Amazon Cuts Struggling Phone’s Price to 99 Cents | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Cuts Struggling Phone’s Price to 99 Cents

nytimes.com

61 pointspcl47 comments

Not sure why this phone wasn't $399 off contract in the first place.

Amazon is repeating HP mistake of thinking they have product that is the same level as Apple and pricing it the same. The Touchpad was released at $499 the same as the Ipad 2 at the time.

For a company that is well known to have thin margins were they thinking $649 is something people were going to pay? Get the phone out with a lot of people using it and then sell the Fire phone 2 for $499 next time.

Still not interested in signing a 2 year contract with AT&T or owning an Android phone that doesn't include all of the reasons I still own an Android phone (Maps, Now, etc) instead of some other Linux variant phone or a Windows Phone.

Kindle is Amazon's best consumer brand. I don't know why they made a Fire phone. They should have made a Kindle phone, and positioned it as the phone for "Readers".

Positioning matters the most, of course, but I think they could have actually put in some features designed specifically for reading on a smaller screen: 1) scroll wheel that you can use with your thumb to easily flip or scroll through windows of content, with precision. Sort of like the scroll button on a mouse, but on the side of the phone, positioned so you can use your thumb on it, while the phone is held one-handed. 2) Maybe an e-ink screen and an insane battery life. Might suck for videos, but it would definitely be a differentiator and might attract people that love to read on their phones. 3) Cut down on the apps and other features. Go the opposite direction from other phone makers and make a very basic phone. I'm talking about just phone calls, calendar, calculator, browser, email, text, camera. Nothing else. And in exchange for that, the consumer gets a very cheap phone, and insane battery life.

I think some people would like that. I would. I have enough devices to do my media consumption on. I would love to have a phone that last 2-3 days on one charge again ... like my old Nokia used to. I love how my Kindle reader lasts the whole month. I don't expect that out of a phone ... but if you gave me a week long battery, and an e-ink reader built into that ... you have me as a customer. I'll watch my Youtube and Facebook when I get home.

I might be too old to be relevant. But I'm sure there are a few snowflakes like me around.

A 'phone for readers' designed for people like me (and perhaps you?) who use their phone as a small text reading device would at the least be "very interesting".

An improved shopping experience on my phone is as exciting as seeing a blue sky day in summer. Woot?

They are mainly interested in the phone as sales devices. To sell stuff you need color.

Making the phone something people genuinely want, first, then adding features to support sales, would probably better accomplish that.

They could offer the phone for free, plus two years of free Amazon Prime, plus free $100 gift card to Amazon, and I still wouldn't get it.

Getting locked up with AT&T is not worth it.

It's interesting how the dynamics work these days, and how Amazon just doesn't seem to be getting it. People are perfectly happy to sign a 2-year contract on a well-designed fully-rounded functional phone, they do that by the tens of millions. They even pay $200 to get the phone. The phone has become personal, and also a necessity as you go through the day. Going through 2 years on a badly designed phone just because somebody gave it to you for free doesn't really makes sense anymore.

This may seem weird in Silicon Valley, but even in the US, a lot of people don't have $200 to pay for a phone.

Then they probably don't have enough money for a subscription service, and if they do, they're better off with a non-smart (dumb?) phone.

The term you're looking for is "feature phone"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_phone

Spot on. Thanks

There are some subscription services that are quite affordable and not having a cell phone in the modern world is not really an option.

You need to compare "quite affordable" with the $200 price of a smart phone. Because $200 seems "quite affordable" for a smart phone that can do pretty much anything and everything. And I never suggested not having a cell phone.

> not having a cell phone in the modern world is not really an option

Er, what? Less convenient to be sure, but not having a cell phone is fine...

Price point does matter. There is a big market for the $0 phones (its what pushed apple to offer a budget iphone).

I think badusername's point was that price is a secondary determinant for people. The $200 phones everyone wants but not everyone can afford sell very well once they drop down to $0. However, the $200 phones no one wants sell just as well at $0.

There is even a huge market for $500 phones. But when you slash the price of your $200 phone to $.99 it's not a good sign.

Imagine Apple dropping the price of the iphone below the BOM, that would send their stock reeling.

Sure, there will always be some people who can afford a $200 phone, and others that can't. But for those who can, I'm amazed at how much emphasis is placed on the upfront cost of the phone itself, versus the total cost over the 2 years of a normal contract. Lets just pick easy numbers and say your monthly bill is $100, which is probably on the low end, but it still illustrates my point. Over two years, you're going to pay $2400 for the service. $200 vs $400 vs $600 is the wrong comparison to be making, because it's less than 20% of the total cost.

That's why these marketing promotions really feel scummy to me. "Buy Mom a smartphone for Christmas" is actually "Show Mom how much you love her with a two year, $2500 financial obligation".

