5 ms·

I wonder if the outcome would've been any different if they had not forked the n-1 version of Android and instead shipped something like a Moto G3 with stock Go

I wonder if the outcome would've been any different if they had not forked the n-1 version of Android and instead shipped something like a Moto G3 with stock Google stuff combined with Amazon customizations. With a cheap price, great customer service and timely updates it would've made a dent sooner or later. 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.

rifung 11y ago
Honestly I'd take a cheap phone with no Amazon customizations. I don't think you can ship an Android phone with Google Apps and not with the Play Store though, and I can't imagine Amazon would want that since they have their own Market to promote. 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.
- blinkingled 11y ago
  >reason was so that people would think it's high end, and not dismiss it as a low/mid range phone. Wow, that is whole another level of disconnect with reality!
  - knappe 11y ago
    Hardly. The adage 'You get what you pay for' has been proven to have real consequences. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/january18/shiv-011806.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/january18/shiv-011806.htm...
    - Crito 11y ago
      It is a great deal of disconnect. You can't just make a veblen good by slapping an outrageous pricetag on shit. It has to at least pretend to be a quality product. If the world worked like that, then you could open a hotdog shop, sell hotdogs for 100USD each, then expect a Michelin star rating.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Making a low/mid range would have been just as bad of an idea. That range is way lower margin and the established players are way better at it. They had to go big or go home. They really should have gone home though.
    - Apocryphon 11y ago
      Truly going big would have been to build two phones- keep the Fire as high end, then build a cheaper version for the low/mid range. That way there is no ambiguity.
    - rifung 11y ago
      The thing is, I think Amazon is fine with selling at low margins. Look at their Kindle devices. 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.
pcurve 11y ago
It was doomed from the beginning. There was zero redeeming value. high price, bland, thick, non-stock Android, 4 camera gimmick.

rifung 11y ago

Honestly I'd take a cheap phone with no Amazon customizations. I don't think you can ship an Android phone with Google Apps and not with the Play Store though, and I can't imagine Amazon would want that since they have their own Market to promote. 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.

blinkingled 11y ago
>reason was so that people would think it's high end, and not dismiss it as a low/mid range phone. Wow, that is whole another level of disconnect with reality!
- knappe 11y ago
  Hardly. The adage 'You get what you pay for' has been proven to have real consequences. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/january18/shiv-011806.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/january18/shiv-011806.htm...
  - Crito 11y ago
    It is a great deal of disconnect. You can't just make a veblen good by slapping an outrageous pricetag on shit. It has to at least pretend to be a quality product. If the world worked like that, then you could open a hotdog shop, sell hotdogs for 100USD each, then expect a Michelin star rating.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Making a low/mid range would have been just as bad of an idea. That range is way lower margin and the established players are way better at it. They had to go big or go home. They really should have gone home though.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    Truly going big would have been to build two phones- keep the Fire as high end, then build a cheaper version for the low/mid range. That way there is no ambiguity.
  - rifung 11y ago
    The thing is, I think Amazon is fine with selling at low margins. Look at their Kindle devices. 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.

pcurve 11y ago

It was doomed from the beginning. There was zero redeeming value. high price, bland, thick, non-stock Android, 4 camera gimmick.