the Nogapps project http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1715375 there should be enough manpower to build a solid alternative.
It's a bit sad that Amazon is not capitalizing/building-on/improving OSS, but it's even more sad that 99% (random estimate) of the (western?) Android apps are constraining themselves to run only on Google-licensed devices
I think that for many (most?) Fire tablet users, not having Google Play is a minor issue at best. I have many people in my family that love their Fire tablets to death. They aren't even impressed by the iPad. It just does everything they need with no Play Store required. Read books, Facebook, web, games, movies (with Prime/Netflix) etc.
I own a Fire HDX 7" and it is a pretty amazing tablet. The many apps that integrate with Google Play Service for no good reason, like a password manager like 1Password, is pretty depressing though. I can't get the latest version of it. I would probably buy an Android tablet if I didn't have so many videos on Amazon's video store. I wish they would just make their videos available on Android. Amazon is supposed to be platform independent but they haven't made any videos available on Android and it fucking sucks. They're the only company that makes their content available across devices, and now they're not even doing that anymore. Why can't videos be portable. It sucks. It really sucks, and they're not doing this in the best interest of their customers.
"The many apps that integrate with Google Play Service for no good reason, like a password manager like 1Password, is pretty depressing though."
AIUI, "Google Play Services" are basically "Android updates for the Android phones that we can't upgrade because carriers won't do it". Everything ends up integrated into it because if you want one up-to-date service Android provides, you'll end up getting it through that. Otherwise the app developer is stuck on just the lowest-common-denominator.
I learned this because I have a phone running 2.2 that if I let it upgrade to Google Play Services, and then upgrade all the other stock apps on the phone that want to use it (YouTube, Gmail), leaves me without about 10MB of space on the device left over. So I shut off the upgrades. I'm not in a hurry to upgrade because it's just not what I want to do with the money.
> I learned this because I have a phone running 2.2 that if I let it upgrade to Google Play Services, and then upgrade all the other stock apps on the phone that want to use it (YouTube, Gmail), leaves me without about 10MB of space on the device left over. So I shut off the upgrades. I'm not in a hurry to upgrade because it's just not what I want to do with the money.
I've been in a similar boat. The way storage partitions were handled on 2.x era devices makes the larger sizes of apps and Google Play Services really noticeable.
Yes, it's annoying (if understandable) that Amazon has not made Prime streaming video available for stock Android but only for Fire devices--and for iOS tablets. I watch Prime video all the time on my iPad. Stupid, but what can you do (other than avoid Fire devices on general principle).
I was excited about the Fire Phone because—without knowing anything about it, but knowing Amazon's overall strategy—I thought it might end up being some very solid hardware at a very competive price. The big question in my mind was whether Amazon would have learned from their tablets and scrapped their closed garden ecosystem and gone for a more stock Android experience.
...but as soon as hard details started coming out, it was clear that they were going for the exact opposite strategy. Lackluster hardware, a premium price, and a doubling down on their attempts to set themselves apart from Android. And the problem with this is that it's a very stupid plan.
Here, try this experiment: Walk up to someone and say: "Hey, let's sell a not-very-good Android phone at iPhone prices, after removing some of the best Android features and adding some silly hardware gimmicks that nobody will like or use!" If the person you are talking to doesn't burst into laughter, then you are talking to Jeff Bezos, because there can't be two people who think that's a sensible plan.
>> "The big question in my mind was whether Amazon would have learned from their tablets and scrapped their closed garden ecosystem and gone for a more stock Android.
In other words the big question was: "will Amazon ditch their only reason to sell hardware?"
Amazon's hardware products are gateways to the paid-for content they sell; they're completely designed -- software wise -- to attend that purpose.
That's also why I don't see a failure of this phone as a tragic event for Amazon. It's just a piece of their strategy that didn't worked out. More like a "big test" gone wrong, than a commercial disgrace. I guess that there will be a write off and a shrug, with no hard impacts on the bottom line.
> In other words the big question was: "will Amazon ditch their only reason to sell hardware?"
