The Fire phone debacle • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#131

Post by Steko » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:16 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…

Let's be honest, no one (rounding down) cares about vanilla android and microSD ports.

The only thing that's going to move the dial for an Amazon phone is exclusive hardware or software features and you can forget about third party software. They tried this angle and because they aren't that good at this in the first place (like Facebook), what they came up with stank.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#132

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:19 AM UTC

   But will all of Bezos’s risk-taking ultimately pay off? 
   "They make no money!" former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
   exclaimed in a recent TV interview. "In my world, 
   [that’s] not a real business. I get it if you don’t make 
   money for two or three years, but Amazon is, what, 21 
   years old?"

I don't know many people who have made money betting against Jeff Bezos, or lost it betting against Steve Ballmer. (iPhone, anyone?)

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#133

Post by Rimpinths » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

andrewmutz wrote: post #23

It is extremely difficult for large organizations to create the sort of innovative leaps that startups can create. Amazon is attempting to do this. They have been successful in many different ways, but for every winner they create they need to create multiple losers. The fire phone seems to be one of these losers, but time will tell. I really admire Amazon's tolerance for failure. Most large companies would never tak…

What you should really admire is Amazon's shareholders' tolerance for failure. A lot more companies would be more likely to take big risks like Amazon if their shareholders would tolerate year after year of losses. Time will tell if they are stupid or admirable.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#134

Post by ufmace » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:28 AM UTC

ewzimm wrote: post #120

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 have seen so many people blame Amazon for not including Google Play, but this is really Google's decision. In order to use Google Play Services, you need to make all of Google's services default and unremovable. This was done specifically so companies like Amazon could not include it on devices meant to push competing services. Even though I use plenty of Google software, I am more than happy to see them have compe…

I'm surprised that so few other people on this comment thread seem to get it. Google Play and the associated Services ecosystem exists for the sole purpose of forbidding exactly what Amazon is trying to do. Amazon's sole purpose for this phone is as a way to get phone customers into their ecosystem first, and Google's stuff exists to get people on the Google ecosystem first. A first-party device with Google Play and Amazon services is Not. Gonna. Happen.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#135

Post by a_c_s » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:42 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #49

sekasi wrote: post #10

Bold or irresponsible move? Not sure. Given the incredibly low profit margin of most non-iphone smartphones on the market today (I think the average samsung profit margin on a phone is $11) I can't help but wonder what the real source of revenue was planned to be. Increased shopping through mobile? Make your android/ios products better? It just never made any sense, but I guess many successful products don't make ini…

Not paying Apple or Google a cut of every product sold via mobile was the revenue plan. If I pay Apple 30% of my profits every time someone orders something via my mobile app, that's a lot of money I can sink into a competing product before it becomes a net loss (assuming I get any traction at all).

Apple's app stores take 30% of revenues, not profits.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#136

Post by philwelch » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 6:05 AM UTC

apozem wrote: post #129

mgkimsal wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... the kindle was pretty much just a device "to get people to buy more stuff from Amazon." But there were no other competitors at the time. The fire phone was going up against a huge market of phone devices with many better features and ecosystems already.

I would argue Kindles benefit the consumer in that they're also enjoyable reading experiences. You can carry a library's worth of books in your backpack on a device with a wonderful screen.

Hell, even carrying a backpack's worth of books in your hand is a massive improvement.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#137

Post by eropple » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 6:38 AM UTC

sofal wrote: post #128

eropple wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are thinking that they are making a somewhat cheaper device for people who don't have the capacity to lose respect for a corporation over a lack of ad-targeting. I'm pretty sure they're right.

You say that as if it were some kind of moral failing. I bought the version with ads not because I want to be specially targeted by ads, but because it was cheaper and the ads are not intrusive and don't bother me. I use my Kindle to read books, not to get shopping tips. The only reason an ad would annoy me is if it intruded on my attention while I'm reading my book. They can try to sell me pink panties while it's of…

I don't say it as if it is a moral failing, I say it as it is a comic lack of perspective.

Or, put another way: chill.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#138

Post by mrxd » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 6:49 AM UTC

aslewofmice wrote: post #55

dperfect wrote: post #42

Amazon seems to have truly become the Walmart of e-commerce, and I'm not just talking about what the company does (commerce), but rather what the brand represents. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Walmart and Amazon have proven that if you dominate the supply chain landscape and offer a huge variety with low margins, you can do moderately well (i.e. stay in business). But with so much being essentially commodity g…

I think they could succeed by modeling themselves after a Costco/Kirkland-type relationship

Or any other of the popular value brands like Ikea, Target, Old Navy, Southwest, H&M or Honda. Amazon is perceived as utilitarian, but that's not inevitable for a value retailer.

There's a fundamental mismatch. Jeff Bezos wants to be perceived as cool, cutting edge, an explorer, an innovator. These are elitist concepts that work for a premium, aspirational brand. Value brands need to come across as ordinary people.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#139

Post by mreiland » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 7:55 AM UTC

dperfect wrote: post #42

Amazon seems to have truly become the Walmart of e-commerce, and I'm not just talking about what the company does (commerce), but rather what the brand represents. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Walmart and Amazon have proven that if you dominate the supply chain landscape and offer a huge variety with low margins, you can do moderately well (i.e. stay in business). But with so much being essentially commodity g…

I love Amazon to death. I have no idea what you mean by "Amazon version of something", but I just purchased an MS ergo keyboard from them a few weeks ago instead of going to best buy.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "Amazon version of something", there's simply an amazing service providing so much value that I'm more than happy to wait a few days to get it from Amazon than to buy it retail.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#140

Post by davidw » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 7:56 AM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #123

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,…

The Kindle Fire tablets are also designed to sell Amazon content, but they benefit the customer with their rock-bottom pricing which the Fire Phone did not have.

I have one of the original Fire tablets, and would not buy another one if not for the express purpose of delivering Amazon content - videos in that case, since the actual reading experience is far superior on a real Kindle. It's not a bad tablet, but not having the Google apps, as well as something relatively close to stock Android, makes it not as useful as it could have been.