The Fire phone debacle • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#101

Post by fpgeek » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:41 AM UTC

mark-r wrote: post #70

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…

Given that all his attention was riveted to the phone, I wonder how much input he had in the FireTV product? Maybe the hands-off approach just worked better.

FireTV was a much, much easier product to develop. It was pretty clear an Android STB was worth doing. In this case, Amazon wisely took the simplest path to get there: Google TV + better content deals and updated hardware and software.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#102

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #96

Raphael wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All it needs is the postman confusing two packages (or the wrong phone in the correct parcel) and a stranger has total access to your account.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#103

Post by SomeCallMeTim » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:44 AM UTC

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…

>developers think the Amazon AppStore is shit

It's not just developers they need to convince. Even moderately sophisticated customers aren't going to want to buy into a not-as-good-as-Google's ecosystem.

Because it's pretty strictly worse than Google's Play Store. Some developers do go to the extra effort to support it, but not all, and almost none would create for the Amazon store without publishing on Google's.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#104

Post by function_seven » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:45 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #96

Raphael wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose someone could steal your FireTV shipment from your doorstep and watch movies on your account.

Personally I'll take that risk any day over having to type my password in using the remote.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#105

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:46 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #99

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 co…

Well, good for us.

Without Android, the iPhone would suck. We finally have the competition everyone wished for in the Windows 98 days.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#106

Post by RyJones » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:47 AM UTC

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 worked on the camera/3d bit, and I can say with good certainty parts of the UI were stubbed out only for integration purposes. When a feature was good enough to dogfood, it was in the builds all the testers got.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#107

Post by _red » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

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…

I agree, but I think "budget" is the wrong concept.

It should've been "simple smartphone".

5 big buttons on the screen: (a) Phone, (b) Text / Email, (c) Music (d) Pictures, (e) Shop

(each of those apps linked into to Amazon services)

There is not really a market for making another hi-tech whiz-bang phone for nerds, that market is sewed up.

They need the phone version of their kindle. A one-week battery life. A device deceptively simple...something that soccer-moms would use while waiting for Timmy's soccer practice to finish.

Interestingly, I bet this is the tact Microsoft takes with their new Nokia announcements

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#108

Post by freehunter » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 2:02 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #102

girvo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All it needs is the postman confusing two packages (or the wrong phone in the correct parcel) and a stranger has total access to your account.

Just because it's preconfigured with your account doesn't mean it doesn't need a password. My iPhone has my account on it but I still need to type in a code.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#109

Post by spinlock » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 2:05 AM UTC

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.

> Pre-authentication seems insecure.

Very true but what is the cost to Amazon if it's stolen? They regularly refund thousands in EC2 fees when people check their keys into github. I'm sure there's a loophole where they don't have to pay rights-holders for stolen works and the cost to stream movies is pretty low at their scale. My guess is that the hardware would be the biggest loss for Amazon in the stolen TV crime. It's also pretty easy to crack the case unless the thieves are using a stolen wifi signal too.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#110

Post by fpgeek » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 2:11 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #99

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 co…

Apple didn't screw up. The disadvantages you cite are inevitable consequences of the strategy they consciously chose (selling premium devices differentiated by user experience).

If Apple hadn't waited until carriers (especially Verizon) to come to them, iPhones would be as full of branding and bloatware as any other carrier-sold phone, not to mention interference with updates, interference with retail launches and who knows what else. Limiting the range of phones they offer means they miss niches, but also helps control costs (allowing them to use premium components more affordably), simplifies the buying process for customers, supports a broader and deeper accessory ecosystem and so on. Not jumping on many new technologies (e.g. LTE), creates an opening for competitors, but also lets Apple avoid the associated growing pains so they can provide a more consistent user experience.

If Apple had followed the path you advocate, they'd have picked up many of the disadvantages of the Android ecosystem, without the corresponding advantages (most notably rapid improvements via intra-ecosystem competition). That seems obviously worse than the path they actually chose.