Amazon's hardware products are gateways to the paid-for content they sell; they're completely designed -- software wise -- to attend that purpose.
I think the idea is that there's a trade-off between ineffectiveness of this strategy and screw-the-userness, and the parent comment was thinking that maybe they'd realize they should move more down the spectrum towards a better product for the user (i.e. that they were coming on too strong with the lock-in).
Aside from whatever ethical qualms you might have about various degrees of lock-in, it's not unreasonable to think that people didn't respond favorably to the level of lock-in Amazon tried with their tablets: hence the hope that they might try an alternative strategy of lock-in (or another way to promote their products) without sacrificing user experience.
As an example of two points on the spectrum, imagine a comparison between shipping Chrome that only allows Google Search in the omnibox and the way Chrome actually is, which allows you to pick your search engine. Obviously Google is getting some advantage out of even a Chrome browser in which the search engine can be changed, but it's clearly further along the spectrum towards better user experience (and less effective lock-in) than a Google-Search-only omnibox would be.
> In other words the big question was: "will Amazon ditch their only reason to sell hardware?"
Obviously Amazon is a content company, but something tells me that they're probably not selling a lot of content to owners of Fire phones, given the pitiful sales figures.
Keep in mind, the history of technology is rife with examples of companies that reduced or eliminated vendor lock in in order to increase adoption; it's not unreasonable to suggest that Amazon might sell more content if they sold more phones, even if those phones were more open.
And you're also completely bypassing my point about prices and margins. Even if you think the closed model is worth the costs for Amazon, clearly they'll sell more content if they sell more phones, and clearly they'll sell more phones if they're cheaper. And they're famous as a company willing to take the long view and sacrifice short term profits for long term growth and market share. Given that, wouldn't it make sense to sell the phones at cost, rather than at Apple or Samsung level margins? Worse, while the Fire ecosystem is closed, it's closed in the wrong direction.
The price point of the phone implies a strategy of "we'll make money on the phone, which people will buy because of our amazing content and user experience". But their user experience is mediocre, and their content is available everywhere. Apple can do that with iPhones, because you have to buy an iPhone to get iOS, a phone with iTunes, and most iPhone apps. But the kindle app runs just fine on my OnePlus One, as do all the other Android apps I might want to install on a Fire, if I had one. You seem to be arguing for a strategy of "we'll make money on our content, which people will buy because they already have our phones". I agree, it's a very promising strategy! But I wonder why Amazon hasn't tried it. :)
I thought the same thing -- cool, an Amazon-commissioned phone! I was hoping it would be along the lines of the very good quality, inexpensive and well reviewed Amazon Essentials "store brand" products that they've been selling such as batteries and USB cables.
Instead, it's this pricey, gimmicky thing that proposes to make it drop-dead easy to buy stuff. Like I need another excuse to spend more money. Thanks, I'll stick with Nexus devices for now!
>scrapped their closed garden ecosystem and gone for a more stock Android experience.
So throw away a closed ecosystem for another closed ecosystem? That doesn't seem like much of an upgrade. Also, Amazon is currently banned from OHA. I can't see them dropping all of their Kindle devices at once to join.
Fire phone was a flop from the start. Substandard hardware and premium price tag do not mesh well together. Amazon thought that they could make software killer feature and sell phone trough massive advertising and sheer brand power. That is a tall order, and I am not surprised they failed.
However, if I learned anything about Amazon it is their tenacity. They will keep improving and pouring billions into Fire until it works, like they've done with their Cloud business. I think pulling HP Touchpad is not an option because they are too much invested in mobile strategy. So with all that said, while I am not surprised that first Fire phone flopped, I eventually expect Amazon to have at least limited success.
I was unimpressed when the "feature" in the teaser videos turned out to just be a gimmicky 3D effect.
What really turns me off on the product is the currently airing commercial on the radio where this girl is excited about all the notifications on her phone letting her know which book or movie she should buy next.
If there are any owners here on HN, I'm really curious what about the phone was alluring in any way.
