Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fire phone debacle

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 188 posts

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#91

Post by jzwinck »

andybak wrote: post #53
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #3

>"it now sells for 99 cents" (OP) // Where can I get one for 99c, in UK on ebay [new] they're about £200 (~$300) on O2 network or £250 unlocked. Lowest monthly for a contract is £28.

What I don't get about US pricings is that the phone price stays constant whatever the contract. In the UK a phone might be free on a £45/month contract, £100 on a £30/month contract and so on. Does that not appen in the US?

In the US there are generally only two levels: the subsidized price and the full price. If you get a phone with a very cheap contract, you will have to pay full price, just as if you got no contract at all. Such people might therefore prefer a prepaid plan. If you get a phone with a "normal" (in UK terms, "expensive") plan, you get the subsidized price for the phone. There's usually no gradation beyond that...although people who spend huge amounts of money on their monthly bills due to long distance calling, roaming, etc., will receive extra promotions (we're talking $1000/month customers).

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#92

Post by rancur »

tiglionabbit wrote: post #84
potatolicious wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right on - the biggest (and IMO only truly relevant) reason why the Fire Phone flopped is because it doesn't benefit customers . The Fire Phone wasn't built to be a superior phone, or give customers something truly new and useful. It was built to be an Amazon Content Delivery Device. This is a phone whose primary raison d'etre is to get people to buy more stuff from Amazon. It's a distillation of a platform strategy,…

I'm not sure what having so many cameras has to do with that.

nobody is

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#93

Post by nkozyra »

dotBen wrote: post #83
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #78

In my opinion, Amazon should have gone with a generic budget phone to augment their "Amazon Basics" line of dependable, economical cables, USB hubs, and so forth. I would make it a plain, vanilla Nexus-like phone running vanilla Android with no skins and not tied to any contracts or carriers, but priced $50 less than a comparable Nexus 5 or whatever is the current Nexus. Or else, make it about $400 but throw in a yea…

The whole point of the exercise is not to just ship volumes of units, but build an ecosystem (just like what Apple and Google are doing too) . A budget phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music and video and all of the other traits Amazon is looking at with it's 'Fire' ecosystem. > Forget the lame Amazon AppStore, or at least provide both -- AppStore and Google Play, and let the customer choo…

> A budget phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music and video and all of the other traits Amazon is looking at with it's 'Fire' ecosystem.

A "budget phone" in price may not be a budget phone in capability. Amazon surely wouldn't be the first company with a loss-leader hardware device that encourages lock-in.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#94

Post by themartorana »

dotBen wrote: post #83
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #78

In my opinion, Amazon should have gone with a generic budget phone to augment their "Amazon Basics" line of dependable, economical cables, USB hubs, and so forth. I would make it a plain, vanilla Nexus-like phone running vanilla Android with no skins and not tied to any contracts or carriers, but priced $50 less than a comparable Nexus 5 or whatever is the current Nexus. Or else, make it about $400 but throw in a yea…

The whole point of the exercise is not to just ship volumes of units, but build an ecosystem (just like what Apple and Google are doing too) . A budget phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music and video and all of the other traits Amazon is looking at with it's 'Fire' ecosystem. > Forget the lame Amazon AppStore, or at least provide both -- AppStore and Google Play, and let the customer choo…

Well, to be fair, we don't think it's shit, we just don't think there are enough potential customers for the investment. It's not just "build to another store" - my servers have to have yet another push notification service route, I need to coordinate another App Store release schedule, I have to implement another IAP framework, implement another signing path, and buy and test another set of devices.

That's money, baby. Lots of it. And unlike Mr. Bezos, I don't have thousands - let alone millions - of dollars to burn.

It's the same reason we don't build to Windows app store or Blackberry app store without incentives from Microsoft or Blackberry to help get us there.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#95

Post by AustinCarr »

throwaway1x7q wrote: post #37
fosk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate why it's inaccurate?

- team was not scrapped by jeff, at least not until large number of people walked out due to mismanagement - prototypes that worked (and were of phone size & shape) existed more than 2 years before launch but then (as mentioned) team walked and it all had to be scrapped - hw team often undercut sw team by replacing components and not telling anyone about it - hw team often made mistakes of the very basic variety (two…

Hey there, this is the author of Fast Company's story. Thanks for the note.

While I appreciate your perspective, during the course of reporting, you have to understand that you're going to hear an endless amount of varying perspectives, especially when it comes to emotional finger-pointing and Monday morning quarterbacking. It sounds like you worked on the project for about a year, of a product with roots that can be traced as far back as 2009. It's also not clear to me what "team" you're referring to, since so many teams were involved over this long time period, not just in Seattle but in Cupertino/Sunnyvale/Cambridge/etc, as you know. So I just hope people can keep that in mind when reading about "inaccuracies," which, on the whole, I certainly would disagree with.

