4 ms·

Amazon pretty much nailed the first iteration of the Fire Phone as much as they could for v1. It got the price point, features, and quality right. It would be

Amazon pretty much nailed the first iteration of the Fire Phone as much as they could for v1. It got the price point, features, and quality right. It would be really easy for them to just hire LG or HTC to make an existing phone with an Amazon logo and call it a day, but they took their time to make their own thing. Smart.

autokad 12y ago
judging from the overwhelmingly negative reaction to its price point, the evidence strongly suggests they got the price point wrong. at least until sales can be the final judge. this is how their value proposition sounds to ME: I have less functionality than other phones, so I'm easier to use, but you still have to pay just as much for me as all the other more well endowed phones. but dont worry, theres some things i offer that you don't care about that actually makes me a small bit cheaper however, I am certainly not like most other smart phone users. i will say this, people tend to not want to pay for customer service. someone who is intimidated by smart phones doesnt want someone easily available to tell them how to use it, they just want it to be easy to use.
- programminggeek 12y ago
  If they priced it cheap, there isn't much benefit to them. At $400, it becomes a "free" phone, which means it's less valuable and not comparable to iPhone or Galaxy S. Most people they are selling to don't buy their phone for real price, so what you're really talking about is up to $200 difference. If they priced it less than $400, they'd lose money in the subsidy and AT&T basically would make money on the deal. At the end of the day the consumer isn't going to see it as a super expensive smartphone. They're going to see it as costing the same as the iPhone or Galaxy S. Nobody says the iPhone or Galaxy S are too expensive.
  - personZ 12y ago
    Lots of people say the iPhone 5s or Galaxy S5 are too expensive, especially those people who want to upgrade mid-term, or who accidentally broke their device, or who are buying for children or others. Or who want a less expensive plan. And as carriers start to prioritize or even promote bring-your-own plans (and make the actual cost more obvious), I suspect we're going to see a greatly increasing interest in lower cost devices. This is already happening as we move from smartphones being some sort of status symbol, to being tools. There is a kind of disconcerting elitism that appears in many discussions about smartphones and the smartphone market - one where we all need to pretend that money is no object, and we're all super rich and careless with our money (two traits, as an aside, that are usually in absolute competition with each other). Reality doesn't mirror that at all. Indeed, it's in stark contrast with the release of this very phone which has overwhelmingly been met with criticism that it is far too expensive (many thought it would be $0 on a standard plan, or even on a reduced rate plan).

autokad 12y ago

judging from the overwhelmingly negative reaction to its price point, the evidence strongly suggests they got the price point wrong. at least until sales can be the final judge. this is how their value proposition sounds to ME: I have less functionality than other phones, so I'm easier to use, but you still have to pay just as much for me as all the other more well endowed phones. but dont worry, theres some things i offer that you don't care about that actually makes me a small bit cheaper however, I am certainly not like most other smart phone users. i will say this, people tend to not want to pay for customer service. someone who is intimidated by smart phones doesnt want someone easily available to tell them how to use it, they just want it to be easy to use.

programminggeek 12y ago
If they priced it cheap, there isn't much benefit to them. At $400, it becomes a "free" phone, which means it's less valuable and not comparable to iPhone or Galaxy S. Most people they are selling to don't buy their phone for real price, so what you're really talking about is up to $200 difference. If they priced it less than $400, they'd lose money in the subsidy and AT&T basically would make money on the deal. At the end of the day the consumer isn't going to see it as a super expensive smartphone. They're going to see it as costing the same as the iPhone or Galaxy S. Nobody says the iPhone or Galaxy S are too expensive.
- personZ 12y ago
  Lots of people say the iPhone 5s or Galaxy S5 are too expensive, especially those people who want to upgrade mid-term, or who accidentally broke their device, or who are buying for children or others. Or who want a less expensive plan. And as carriers start to prioritize or even promote bring-your-own plans (and make the actual cost more obvious), I suspect we're going to see a greatly increasing interest in lower cost devices. This is already happening as we move from smartphones being some sort of status symbol, to being tools. There is a kind of disconcerting elitism that appears in many discussions about smartphones and the smartphone market - one where we all need to pretend that money is no object, and we're all super rich and careless with our money (two traits, as an aside, that are usually in absolute competition with each other). Reality doesn't mirror that at all. Indeed, it's in stark contrast with the release of this very phone which has overwhelmingly been met with criticism that it is far too expensive (many thought it would be $0 on a standard plan, or even on a reduced rate plan).