I haven't bought one, and after playing with them a bit I have decided not to buy one, but I will sing its only praise: It is the only non-apple phone that even approaches the level of apple's build quality. The Samsungs and HTCs are kindergarten toys in comparison.
Presumably you could use the phone's OCR capabilities to detect and transpose photos of text and other objects into information utilized by apps that do more than just tell you where to buy things.
Is that really an advert on the radio at the moment? That's insane.
I don't hear adverts for supermarkets highlighting the excitement of a shopper before going to the checkout to have money extracted from them or their wild delectation and delight relating to browsing the store and knowing that it'll COST them to leave with any of the products.
I've recently seen the phone advertised with a year of free 'Prime' membership (aka a $100 value). Not really very compelling, however if they gave you a year of Prime and also that none of your Prime Video or Prime Audio streaming counted against your Data cap, that would be an interesting proposition. Frankly I was kind of surprised they didn't just lead with that.
Those of us who have had Prime for a long time don't really see adding a year on top of it as a huge incentive. So that's only interesting to anyone who's keen on Prime but, to date, hasn't signed up. I'd say that's a small number.
Personally, my take is that they started this project years ago and were going to ship it come hell or high water. There are times you have to look at a product in development and get really honest about whether it crests a highwater mark for your brand, and your market.
Between the e-book fight and this disaster, Amazon's churning some ill will. They'll survive, but Fire products will probably get a more skeptical tone in reviews than before, because everyone sort of granted that they would improve and refine over time, kind of like their profit strategy.
Shipping companies are like mail transport agents: all of them suck, but, usually, one sucks less for your particular use.
I've had a bunch of packages delivered by OnTrac, UPS, FedEx, USPS, and DHL. All of them have screwed it up at some point but all of them have gotten the vast majority (more than 90%) of deliveries exactly right.
My favorite for my particular use has been FedEx, because I can reroute any delivery to one of their many outlets and have it waiting for me on my way home, rather than having to go to some distribution center after an inevitably missed delivery (I work the same hours they do).
OnTrac recently declared, apropos of nothing, that the package they "guaranteed delivery" for was undeliverable, and that (according to their online tracking) they'd try again the next day. They didn't. The tracking didn't update for the next two days. They delivered my package the day after I called them to complain -- the guy on the phone told me "we had some staffing issues".
I am not sure that the people running around Amazon's warehouses and doing marathon distances every day would be happy to buy the phone, however. But they do still count as employees.
This issue is so universally known by now that it's almost insulting for you to even question it as "drivel". How can you be not aware of these issues?
Are the two cases that come to mind. (First link may not be Amazon, but appears to be representative of conditions in warehouses for the pickers and it links to plenty of other sources that ARE amazon)
They do not have market share, but Amazon's existing venture into Android tablets has started to pay off. You can see that in 2011 the payoff was no where as big as now.
2. This is their first phone
Do we really expect their first phone to be successful? Its a huge marketplace that will take a lot to break into. I can't think of many net new smart phone makers besides Amazon in the US market. They need to get cell providers to buy into this phone. If they can't do that they are screwed imo.
I'm mystified when big companies think they can just barge into a new product category by slapping their name on a product and offering marginal benefits over entrenched competition. This definitely brings the Zune to mind. Newsflash: you need an edge to compete!
Amazon needs to drop Fire OS and just make a damn good Android phone with some well thought through customizations/exclusive apps for a great price. Until then, I won't even believe that their own programmers are actually using these.
Apple phones push iTunes and iBooks (soon Beats), and you can't buy Amazon digital content in the Amazon apps because they don't want to pay Apple the 30% tax. Either way Apple will always encourage you to buy from Apple's storefronts.
Google pushes Google Play for music and books. Similarly it's in Google's interest to push people to the Google storefronts.
Apple and Google make up basically 100% of the smartphone/tablet market. If Amazon doesn't get in there they may slowly get pushed out. They don't lead in music (iTunes?) or video (iTunes/Netflix?) or apps (Apple's store), and they certainly don't want to lose their position in books.
