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

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#161

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

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…

A bit more on this:

Android licencing means that no company is allowed to ship both Google Android and non-Google Android. This means that to ship Google Android on the phone they (Amazon) would have to ship Google Android on all Fire tablets too.

In addition under the licence Google apps need to be both installed (you have to have all of them, you can't pick and choose) and placed in particular prominent locations (so the Play Store needs to be on the first home screen). This would almost certainly mean that Google's store(s) would be have as good if not better positions than Amazon's own stores on the device. More than that there are restrictions around app stores which compete with Google play which would, at the very least, restrict Amazon's ability to pre-install and operate their own app store.

Given that Amazon's reason for making these devices in the first place is to sell content - videos, music, books and apps - stock Android is to all intents and purposes a non-starter for them.

See here: https://www.theinformation.com/Google-s-Confidential-Android... for more information.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#162

Post by greedo »

LordHumungous wrote: post #117
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 one, its called the Moto G. It comes with near stock Android, it costs $200 without a contract, and I freaking love it. To see the future of cell phones look at the story PC's: prices will fall and quality will become uniformly high- and margins will become razor thin, except for premium brands (aka Apple). This is a tough, tough kind of market for any company to enter.

In what PC world is the quality uniformly high?

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#163

Post by al2o3cr »

rhino369 wrote: post #32
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…

More and more digital content consumption is happening on mobile devices. And Amazon can't sell on iOS devices because Apple locks out anyone who won't pay a 30% ransom. You can't buy a book or rent an instant movie on an iPhone. It is a big weak spot.

"ransom"? Funny, you can't rent a movie from Google on Amazon.com either. Or buy a Taco Bell burrito from McDonalds.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#164

Post by snarfy »

potatolicious wrote: post #64
bambax wrote: post #57

> When Bezos insisted that the original 2007 Kindle include a cellular connection so customers could download and access e-books from anywhere, people thought the idea was an exorbitant flourish (...) When Bezos encouraged a free-shipping initiative, executives pushed back, nervous about its impact on earnings. (...) So when it came to the Fire Phone, says one former product lead, "Yes, there was heated debate about…

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,…

That's how I felt as well. It's a great phone...for amazon, not you or me.

That's how you know the marketing/business types are deciding the features, not product development.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#165

Post by SixSigma »

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.

I would argue that the connectivity was the killer feature. I have a Pre kindle Sony e-reader, same thing - whole library in your backpack.

Getting those books on the thing, however, is a pain - you need a computer to go with it.

My mom bought an early kindle - worldwide wifi, with email!

So she bought the next kindle too.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#166

Post by SixSigma »

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…

Walmart processes 200 million transactions per day. That's a problem I would like.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#167

Post by blisterpeanuts »

ufmace wrote: post #134
ewzimm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why. Not.

Does Google forbid 3rd party app stores on a device with full Google Services installed?

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#168

Post by blisterpeanuts »

maxsilver wrote: post #157
Max_Mustermann wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone keeps implying there are super cheap super good chinese phones. Is there a site that reviews these or a link where an uninitiated can check the best options out?

Depends on what you mean by "super cheap", but : $350 Nexus 5 http://www.google.com/nexus/5/ $250-ish - Lumia 1320 https://www.cricketwireless.com/cell-phones/smartphones/noki... $200 - ZTE Grand X Max http://www.androidcentral.com/hands-zte-grand-x-max $180 - Motorola G http://www.motorola.com/us/Moto-G-2nd-Gen/moto-g-2nd-gen-pdp... They've all gotten good reviews for their hardware. I don't think it's crazy to expe…

You can take the Nexus 5 off that list. It's been end-of-life'd, though Google now says it will continue to be sold until end of 1st quarter 2015. http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobil...

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#169

Post by m_mueller »

puredemo wrote: post #145
saosebastiao wrote: post #130

This has classic Amazon politics written all over it. I'm pretty far removed from anything Kindle/Fire related, but this was my best guess at what happened based off of the Amazon I know: Jeff said make a phone (probably like 5 years ago). They pulled orgs apart and mashed them into this superorg with several VPs and dozens of Directors, with the software teams in Seattle but the hardware folks in a completely differ…

That sounds pretty different from the scenario the article outlined, with Bezos working directly as the product manager..

Let's not get facts in the way of a good story though..

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#170

Post by delecti »

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.

They also benefit from the fact that tablets (at least in my experience) are primarily content consumption devices, whether that's books, videos, or games.
Post reply on HN