391–400 of 429 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon says HTTPS is not intercepted https://www.eff.org/2011/october/amazon-fire%E2%80%99s-new-b... Also, Amazon has most of its customers banking information already.
Credit card != Banking Information. And if they pushed an update to change this [even accidentally], how would you know?
How would you know if any browser pushed an update [even accidentally], with this side effect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting I think... iPad: Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 Apple TV: Kindle Fire TV, Chromecast iTunes: Amazon Prime Streaming TV + now music, Google Play iPhone: Kindle Fire Phone, Nexus 4 I think they're all playing for the same territory. The big difference seems to be that Apple really only sells the technology. Google sells the technology so that they can sell advertising for third party products. Amazon has the…
You can't forget Firefox OS phones. I see those as Amazons main competitor for cheap smartphones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Amazon are taking the "learn as you go down market" approach exemplified by Tesla. This is the pilot model, which enables Amazon to earn revenue fast and capture early adopter surplus. We'll soon see a cheaper model with the more lavish and underused features trimmed, and other features much improved thanks to real world testing of the first model.
Is applying the Tesla business model applicable in a case where the product doesn't cause you to salivate? Seems for each interested buyer, I see ten who are more like "meh". Perhaps a rigorous demo of the phone's features would highlight it's "must-have" features.
The market positioning here seems very un-Amazon. "Your margin is my opportunity" is probably my favorite Bezosism. Given that perspective and Apple's very cushy margins, I expected Amazon not to approach the market with an expensive phone packed with new features, but to approach the market from the bottom, with a good phone that is free or nearly free. The problem, of course, is that Google seems to have that segme…
I agree that the dynamic perspective and angle detection just seems like a gimmick. The 2 serious uses for it I can see are: * Scrolling through things by tilting the phone. Personally I think this seems like a useful feature. * Playing certain mobile games. For general use, I don't think it'd be that helpful or aesthetically appealing other than "oh that looks cool". I don't really see the purpose of it when looking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't get Amazon any market share, it just increases their profits - assuming that they can get anyone to buy it in the first place. And even if the money starts rolling in, that's not going to be able to overcome the legendary inertia of the Google Play and Apple app stores. Google and Apple already have the "dump billions on it until people buy it" angle covered.
Market share is only meaningful if the lack of market share makes a particular product untenable. For example, if someone came out with a new platform that was incompatible with everything else- a lack of apps in the beginning is a huge hurdle to overcome, and the platform may die before achieving a critical mass of third-party support. That is clearly not the case with Amazon. "Just increases their profits" is prett…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google sells the technology so that they can sell advertising for third party products. I see this a lot of HN, and I wonder if people are just assuming? To put it into context, I see far more ads on my iPad and iPad Touch than I ever have on my Nexus 5. Outside of the money Google makes from their book, video, and apps stores, they sell the technology to ensure that their services remain viable, and cannot be cut ou…
>They make the platform so Google has less concern about being cut out of the ecosystem. True, but let's not ignore that their core business is selling advertising. Before Android came along that business was at the mercy of Apple (in the mobile space anyway). >I mean we see the paradox on here constantly where people will gloat about how much more valuable iOS users are to advertisers, but then that Android is a pla…
Android has existed for the entire time mobile advertising was becoming huge. The iPhone was a big innovation, but in its first year it wasn't nearly the mass market device it is now, and its impact on mobile advertising at the time should not be overstated. Mobile and mobile advertising only started becoming really big in 2010.
I don't think Android was built with the specific goal to directly put Google's services into people's hands. I believe Android was built and released as free to be used by anyone to create an easy-to-use platform for any vendor with very capable connectivity features. It was hoped that this would increase use of Google's services on mobile, not because Google was forced into the market, but because people would have devices capable of web services in general.
Android seems to be made with a goal of making a market, not taking a market. That is why there is this diverse market for Android, and that's why all those associated problems exist. Its strategy also directly made possible this Fire Phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's core business is making services that people like to use. That they monetize some of those services via advertisements is a function of the industry that they operate in: There was no market for a pay search engine, or even a pay consumer mail provider: Those genres had long been supported by ads, and users expected that. Anything else was a non-starter.
Their core business is that monetization, by definition. Making services that people like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. They are constantly scrambling to find different ways to make money because they are a company run by extremely wealthy and intelligent people who would love for all of the great things they do to be in service of some core business other than selling targeted ad…
IBM's core business is monetization, by definition. Making services that enterprises like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Walmart's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling goods that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Toyota's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling cars that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
The local florist's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling flowers that people like is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.
Every for-profit's core business is monetization, by definition. Performing a large variety of things that make money is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.