If Amazon wanted to lead in music they could try this crazy new strategy called: offer a quality product.
You're Amazon. You ARE datacenters. So why the ever-living-hell can I not buy FLAC-encoded lossless tracks? There is an utterly negligible cost in providing this content, its the only market which still moves CDs so there's obviously demand, but no one is touching it?
Simple, less than 1% of the population can hear the difference (and I'm not convinced the remainder isn't sampling error.) - I'm certain as soon as there is a overwhelming demand for it, Amazon will support it.
I'd point out, that Apple doesn't event support its own lossless codec for downloads, and they are arguably the market leader.
Actually, the reverse. Apple's goal is to sell more hardware; software/music/books/videos just exist to draw users into the ecosystem and keep them there. Apple doesn't care where you get your content (though iTunes & iBooks makes it more "sticky"), so long as you use Apple hardware and buy more of it. That iTunes & iBooks & etc make Apple truckloads of cash is just a bonus.
Google's MO is to gather as much info as possible. Selling music & books just gives Google more data to mine. Again, the truckloads of cash is a great bonus.
Amazon, however, is all about selling content. The Kindle line (Fire phone included) exist just to persuade customers to buy more - hence the magic find-and-buy-this button and other cart-greasing features.
Do Apple really push it though? I mean I have an iPad and survive very well with all my real physical CDs instead of music from iTunes. It isn't like it pushes you to buy from them or notifies you to buy.
Am I right in remembering that the old Amazon tablets used to advertise on the lock screen?
BTW, I didn't realise that they were renaming iBooks to a daft name like Beats. Thanks.
They also push iBooks the app (it cannot be uninstalled anymore in iOS 8), but you can just buy DRM-free books on O'Reilly or download PDFs and sync them between Mac and iPad.
I don't have an Amazon tablet, but my Kindle has ads for completely uninteresting books right on the home screen.
I don't think it's complicated, they see a lot of money in media sales and want to have a set of devices where they are the more visible provider.
A few hundred million dollars developing hardware is a rounding error on their current media revenues (which I realize sounds a bit ridiculous, but there it is).
Amazon had razor thin margins because they're spending hundreds of millions on a bunch of different projects that they expect will be the the future of collecting money for stuff and services.
If they stopped that investment, they'd be reasonably profitable. But right now, it's funding their world domination plans.
I fully understand that Amazon invests in these types of projects because they are focusing on growth. The original claim was that hundreds of millions of dollars is a trivial amount of money for Amazon to spend even if a project is a failure. I was simply stating that this is not the case at all. If Amazon has spent 100s of millions of dollars on a smartphone program that turns out to be a failure then it is going to be a painful experience for them.
I'm not saying that Amazon has spent $100 million+ on smartphones. I'm also not saying that the project is a failure. I'm simply responding to the hypothetical claim that 100s of millions of dollars isn't a significant amount of money to Amazon.
They spent $6.5 billion on "Technology and content" in 2013. $100 million is ~1.5% of that. So not quite a rounding error, but close. They also spent ~$5 billion in 2012 and I guess they will spend a similar amount this year.
(That segment includes all sorts of spending, but in the 2013 annual report they do call out devices as one of the focuses of that spending)
I see it as zon just beefing up their mobile abilities: build know in android and top level mobile software, lay the groundwork for future dev, as mobile grows just like pc grew but way more, your ability to take advantage of mobile growth improves. This phone stuff is just a learning curve, and as hardware decreases in cost over time, zon can get a foothold and take advantage.
I'm really not surprised at the lack of interest in the Fire phone. Even from the beginning, all of the advertising was focused on how the phone makes it easier to buy stuff from Amazon.
They have to focus on how the device is creating some sort of value for their end users. Streamlining the process of buying products does little to add value. Instead, it looks like a selfish attempt by the company to increase sales. Nobody cares if a product is good for the company, they buy a product because it is good for them. If the Fire does have a value proposition, the advertising has done a miserable job of pointing that out.
