91–100 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't Amazon work with Google to create the Fire?
No, they didn't. The biggest sign you can see out in the open is that the Fire is running a fork of 2.3 Gingerbread instead of 3.0 Honeycomb or the upcoming Ice Cream Sandwich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I don't get why Amazon would buy a new OS when it can get an existing well supported well publicized and we ll maintained OS for free. Currently they are freeloading on android which is a great thing to get all the android benefits without having to pay apenny for it. Why spend money on a new platform and then spend some more developing for it and inviting developers to it. I hope they don't make this mistak…
(1) Android is not free, ask Samsung about the $180 million check they're writing to Microsoft this year and the 20 court cases the have with Apple. There's potential liability with Oracle and if they put 3G/4G chips in them, Nokia. Then since Amazon is forking it they have their own development costs anyway. (2) Amazon is locked out of Google Services and the latest version of Android, if ICS or Jellybean has a trul…
Also, a lot of people seem to be assuming that Amazon is looking to upgrade the underlying version of Android. I think they are forgetting a key part here; Amazon is running a fork, and I think it's pretty likely that the only compatibility they care about is with Android Apps (and Bezos has said they will work hard to keep the Kindle Apps compatible with other Android platforms). The OS version doesn't matter at all, as long as the device is fast and pleasant to use, which by all accounts, it is here. There's really no reason they couldn't just keep working on their port indefinitely with no regard to what Google is doing with future iterations of Android. And if a new feature pops up that they like, nothing would stop them from cherry-picking it and putting it in to their fork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It kind of is as a secondary function, but it was built as a media consumption/purchasing device, a kind of hand-held portal into the world of Amazon; even their browser relies heavily on their EC2 platform. Compared to the Android tablets on the market, it lacks a lot in the way of expandability and even storage. Even the underlying Android OS was forked to bring it further away from a tablet and more to an Amazon p…
Aren't all tablets media consumption and purchasing devices though?
Apple and Amazon are in the same space but came from two different sides. And Apple is trying to cover the "harder" side, which is server and cloud computing. While Amazon had that down before diving into consumer HW.
I do think they are missing an opportunity without a camera. Think about the opportunity to scan bar codes or book covers and instantly see the Amazon price, and purchase right there. Imagine being in Barnes and Nobles and buying the book on your Fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will undoubtedly make phones. Why give away a market to competitors that is worth billions? Amazon wants to keep users in their ecosystem. To do that you need a phone as well, which they're essentially already doing in their AppStore. Within three years Amazon will come out with their own phone. It will be the same game plan that they used with the Fire and gear it towards the low end. Eventually they will go to…
The Fire makes sense, it's a media portal that plugs directly in to Amazon's forte; books, and more recently, apps and streaming video. It's not a tablet though, and Bezos readily, and correctly, admits that. What exactly would they gain by making a phone? Sure they would stand to sell more apps, but I think Amazon is most interesting in selling books and being a player in the streaming media game. The cell phone, wi…
The smaller screen isn't ideal as a tablet for most media but people still do use it. The phone is the main way most people have access to the web.
I'm not making the case for a WebOS acquisition, just an Amazon phone. It just seems like there is a hole in Amazon's product offerings if a phone isn't available.
Please do, then sell Be off to someone that will do something with it. Please?
Be went with PalmSource back when Palm was split into PalmOne and PalmSource. PalmOne then re-became Palm and was acquired by HP, but PalmSource was picked up by ACCESS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) Android is not free, ask Samsung about the $180 million check they're writing to Microsoft this year and the 20 court cases the have with Apple. There's potential liability with Oracle and if they put 3G/4G chips in them, Nokia. Then since Amazon is forking it they have their own development costs anyway. (2) Amazon is locked out of Google Services and the latest version of Android, if ICS or Jellybean has a trul…
(2) Amazon's market is different. They aren't competing with other "Android vendors." Yes it essentially runs Android, and by some peoples' definition, it's a tablet, but in the end what the Fire really is is a well-integrated portal to Amazon services and products. Nobody else can really offer that to consumers. Plus, it's highly unlikely that other vendors can afford to sell their hardware for $200. Also, a lot of…
You mean nothing except the feature being a Google service or not open sourced (cf Honeycomb).
What would Amazon do with WebOS when they have already invested so much in Android? Switching would require them to abandon the app store they built. The Silk browser seems at odds with how WebOS works. All their Android UI customizations would have to be rewritten.
Google can pull the rug out from under them at any time for any reason. You can't run a multi-billion dollar business on good faith alone. It would be nice to believe that Google wouldn't do that type of thing, and maybe they won't, but it's a huge risk to take. Amazon is playing to win this. They have to believe at some point the Fire and other Amazon tablets will be so successful that they can easily attract developers. (and we can't rule out some form of Android compatibility being added to WebOS -- something Palm may have already been working on and could be quite mature. If RIM managed it I'm pretty sure Palm can too)
What would Amazon do with WebOS when they have already invested so much in Android? Switching would require them to abandon the app store they built. The Silk browser seems at odds with how WebOS works. All their Android UI customizations would have to be rewritten.
What would Amazon do with WebOS when they have already invested so much in Android? Google can pull the rug out from under them at any time for any reason. You can't run a multi-billion dollar business on good faith alone. It would be nice to believe that Google wouldn't do that type of thing, and maybe they won't, but it's a huge risk to take. Amazon is playing to win this. They have to believe at some point the Fir…
The only way I can see this making sense is if Amazon could buy the supply chain relationships that HP must have built for their tablets. Probably HP have options/exclusivity deals on display and chip production for the coming years.
Off-topic, but is there a reason you say 'HP have' instead of 'HP has'? I was talking to a few British guys at work about this and they thought it sounded odd as well.
I'm British if it helps...