Amazon Curtails Development of Consumer Devices
wsj.com
wsj.com
bezos tried to go all in.
It worked. He was the customer.
I have no idea about the actual situation, but this article doesn't leave me feeling enlightened.
TBH it sucks that the developers are the first ones to go , when it generally isnt their fault... it's bad product management/sales/strategy that caused the device to fail...
I've been on a couple of projects that were complete flops, devs are always first to go. Meanwhile the idiots who actually wasted all the money and bloated the feature set start working on version "2.0".
If you are a designer, you can go work on another project.
If you are a BA, you can go work on another project.
If you are a manager, you can go work on another project.
If you are an mobile developer/hardware engineer, and they aren't building any more OS/hardware, they can't move you onto another project.
Managers have all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, but the root cause of management incompetence is this: that managers believe that a manager can manage anything. Running a store, developing a phone, building a house, designing a rocket to go to the moon, it's all the same thing according to them. Getting info, negotiate, motivate a team, giving speeches, running projects, ... Some go further in this, and some hold up the idea that something like "management science" exists.
This directly leads to the second ridiculous belief, which causes a feedback loop : that they can hire other managers anywhere, absolutely no concern for what they did before, as long as they had slightly less "reports" (so they are "promoted" into their new position), for any management function.
Then, of course the second belief leads to negotiation, to trading business efforts for jobs. If you make my department look good (internally "hire" us as consultants because your financial performance is down the crapper anyway and we'll hire you next quarter after your division gets nixed). Nothing is so damaging to companies, as the main thing being traded is making disasters far worse in trade for personal exits, but the people who'd have to do something about it are of course managers, who have negotiated for jobs and have further negotiation in place for moving up.
For "some reason" managers never ever start any company. Companies are started by people who actually know what the company is supposed to do. Companies are (were) started by mechanics, by engineers, by traders (ie. shop attendants), by software developers, sometimes by experienced investors, by ... The best companies were started by people who had the skills to do well in 2 different fields. Generally what happens is that at some point a deep and explosive conflict happens between these founders and some employees of their companies, and then someone is brought in to prevent this. In reality, this is normal. Meet enough people, raise the stakes high enough and you will clash very seriously with other people. And the bigger your company gets as a founder, the more is at stake, and the more people you will have to deal with. So a conflict escalating is a matter of time, but it is human nature to compensate : founders will bring in a manager to deal with this sort of thing, and then the job trading begins. As everybody who's held a job at a large company knows, this does not prevent personality clashes, quite the opposite, but once this position trading starts, it is incredibly hard to stop.
If anything, these layoffs seem to correllate with some of the commentary in the recent NYT article about Amazon.
He who holds the purse string holds the power.
The people that built the flop get to look for a new job building someone else's future flops.
I'm waiting for the surge of native developers fleeing from the food delivery gold rush startups before starting on our native app.
That is rather the whole point of positions of power and influence.
In any case, I find it a bit bizarre that they would just fire them when AWS is hiring so heavily. You would think they would just shuffle them to other parts of the org. While I was there we would get new people from other parts of Amazon that were downsizing all the time like Silk.
(Maybe not impossible, but harder)
After all who wants a phone without GMail, Chrome and GMaps? Amazon didn't do anything to compensate the lack - except for may be the Silk Browser which to me wasn't anything spectacularly good compared to Mobile Chrome.
On the other hand, it wasn't like the phone was originally cheap; if anything it was priced like a high end phone. That being the case, perhaps they got too greedy.
When I was at Amazon I asked someone in upper management why they priced the phone so high, telling them nobody would buy it at that price. They said the reason was so that people would think it's high end, and not dismiss it as a low/mid range phone. In the end, I think nobody bought that it was high end.
To be honest it amazes me that people at Amazon drink the koolaid when it does so little as a company to promote company pride, compared with the other tech giant in the area, Microsoft.
Wow, that is whole another level of disconnect with reality!
If the world worked like that, then you could open a hotdog shop, sell hotdogs for 100USD each, then expect a Michelin star rating.
They had to go big or go home. They really should have gone home though.
If anything they don't need to make money from device sales if the phones come preinstalled with the Amazon market as they can make money off app sales and get more developer mindshare.
But there were some serious problems with it like forced promotions where users would would prefer instead functionality, useless gimmicks, and other silliness. Without fail everytime I pointed one out, the Lead looked down a bit bashfully and admitted Bezos had insisted on this nonsense.
Bezos is an blind, egotistical CEO, forcing hardworking engineers to take the fall for his naive and frankly stupid decisions. His instincts in hardware and product without fail have been downright pathetic -- and now he will to blame those who work tirelessly under him for his own failure.
I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that the company has done very well in many ways. So has Apple. We've learned that both Jobs and Bezos weren't/aren't very good people to work for.
Maybe it's naive of me to think this way, but I'd like to think that companies can be wildly successful without being life sucking and horrible in the process.
From personal experience The Kindle Fire is a dreadful device.
The same is true for Google. So much lip service about moonshots and long term thinking and the new CFO comes in and talks about cost discipline and potentially capital return. Turns out dual class shares don't make you anymore 'long-term focused' than the next company.
Because they are investing their cash in the business, not just spending it. Investing means knowing when an investment is doing poorly and not throwing good money after bad.
The game is over. Apple won the money and Android/Google/Samsung/Xiaomi won the market-share.
The Kindle worked out, the Fire phone didnt. Maybe its just the phone models since they're still working on other devices. They also just became more valuable than Walmart. It seems like they know what they're doing, including cutting losses.
Certainly that first iteration looks like shit compared to modern iterations, but why would you expect otherwise?
Arguably Bezos' unlikely success with Kindle made people give him the benefit of the doubt when they should not have. That was my take away anyway, from when I was working on Fire Phone (I left my team because of that project, and my experiences with it greatly contributed to my decision to leave the company).
Companies that refuse to indulge in "me, too" behavior in the smartphone era are probably making the right call.
In the off chance that he wasn't one of the engineers who took the fall.
We treat the business like a human, assuming it 'blames' people. The business treats humans like objects, throwing them in the garbage when they are no longer of use.
That applies to everybody on the totem pole, from interns to CEOs.
The phone would have been successful if they had simply run stock Android, preloaded their own bloatware like Samsung does, and perhaps a dedicated button for Firefly, which is a pretty neat app. The reason the Fire Phone failed was Bezos is an egotistical asshole who doesn't care what the customer wants.
Once again, betting on 3d leads to a loss.
My wife actually liked the gimmicky 3D. Go figure.
Will this be a competitor to the Google router?
It's Honeywell all over again!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316#Kitchen_Computer
Everybody who lives in the area (or who works for Amazon) should spend an afternoon going through that museum. It's full of thought-provoking artifacts like that.
"the user interface required the user to complete a two-week course just to learn how to program the device, using only toggle-switch input and binary light output ... Although a fantasy gift, the Kitchen Computer represented the first time a computer was offered as a consumer product."
It still comes with a year of Prime membership, so if you're a Prime customer anyway, it's essentially a $31 contract-free phone.
I wonder if it's an aggressive attempt to acquire some users, or if they've given up on the product and they're just getting rid of inventory?
> We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.
Unfortunately they're out for now
The killer was the growth of "fat phones", which moved into the Kindle's screen size range.
Oh, right, they also made a phone.
I hope Fire TV products survive and thrive through this reorg.