I haven't actually played with the phone yet, so I can't say if it is a bad device or just bad marketing. But I'm not surprised at the lukewarm response it has gotten.
After hearing about the idea of a phone from Amazon, I really thought they'd do more. I like to buy things from Amazon (like many here probably do), and thought that the phone would be competitively priced. It wasn't in my mind; and with only one major US carrier (AT&T) that it's being sold under, the customer base is even smaller. I love the ability of my current unlocked Nexus 4 to switch to another carrier or MVNO. Call me spoiled on the Nexus devices...
How would I be sold on the Fire Phone, Amazon? Allow the phone to be unlocked and lower off-contract price. Then, I'd consider it. I like the phone's features, but if the value isn't there, then I'll pass.
The lack of unlocking really surprised me. We bought one for testing that some of our mobile software would run on it, so we got the no-contract version. Even if you pay full retail price, it's still locked to AT&T. That's just blatant foot-shooting. If someone's going to pay you full price, it shouldn't be locked.
(And yes we tried getting Amazon to give us the unlock code. They said their contract with AT&T didn't allow it.)
I would have bought the phone if it came with lifetime or say 5 years of prime and free videos and games and what not. And I reckon, Amazon could easily do that but they didn't for some reason. Anyway, lesson learner I guess..
A lot of people on here are defending Amazon "because they take risks". Yea of course they do, they burn capital like a startup; when they have been in business for ~20 years. That is just negligence, not persistence. Sure they took a risk here, but it was vastly un-calculated and if it took them awhile to develop the product it still doesn't justify the attempt to win the high end as a newcomer in the space with a undeveloped app marketplace.
No, but that's not the point. The e-commerce space is very different than the product space. They are applying the same logic in both, which is a mistake.
Is it just me or is this hugely unsurprising? When I talk to most people (non-tech), Amazon is not high on people's minds as a place to get phones/plans.
It's not very surprising it's not selling well, but it's a bit surprising that the number is that low. Given how big Amazon's brand is and all the ads I see on TV you'd think they could sucker more people in than that.
I wouldn't expect the 10m numbers that an iPhone pulls in an opening weekend, but they couldn't even break 50k let alone 100k.
The Kindle was a super nice device (to me) and in the days before tablet-ubiquity I'd see them everywhere. I'd never cared for the UX of ebooks until I got one, now I can't stand dead-trees. The Kindle Fire, on the other hand... I wish I'd never ordered the ones my wife and I own. Most expensive paperweights we have.
What is not useful about the Kindle Fire? I have never seen one in the flesh.
Do you still find that you use your original Kindle, the eInk display one I presume?
I am trying to get rid of the books that I have and digitise them or get digital copies if I can. I ought to use one of those book-scanning services to digitise them and make the house empty. I feel bad getting rid of real books given the effort someone has gone through to write them, but they do get recycled I suppose.
Personally, I wouldn't even consider an Amazon "smart" device until it was at least gen 2. From what I understand, hey made big strides between the first and second gen Kindle Fire tablets.
That being said, currently there's no real differentiator for this phone. Maybe they'll eventually do unlimited bandwidth deals for Prime video / music content? (or do they already have that?)
I can definitely agree that the gen 1 kindle fire left a lot to be desired. The latest offerings are quite nice, though.
And, lets be honest, it isn't like the earlier versions of any android device are worth writing home about. Finally moved from a moto droidish era phone up to the moto g. It is truly impressive how far they have come.
I wonder if it is Android itself that has made strides? I have been using it since the G1 and 2.3 felt different to 1.6, but the real change for me came with 4.0 (I had 3 on my Xoom but it felt awkward). I am not sure what whizz-bang features they have been adding in recently, as everything post 4.1 looks different for different's sake to me; more investigation likely required.
Do you think the hardware has got better with the Motorola, or just the software and general less clunkiness?
Our purchase of the first-gen Kindle Fires convinced my wife and myself not to buy any further iterations. There are 9 tablets in our house... guess which two haven't been powered on in the past year.
