4 ms·

Why does this seem to be targeted at Android? If anything, I would say the price differential between this and good android phones reflects that it might be mor

by asafira 12y ago

Why does this seem to be targeted at Android? If anything, I would say the price differential between this and good android phones reflects that it might be more an iphone competitor if anything, and so it seems to be more targeted at Apple.

nailer 12y ago
iPhone has the build quality though. This is rubber and glass, not metal. There's also a degree of app quality that iOS still has over Android - I'm an Android user: 'Secret', for example, only just came out, and it's very unstable. This is a mid-range smartphone at a premium price.
- asafira 12y ago
  I could argue in the same manner about things that Amazon's phone has but the iPhone doesn't --- I just think that the people that are considering an iPhone vs. something else will consider Amazon's phone (along with the high-end expensive android phones). The price differential is a huge factor in determining what products actually compete with one another. Along the same lines, I think this also competes with the expensive android phones --- but (smart) people on the cheaper prepaid plans aren't going to consider the Amazon phone very heavily with the Nexus and Moto phones available. It's clearly not worth it for the huge markup.
- personZ 12y ago
  iPhone has the build quality though. This is rubber and glass, not metal. "Build quality" is such a meaningless term in common usage of smartphones, and speaks to personal subjective aesthetics, not some utility of purpose. And this is all particularly interesting given that there's a good chance a significant part of the new iPhones will be made with plastic. But I'm sure it'll be a "better" plastic.
  - nailer 12y ago
    Rubber objectively ages worse than metal. Glass is objectively more fragile.
    - asafira 12y ago
      I don't think you are using "objectively" right here. It could very well be my opinion that rubber actually ages better, because it scratches far less than metal does. Subjective though. ...so build quality is hard to quantify, and in most practical cases is subjective.
      - nailer 12y ago
        Objectively means facts, eg: - Rubber breaks down faster than metal - Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone - Rubber can be torn, metal can't So yes, objectively. If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.
        personZ 12y ago
        So yes, objectively. No, it isn't objectively. You are subjectively choosing the criteria that makes one purportedly better than the other, yet they have zero applicability to the use or operation of a smartphone. Grip matters very much with a smartphone. Rubber breaking down? Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? Is this actually a problem? Torn or stained? Again, is this actually a problem in the context of a smartphone? I would say no, it isn't at all. A soft, comfortable, lightweight device that you don't have to immediately shroud in a protective case is, by actual use-based criteria, arguably the better "build quality". Build quality is suitability to purpose, not aesthetics or cult of material.
        nailer 12y ago
        Within the criteria of robustness, robustness can be measured objectively. You have different criteria than robustness - understood, grip is important to you. Grip has its own objective measurements. Christ.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Having a grippy back is a big win for many.
nostromo 12y ago
My thinking (often flawed) is that as an iPhone user, if I could buy an iPhone or a Fire Phone for the same price, there's no way I'm going with a Fire Phone just for one of these features. If, however, I was an Android user, I would consider buying the Fire Phone as a replacement device, along with similar phones like the Samsung Galaxy. You can sum up Google and Apple's market positioning in a tweet if you wanted. (Apple: premium phones, premium prices. Google: give away the software, monetize the search.) Amazon's positioning here is more vague, or perhaps nuanced.
personZ 12y ago
I would say the price differential between this and good android phones The Galaxy S5 is a $600 device. The HTC One is a $600 device. The LG G3 is a $600 device. The iPhone is a $600 device. I'm not seeing the price differential. However, the notion that this competes with either Android or the iPhone is utter nonsense, and we saw exactly the same noise with the Kindle Fire. People seem to have some need to try to assuage their corporate leanings that it's "someone else's problem". Only it's a smartphone. People buy smartphones, not brands, even if they have brand associations. This device, just like every device, is in the mix for people who are considering a smartphone and who don't attach their ego to a company.
- asafira 12y ago
  Other android phones: Moto phones are <= $300, Nexus 5 is at $350. So you would say this competes with nothing though?
  - personZ 12y ago
    Other android phones: Moto phones are <= $300, Nexus 5 is at $350. You claimed that it was targeted at the iPhone based upon price, when many of the top selling Android devices are the same price as the iPhone. So you would say this competes with nothing though? I disagreed with any binary analysis of what it competes with. It doesn't compete with "either", it competes with both. People buy smartphones to provide information and value, and any possible smartphone is a potential candidate.
Zaephyr 12y ago
Perhaps the Fire phone is targeted a new segment that neither Android nor iPhone. People that aren't interested in the high end features of smart phones as they are now - people who might even choose a flip phone - but will spend money shopping for traditional items. Some studies say iOS users (as a whole) are more willing to spend money through their phone than other demographics, but are they willing to spend on what Amazon is selling? This seems to refer mostly to musics, apps. Cover the internet/messaging basics, offer quick & easy support, make traditional shopping easy - plus add price comparisons and you may tap a large non-tech segment.