Part of the reason these people don't have $200 to pay for a phone is because they don't think about lifecycle costs of purchases in general.

Maybe for those people, someone should design a plan in which you cash for signing to a low cost plan for a higher price?

Since Amazon is positioning this phone as a conduit from which to sell additional products from Amazon, they probably don't want consumers that can't afford the $200 phone.

But then they have $100/month to pay for the plan? It's not like subsidized phone plans in the US are cheap.

Yes, but with a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck, it's easier to rationalize costs that are not immediate.

I suspect Amazon is in the space for the long haul and the Fire Phone is an open beta. They got phones out into the world; they found out to whom their brand on a phone is appealing (0.2% of mobile use is still a lot of people in terms of raw numbers); Amazon is able to collect live data on real use; and they can correlate all of this against the Kindle and Fire and their sales of physical goods.

To put it another way, they couldn't get this data any other way. It's not dissimilar to Microsoft and the Pre - real field testing is expensive but the only realistic way to come up with a long term strategy. And like Microsoft mobile phones are an important space for Amazon, but not necessarily core critical.

Apple doesn't have warehouses full of shoes and appliance parts and used books and neither does Google. Amazon's core is selling things that aren't on the cloud.

In case anyone at Amazon is reading: I own a Kindle Fire and the only thing I don't love about is the nav. I wish I could turn off the carousel style nav and just use a normal tablet/phone style nav with icons.

Not sure if the phone has that UI but if so it would be a reason I would not consider buying one.

(It's possible that with some UX improvements the core idea would work, the problem is that it doesn't work now).

I bought a Kindle Fire used for 65, and am contemplating buying a full price iPad next instead. The little things add up.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't understand the appeal of this phone. Its only real differentiator seems to be the "instant customer service" feature.

I don't think you are, I don't think anyone else understands the appeal either.

I think the glasses-free 3D through gaze tracking is what they expected to be the selling point... I also think that Bezos made a big mistake with this, and that he's such a hard-nosed jerk that he'll do a lot of damage to Amazon trying to force this to succeed before he will admit he was wrong. The phone market is totally saturated, why even bother with it?

I was really disappointed with the 3D when I tried it. Yes, the eye tracking is interesting and works reasonably well, but it's not in any way paradigm-shifting. I definitely didn't feel anything like I was seeing a historically significant innovation.

Most importantly, as far as I can tell, it doesn't make any existing smartphone activities easier or faster, nor does it make possible any new category of activity. Games are neat, but who is going to make games for a platform no one is on?

I agree with the other commenter, however, that Amazon is mostly interested in gathering detailed data on how people use their phones, and even a small percentage of the market is still a lot of useful data. They may learn something interesting (those eye-tracking cameras aren't there just for the sake of the UI), in which case they will be better positioned to increase their market share if they want to.

Amazon doesn't depend on these devices like Apple or other manufacturers do. They can afford to take their lumps on this iteration and come out with better versions over the years. Not to deny that this phone appears to be a serious flop.

The phone I got for $99 OFF contract is better than that phone.

Article content notwithstanding, calling it the "Amazon Fizzle" is a great burn.

As a prime subscriber, I'd feel that I get more value for my subscription if they finally made their streaming work on Android devices (I'm not sure if it works on iOS). There is no app and the last time I checked, firefox on android also wouldn't play the content. This phone just reinforces in me the idea that I shouldn't renew my subscription, because the free streaming is elusive because it doesn't play on my platform of choice, only that of amazon's choosing

Amazon just launched the Prime Instant Video feature on Android.

Wow, apparently it was released 2 days ago. Thanks for letting me know, I had not heard of this

Wow, what a major disappointment. Apparently available for phones, not for tablets, which is what I'm waiting for

They just released support for android with Instant video a few days ago.

Two days ago apparently, just in time for me to make an ass of myself on the internet! Snark aside, that is great news, and I can't wait to try it out

Not sure why they got in the phone business. Seemed like a bad idea to me.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Oh wait. No I wouldn't.

How does news from three days ago get up-voted to the front page?

with the arrows at the side

I've been scanning my monitor and sending the articles via mail to my friends and family in order for it to gain traction. I think I'll try your way from now on!

dang has commented on this recently and suggested there are new algorithms to boost "repeat" articles that didn't get traction the first time. the intent is to make sure quality articles get to the front page, even if they're ignored the first time. or something like that.

An article with a blatantly false headline oughtn't be the target of such boosting algorithms...

Agreed, the phone is 99 cents ON A 2-YEAR CONTRACT, not unlocked, which somewhat diminishes its value proposition.

is the headline false? or is it a negligent reader who doesn't assume "with a contract" was implicit? equal parts both as I see it. don't throw stones in a glass house, so they say.

anyway, the title of the article Is irrelevant with respect to my explanation. and it should be. determining how misleading a title is would be the job for another algorithm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com