In a company like Amazon, only one person can push for such a product, eg Jeff Bezos himself. For whatever reason, he just liked the product idea. Very few people would appreciate such a product as sales number shows. It is just a worse version of New Coke without Classic Coke.
He must be surrounded by yes-men, because you'd think there would have been some push-back from people who know what they're talking about.
Elite techies and brand specifiers are panning the Fire phone; why didn't Amazon reach out to such people sooner and find out what features they are willing to pay for?
The Fire phone is hobbled right out of the gate by a non-standard Android version and a non-Google app store. They have to offer something more compelling to customers than "it will scan things into your Amazon shopping cart".
As others have suggested, bundling 5 years of Prime membership would have been a nice start. One year - not so much. I, like thousands of others, am wondering whether or not to renew my Prime at $99. Do I really need to spend that much money just to spend more money? Starting to doubt....
I don't think there is a market for a phone that is $600+ that is not an iPhone. I think the battle going forward will be for the best $200 and $300 phone (unlocked). If Amazon would have hit either of these price points, the product would be much more compelling.
The flagship models like Galaxy & Note have a market. Some people always want the best. They also give the company an opportunity to showcase their prowess while they sell more modest models to the mass. That said the way things are going the difference between a $250 and a $600 phone are becoming less meaningful for current feature sets.
Ha, I can't believe I got down-voted for this. To spend $600 on a phone, there has to be some emotional attachment to it given that you can get a really high quality phone for under $400 now (Nexus 5, OnePlus, Motorola X and G). In the US, the only company that holds that sort of attachment is Apple (and maybe Samsung). But, as T-Mobile and others shift to a more European model for phone pricing, I think we are going to see value phones in the $200 - $300 price point be dominant. That is not to say that there won't be a premium market, but it will be smaller. This is how mature markets work.
As you can see, that year's Samsung flagship (Galaxy S3) makes the top 10, and the iPhone doesn't, although the iPhone is on top of the right list (% buyers who give the phone a 9 or 10 out of 10).
Well I'm more than happy with my HTC One (M8), and the other people I know who own Ones are too, and the same can be said about the Sony XPeria flagships which are very nice too. In contrast, Galaxy owners typically complain about lag and crappy interface, and their phones seem to break all too often... but too many people seem to drink the Samsung kool-aid and just won't look at other brands' offerings.
> I don't think there is a market for a phone that is $600+ that is not an iPhone.
Let me guess: You're an iPhone owner, aren't you?
Lots of people are willing to pay good money for a good, unlocked phone off contract.
Maybe not in San Fransisco, or even in the US where the telecom industry is fucked up beyond repair, but that's still quite a tiny fraction of the real world.
I think I got mine for $50 on contract. But, I have since switched to a cheaper monthly plan that does not subsidize phones. So, my next phone will definitely be unlocked in the $200-400 range. T-mobile is really changing the mobile landscape in the US (for the better, in my opinion). But, this also means that the "real" price of phones will be more apparent.
I'm surprised that the Fire phone hasn't done better... considering that when I talk to my teenager and other teens they all want a Fire phone. Yet they actually carry iPhone or Samsung Galaxy S5 phones.
I want a Windows Phone. But I have an iPhone. I had a Windows Phone and still ended up getting an iPhone. I also want a Ford Raptor SVT, but drive a Fiat.
Sometimes we don't use what we want, even if we can afford it, because what we want just isn't practical. Even though we wish it was. If that were the case, I'd still be using my Palm Pre.
I've been trying to estimate their sales from monitoring twitter activity. Given the very low volume (200-600 mentions daily) since launch, I believe that low sales figure.
Amazon tried to take Android and made it their own.Now it looks that it's not even worth the trouble. I have to say they did a great job regarding their developer support, but it doesn't help that they have a very small market and are still using check for international payment.
I'm just really seriously confused by what they were thinking here.
It is almost like seeing one of those "fail" videos where a kid piledrives his friend off the roof into the backyard and both kids end up badly injured -- of course that was the end result, there was no reasonably plausible path from the starting point to any sort of non-failure ending.