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

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#81

Post by scott_karana »

yid wrote: post #74
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?

Wow, did not know about that! What a shame that Amazon didn't go with the dual e-ink/LCD idea, given that they're practically singlehandedly responsible for e-ink going mainstream. Throw in free-with-Prime, Android, and a few carrier discounts (e.g. free data for a year) and I'd happily dump my iPhone in a heartbeat.

> Throw in ... Android

Huh? The Yotaphone already runs Android, and not an Amazon-crippled version at that. :)

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#82

Post by estel »

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).

> 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).

I think the article discussed this mainly in the context of Kindle. It's only digital in app purchases that need to go through Apple's payment processing.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#83

Post by dotBen »

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 choose.

Again, the point here is NOT to let the customer choose, it's to force the consumer into their ecosystem instead of Googles.

Switching costs are high, so getting people hooked into the Amazon Appstore might mean a lifetime customer, etc. One of the reason Amazon has designed Fire Tablets for children.

And this is another reason the Fire Phone is having a hard time - developers think the Amazon AppStore is shit.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#84

Post by tiglionabbit »

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,…

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

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#85

Post by eropple »

patja wrote: post #19
pbreit wrote: post #12

I don't get the Fire phone at all. iPhone users are never going to switch to it. Can't see Android users switching either. I appreciate that they tried some new things such as Firefly (although that is apparently available on iOS/Android, as it should be), the gestures and some of the other UI differences. But the 3D stuff is lame and the overall aesthetic is dreadful. The Kindle is apparently doing well and makes pe…

The Kindle does so many things right but like many of Amazon's products leaves me shaking my head and asking "what are they thinking?" Case in point is the Special Offers, or ads shown on the Kindle. Initially I kind of liked them, especially when they would occasionally just throw you $5 off your next Kindle purchase or make me aware of new books. But the lack of targeting became so annoying. I had so many ads for t…

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.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#86

Post by bbcbasic »

patja wrote: post #19
pbreit wrote: post #12

I don't get the Fire phone at all. iPhone users are never going to switch to it. Can't see Android users switching either. I appreciate that they tried some new things such as Firefly (although that is apparently available on iOS/Android, as it should be), the gestures and some of the other UI differences. But the 3D stuff is lame and the overall aesthetic is dreadful. The Kindle is apparently doing well and makes pe…

The Kindle does so many things right but like many of Amazon's products leaves me shaking my head and asking "what are they thinking?" Case in point is the Special Offers, or ads shown on the Kindle. Initially I kind of liked them, especially when they would occasionally just throw you $5 off your next Kindle purchase or make me aware of new books. But the lack of targeting became so annoying. I had so many ads for t…

Maybe if you don't buy the home security you will need the toilet paper?

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#87

Post by EpicEng »

jph wrote: post #14

The Fire phone is a gorgeous hardware success in my opinion -- if you try it, it's fast and sleek. The Firefly scanner is super-convenient for shopping. The show-stopper issue for me is the UI. It feels as if screen elements are sloshing, or hard to find, and the UI is hard to use when I'm in motion. I expect the UI will be easy for Amazon to solve. The phone is a version 1 and a strong debut -- even if it didn't sel…

> ...and a strong debut -- even if it didn't sell well.

I'm not sure one follows from the other... how exactly did the Fire make a "strong debut"?

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#88

Post by Raphael »

nailer wrote: post #40
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?"…

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.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#89

Post by throwawaymsft »

jayess wrote: post #54

So one product didn't pan out during its first iteration. Not exactly the end of the world. This also makes me wonder if they are rolling out the Echo the way they are because of Fire Phone. Invitation only and a (presumably) demand-driven supply chain.

It's not that they can't make an occasional mistake, it's that they can misjudge things so poorly. What were they expecting people to do with this device? ("Oh man, I'll give up my iPhone and its ecosystem so I can get 3d home screen.")

Kindle, echo, etc. were decent in their first iteration and provided some value.

Re: The Fire phone debacle

#90

Post by mynameishere »

guiomie wrote: post #59

"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 that would eat into profits. But his prescience was part of what made the Kindle a smash hit." ... Really? Anyone can back this up? I would have thought the opposite. I didn't buy the 3G Kindle because it was more exepensive,…

Yes, it's pretty neat. I have an old kindle refurb and just now (as a test) ordered a free public domain book and it took about 2 seconds to show up.

I think the whole point of that feature was to capture the airport book market--people facing a four hour flight have a million books to choose from instead of fifty rubbishy paperbacks.

Post reply on HN