by asafira 12y ago

nailer 12y ago

iPhone has the build quality though. This is rubber and glass, not metal. There's also a degree of app quality that iOS still has over Android - I'm an Android user: 'Secret', for example, only just came out, and it's very unstable. This is a mid-range smartphone at a premium price.

asafira 12y ago
I could argue in the same manner about things that Amazon's phone has but the iPhone doesn't --- I just think that the people that are considering an iPhone vs. something else will consider Amazon's phone (along with the high-end expensive android phones). The price differential is a huge factor in determining what products actually compete with one another. Along the same lines, I think this also competes with the expensive android phones --- but (smart) people on the cheaper prepaid plans aren't going to consider the Amazon phone very heavily with the Nexus and Moto phones available. It's clearly not worth it for the huge markup.
personZ 12y ago
iPhone has the build quality though. This is rubber and glass, not metal. "Build quality" is such a meaningless term in common usage of smartphones, and speaks to personal subjective aesthetics, not some utility of purpose. And this is all particularly interesting given that there's a good chance a significant part of the new iPhones will be made with plastic. But I'm sure it'll be a "better" plastic.
- nailer 12y ago
  Rubber objectively ages worse than metal. Glass is objectively more fragile.
  - asafira 12y ago
    I don't think you are using "objectively" right here. It could very well be my opinion that rubber actually ages better, because it scratches far less than metal does. Subjective though. ...so build quality is hard to quantify, and in most practical cases is subjective.
    - nailer 12y ago
      Objectively means facts, eg: - Rubber breaks down faster than metal - Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone - Rubber can be torn, metal can't So yes, objectively. If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.
      - personZ 12y ago
        So yes, objectively. No, it isn't objectively. You are subjectively choosing the criteria that makes one purportedly better than the other, yet they have zero applicability to the use or operation of a smartphone. Grip matters very much with a smartphone. Rubber breaking down? Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? Is this actually a problem? Torn or stained? Again, is this actually a problem in the context of a smartphone? I would say no, it isn't at all. A soft, comfortable, lightweight device that you don't have to immediately shroud in a protective case is, by actual use-based criteria, arguably the better "build quality". Build quality is suitability to purpose, not aesthetics or cult of material.
        nailer 12y ago
        Within the criteria of robustness, robustness can be measured objectively. You have different criteria than robustness - understood, grip is important to you. Grip has its own objective measurements. Christ.
stcredzero 12y ago
Having a grippy back is a big win for many.

nostromo 12y ago

My thinking (often flawed) is that as an iPhone user, if I could buy an iPhone or a Fire Phone for the same price, there's no way I'm going with a Fire Phone just for one of these features. If, however, I was an Android user, I would consider buying the Fire Phone as a replacement device, along with similar phones like the Samsung Galaxy. You can sum up Google and Apple's market positioning in a tweet if you wanted. (Apple: premium phones, premium prices. Google: give away the software, monetize the search.) Amazon's positioning here is more vague, or perhaps nuanced.

personZ 12y ago

I would say the price differential between this and good android phones The Galaxy S5 is a $600 device. The HTC One is a $600 device. The LG G3 is a $600 device. The iPhone is a $600 device. I'm not seeing the price differential. However, the notion that this competes with either Android or the iPhone is utter nonsense, and we saw exactly the same noise with the Kindle Fire. People seem to have some need to try to assuage their corporate leanings that it's "someone else's problem". Only it's a smartphone. People buy smartphones, not brands, even if they have brand associations. This device, just like every device, is in the mix for people who are considering a smartphone and who don't attach their ego to a company.

asafira 12y ago
Other android phones: Moto phones are <= $300, Nexus 5 is at $350. So you would say this competes with nothing though?
- personZ 12y ago
  Other android phones: Moto phones are <= $300, Nexus 5 is at $350. You claimed that it was targeted at the iPhone based upon price, when many of the top selling Android devices are the same price as the iPhone. So you would say this competes with nothing though? I disagreed with any binary analysis of what it competes with. It doesn't compete with "either", it competes with both. People buy smartphones to provide information and value, and any possible smartphone is a potential candidate.

Zaephyr 12y ago

Perhaps the Fire phone is targeted a new segment that neither Android nor iPhone. People that aren't interested in the high end features of smart phones as they are now - people who might even choose a flip phone - but will spend money shopping for traditional items. Some studies say iOS users (as a whole) are more willing to spend money through their phone than other demographics, but are they willing to spend on what Amazon is selling? This seems to refer mostly to musics, apps. Cover the internet/messaging basics, offer quick & easy support, make traditional shopping easy - plus add price comparisons and you may tap a large non-tech segment.