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

Amazon Fire Phone

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 429 posts

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#401

Post by personZ »

asafira wrote: post #365
personZ wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the price differential between this and good android phones The Galaxy S5 is a $600 device. The HTC One is a $600 device. The LG G3 is a $600 device. The iPhone is a $600 device. I'm not seeing the price differential. However, the notion that this competes with either Android or the iPhone is utter nonsense, and we saw exactly the same noise with the Kindle Fire. People seem to have some need to try to as…

Other android phones: Moto phones are So you would say this competes with nothing though?

Other android phones: Moto phones are

You claimed that it was targeted at the iPhone based upon price, when many of the top selling Android devices are the same price as the iPhone.

So you would say this competes with nothing though?

I disagreed with any binary analysis of what it competes with. It doesn't compete with "either", it competes with both. People buy smartphones to provide information and value, and any possible smartphone is a potential candidate.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#402

Post by nailer »

asafira wrote: post #366
nailer wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubber objectively ages worse than metal. Glass is objectively more fragile.

I don't think you are using "objectively" right here. It could very well be my opinion that rubber actually ages better , because it scratches far less than metal does. Subjective though. ...so build quality is hard to quantify, and in most practical cases is subjective.

Objectively means facts, eg:

- Rubber breaks down faster than metal

- Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone

- Rubber can be torn, metal can't

So yes, objectively.

If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#403

Post by Steko »

drcode wrote: post #176
Consultant32452 wrote: post #170

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 make a good point: Apple: Sell at high price, modest tie-in revenue. Google: Sell at low price, modest tie-in revenue. Amazon: Sell at low price, high tie-in revenue. It does seem like Amazon is bound to win in the long run, based on pure economics, if this trend continues.

What trend, the trend where Amazon is an also ran in tablets, set top boxes and soon to be phones? Apple's hobby TV product which hasn't been updated in 18 months made about the same profits last quarter as Amazon's entire business. Let that statement sink in.

Revenue =/= profits. Amazon is a middleman and are only successful at generating revenue growth because they don't make profits.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#404

Post by foobarbecue »

Can someone explain the real reason why the kindle fire phone has six cameras? All the articles say it's for tilt scrolling and similar features that are already easily accomplished without using any camera data. Are they trying to do some Google Tango style stuff?

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#405

Post by _ea1k »

Steko wrote: post #403
drcode wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a good point: Apple: Sell at high price, modest tie-in revenue. Google: Sell at low price, modest tie-in revenue. Amazon: Sell at low price, high tie-in revenue. It does seem like Amazon is bound to win in the long run, based on pure economics, if this trend continues.

What trend, the trend where Amazon is an also ran in tablets, set top boxes and soon to be phones? Apple's hobby TV product which hasn't been updated in 18 months made about the same profits last quarter as Amazon's entire business. Let that statement sink in. Revenue =/= profits. Amazon is a middleman and are only successful at generating revenue growth because they don't make profits.

Where do you see a figure for Apple TV profits? I haven't seen where that is broken out.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#406

Post by opendais »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #391
opendais wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit card != Banking Information. And if they pushed an update to change this [even accidentally], how would you know?

Thats silly. How would you know if any browser pushed an update [even accidentally], with this side effect?

1) Access a page you control to check.

2) Silk is the only one I know of that a mere coding error could cause this. It isn't like Chrome and Firefox have a fleet of machines and code designed to act as an always-on proxy.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#407

Post by personZ »

nailer wrote: post #402
asafira wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are using "objectively" right here. It could very well be my opinion that rubber actually ages better , because it scratches far less than metal does. Subjective though. ...so build quality is hard to quantify, and in most practical cases is subjective.

Objectively means facts, eg: - Rubber breaks down faster than metal - Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone - Rubber can be torn, metal can't So yes, objectively. If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.

So yes, objectively.

No, it isn't objectively. You are subjectively choosing the criteria that makes one purportedly better than the other, yet they have zero applicability to the use or operation of a smartphone.

Grip matters very much with a smartphone. Rubber breaking down? Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? Is this actually a problem? Torn or stained? Again, is this actually a problem in the context of a smartphone? I would say no, it isn't at all.

A soft, comfortable, lightweight device that you don't have to immediately shroud in a protective case is, by actual use-based criteria, arguably the better "build quality". Build quality is suitability to purpose, not aesthetics or cult of material.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#408

Post by cnst »

clinth wrote: post #289
amputect wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you here; I was really surprised by the price tag, considering that over the course of a 2-year contract you're on the hook for another $200 worth of prime membership to get the most out of the features. I'm already on the edge of cancelling my Prime membership because of the problems with "2-day" shipping turning in to "3-5 day" shipping thanks to UPS Surepost being complete garbage, and I already have…

Small correction: you get a year of Prime free with purchase of the phone, and if you're already a Prime member, they extend your existing membership by one year. This is way down the page though. I'm really surprised that they didn't feature this information in the price displays themselves for existing Prime members.

Yeah, but even including a year worth of Prime, that's still a very huge price tag for so little hardware, and an unproven software.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#409

Post by drzaiusapelord »

peterwwillis wrote: post #227
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this remotely competitive in a world full of $179 Moto G's? $219 Moto G LTE's? Or even a $350 Nexus? This seems like a phone from two or three years ago where $650 for a non-premium brand would have been passable. I just bought a Moto G LTE for my wife and its a wonderful phone. I don't see what Amazon would bring to the table for an extra $420. That's almost 10 months of service right there.

Different markets. The Moto G (and Moto E, cheaper at $130) have much lower specs, and there are phones that have the same specs as a Moto G or Moto E for half the price (like the AT&T Radiant) because they don't carry the "Moto" brand.

Radiant doesn't have the 'same' specs as the G.

Radiant: 480 x 800 G: 720 x 1280

Radiant has a much smaller battery.

G has quad core, radiant has dual.

G has 8gb of storage. Radiant has 2 available to user.

Moto G comes in an LTE flavor for $30 more, no option with Radiant.

Radiant is also forever stuck on 4.1 while the G continues to get updates and will probably get some for some time.

Re: Amazon Fire Phone

#410

Post by nailer »

personZ wrote: post #407
nailer wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectively means facts, eg: - Rubber breaks down faster than metal - Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone - Rubber can be torn, metal can't So yes, objectively. If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.

So yes, objectively. No, it isn't objectively. You are subjectively choosing the criteria that makes one purportedly better than the other, yet they have zero applicability to the use or operation of a smartphone. Grip matters very much with a smartphone. Rubber breaking down? Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? Is this actually a problem? Torn or stained? Again, is this actually a problem in the context of a…

Within the criteria of robustness, robustness can be measured objectively.

You have different criteria than robustness - understood, grip is important to you. Grip has its own objective measurements.

Christ.

Post reply on HN