Hacker News Reader

Comment by IkmoIkmo | Hacker News Reader

I can't fathom why Amazon could not find the expertise to see this one coming.

I mean, let's be real here, it's an extremely restricted platform that cuts you off from tons and I mean tons of great content on app stores we already have, content we're already familiar with.

And then it provides you with sub-par hardware at that price level and nothing more than gimmicks.

And one of the big reasons for all of this? To push a feature allowing people to point their phone at something and buy it on Amazon. Surprise, that's a software-based feature you could build for just about any phone.

View on HN

The fire phone (and other failed experiments like the Kin or the various Facebook phones) all seem like they're identifying "locking the buyer into a single corporate ecosystem" as a feature, but consumers are treating it as a bug.

Maybe not a feature, but a selling point for sure, and I couldn't agree more. That said, they don't really advertise the "locked in" part, but it's unlikely that it takes long for the average user to figure it out.

The question "what does this phone do that others cannot" really was never answered with the Fire. (Other than that gimmicky perspective view thing)

I think you're right, but Apple does exactly that, so it's clearly possible to succeed that way. Whether it's possible for anyone but Apple to succeed that way is another question. I think it might be--say a Chinese company with Chinese customers, or a future Google-only ecosystem, or an Amazon that negotiates a huge range of discounted offerings (20% discount at Starbucks and thousands of other brick & mortar restaurants and shops as long as you buy with your Amazon phone through the Amazon retail network, etc.

With the iPhone Apple only had to be better than a smart phone, which they did. With Android Google had to be better than a smart phone, cheaper than an iPhone, or at least just as good and they basically did that.

Today if you launch something new you need to be able to compete with the value in the iOS and Android ecosystems to draw people and that's a VERY big hurdle. Microsoft is trying their hardest but can't get it done.

There is no surprise here. Amazon's software ability and follow through is best describe as "exists" and the third party ecosystem is tiny. I'd rather have any $200 Android phone (even a low quality one) than a free Fire Phone and I like Amazon.

"Here's a phone, it has no popular apps, and they'll probably never be available!" Yeah. Same thing that killed the Pre. Same thing that's killing Windows Mobile.

You're underestimating Amazon's software muscle, they have some very hard hitting teams. Plenty of PhDs, old-time Lispers, etc.

I have a Kindle Fire HDX 8.9' tablet, the hardware is top notch and there are plenty of apps. From what I know, if an Android app doesn't heavily rely on Google proprietary APIs, like Maps, it's trivial to put it on the Amazon store.

But yeah, the phone needed to be 2-3 times cheaper to sell well.

> You're underestimating Amazon's software muscle, they have some very hard hitting teams. Plenty of PhDs, old-time Lispers, etc.

Call me when they can figure out that $.99 == $.99 100% of the time. [Hint: At least once every few months, this isn't true for at least one of their back end services and I have to clean up after it. This is just one issue of many they have, including the fact their "primary key" for items (ASINs) can be duplicated across multiple products.]

I think many, many people overestimate Amazon's technical capability.

They are competent but they are not special.

Hell, they can take up to 8 days to ship something from a warehouse sometimes.

All Amazon needs is something great that Apple and Google can't offer. For example, if I had an Amazon phone that paid for itself each month with, say, discounts on shopping, gas, restaurants, etc., I'd get it without hesitation. It might be a second phone or phones for my kids. If enough people did so, the Amazon market would be big enough for app developers to target and easier to target (and test, and make money with) than the far more diverse Android market. The iPhone apps I care about would soon be available, and I could then save a bundle by going Amazon only.

I'm just saying that it's still too soon to say that nothing significantly better than iPhone and its apps, or cheaper than Android and its apps, will ever be possible from a third platform.

Apple did it first, and by now, they created a compelling ecosystem that many do not feel is "restricted"

Kin utterly failed in execution, too late, too buggy and crippled (due to common Microsoft pathologies), the carrier plan was too expensive for the target market, which at one time was at least somewhat healthy (T-Mobile Sidekick). Like the Fire, "everyone" expected it to fail by the time it was launched.

Organizational expertise is systemic; surely many individuals knew, but the group proceeded under its collective intelligence, or lack thereof.

It takes systems—and individuals well versed in thinking in terms of them—to develop organizational intelligence that actually exceeds that of the individual. Building that type of organization is the hardest problem in business, but in my opinion, it is the only problem.

That's interesting. Can you recommend any articles or books on this?

The problem is the one tackled by W. Edwards Deming in his Quality philosophy. He takes the same stance: the quality of a product, in any production, is a result of management and leadership, organizational psychology, effective processes, and dedication to a systems-focused approach.

Start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

Continue to this blog: http://blog.deming.org/

Read his dry and horribly written book if you want: http://www.amazon.com/Out-Crisis-W-Edwards-Deming/dp/0262541...

Or just head straight to something relevant and practical: http://www.amazon.com/The-Toyota-Way-Management-Manufacturer...

Moral of the story: Quality (all-encompassing quality, including everything from simple operational effectiveness, to market fit and understanding) comes from systems thinking.

Surprise, that's a software-based feature you could build for just about any phone.

That's an interesting comment. Isn't "phone" a software based feature you could build for just about any computer? I wonder if a fully featured general purpose mobile computer and ubiquitous wifi could make smartphones a thing of the past...

Isn't that basically what smartphones are morphing into, especially as HID continually improves?

Oh, to me it already is. When I think about naming conventions I actually think 'Personal Computer' fits best what we all still call smartphones. The smartphone is the ultimate PC, in my opinion.

Sure it's limited in some of its tasks due to the display size and the efficiency of user input for things like text editing (e.g. writing a marketing plan, programming) etc.

The fact that it's also a phone I think is the least defining feature nowadays. I personally for example would rather do away with my ability to make and receive calls, than my ability to use internet (excluding Voip) for all the other applications on my phone. If you then consider that telephony is shifting towards being an internet-based service, and as you say the phone is just a software based feature, then yes I think we're getting to a place where calling these things 'smartphones' is as silly as continuing to call a computer/laptop a 'smart calculator' or 'smart typewriter' after 1990 or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com