As for your complaints, it sounds like many of them are aimed at the hardware teams; during my reporting, I certainly heard just as many complaints leveled at the software teams (e.g. at former VP Howard Look before his departure).

I totally understand that current/former employees get defensive about these kinds of topics, especially when it comes to their work being under the eye of criticism (early Dynamic Perspective team members were especially defensive during my reporting). But it's important to separate fact from emotion, and present a narrative that is clear, accurate, and balanced.

At this point, I've talked to nearly four-dozen sources for this story -- current and former employees at all levels of the company -- and this is the story that's emerged. The feedback I've since received privately from insiders has been incredibly reassuring.

With that said, I'm not dismissing your comments. But if you'd like to provide more insight, feel free to reach out. I'm accessible online, and happy to connect on background, if that's most comfortable for you.

Best, Austin

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#96

Post by girvo »

Raphael wrote: post #88
nailer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really weird. The FireTV voice recognition is innovative and in practice works incredibly well. Also the box is delivered already configured to your account. Both those ideas are so good they're retrospectively obvious, and you wonder why Apple and Google never did them. I'd buy it again at twice the price. But the Fire phone? Ugly, overpriced, and nothing that's new is useful. I wouldn't buy it at half the pric…

Apple and Google have had voice recognition for years. Pre-authentication seems insecure. The Fire Phone is priced high with the assumption that the price will be lower with carrier contracts, a la iPhone and Galaxy. Although, if they get the price down, it could become the "free" phone like old iPhones are.

The Apple TV doesn't have voice recognition. I wish it did, Siri to control it would be brilliant (and it's a lovely machine regardless).

> Pre-authentication seems insecure.

Do you mind explaining how? Because I can't see it.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#97

Post by themartorana »

delecti wrote: post #50
devindotcom wrote: post #15

When I attended the launch, they had a hands-on period where I noticed a few of the issues people have pointed out in reviews. But every phone has issues. More worryingly, I asked about a few things that the unique tech in the Fire Phone could be used for - nothing groundbreaking, just little suggestions: "It'd be great to have the tilt controls do ____ here" or "Do you have plans to allow users to turn this on/off?"…

One big problem I've seen at Amazon is that their tendency towards independent interacting subsystems carries over onto their culture with regards to their hardware. One team was probably in charge of the camera/3d bit, and they worked on their own while everybody else made their generic implementations of required smartphone features ABC. I see this all the time, features are planned and implemented without even com…

I would be surprised. In fact, Bezos was personally responsible for making sure that the very scenario you describe absolutely did not happen in AWS.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z12ld3fwhlnexv5b004...

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#98

Post by kevinqi »

ursidae wrote: post #73

For an example of the phone Amazon should have built, check out the Yotaphone 2: https://yotaphone.com/gb-en/ Wonder if Amazon could buy them?

what a cool idea. It's hard to know how the user experience is without using it (eg. do you have to flip it back and forth manually often?), but the benefits of having an e-ink panel seems huge.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#99

Post by aetherson »

This article really reminded me how much Apple screwed up to let Android get a foothold. Look how unassailable the Apple and Android are now -- you can't get a foothold at the bottom of the market because it's hugely fragmented and there are no profit margins, while at the top of the market you're taking on beloved brands and have to try crazy over-the-top bets to get in the door -- which usually backfire.

Android could have been the Fire Phone of its day. The earliest Android phones were just amazingly bad compared to the iPhone. But iPhones were only available on AT&T. Do you live in an area where AT&T had no service? Your only choice was an Android. iPhones insisted for years on having exactly one clearly unpopular screen size. Want a 4" screen? Your only choice was an Android. Apple refused to develop a downmarket phone. Want something less than a flagship? Your only choice was an Android.

That window has closed. iOS has finally filled in all the places it used to suck (well, maybe except for developing an economical model, but last year's phone looks better now than it used to, and in any case Android filled that niche to the overflowing).

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#100

Post by mschuster91 »

themartorana wrote: post #94
dotBen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the exercise is not to just ship volumes of units, but build an ecosystem (just like what Apple and Google are doing too) . A budget phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music and video and all of the other traits Amazon is looking at with it's 'Fire' ecosystem. > Forget the lame Amazon AppStore, or at least provide both -- AppStore and Google Play, and let the customer choo…

Well, to be fair, we don't think it's shit, we just don't think there are enough potential customers for the investment. It's not just "build to another store" - my servers have to have yet another push notification service route, I need to coordinate another App Store release schedule, I have to implement another IAP framework, implement another signing path, and buy and test another set of devices. That's money, ba…

Hasn't Amazon actually gone the route of recoding all Google Play related infrastructure so that seamless porting is possible?
Post reply on HN