4 ms·

I think at this point we can say that Amazon gambled w/ this device and lost the bet. This is simply not a device that consumers want. Lesson learned.

by kin 12y ago

jychang 12y ago
It might be picked up as a budget device for customers who are willing to buy dirt cheap devices that didn't sell well during its production run. I can imagine the Fire phone joining products like the Canon EOS M in that category. (The EOS M camera was panned by reviewers when it was released, for being unusably slow. Sales were horrible, and the price dropped like a rock from $899 to $250. However, Canon also released firmware updates that fixed a lot of the speed issues, so some people are buying it now as a great budget camera).
- potatolicious 12y ago
  There isn't exactly a lack of such devices though. There is now a plethora of low-end Android devices that are actually very solid phones in their own right. The EOS M achieved some redemption because there aren't any good mirrorless cameras in the $250 range, but there are IMO good Android phones even in the "next to free" price range. Between the Fire Phone and the Moto G I'd probably still pick the Moto.
- post_break 12y ago
  The EOS M was rejuvenated because hackers got Magic Lantern on the thing.
  - devindotcom 12y ago
    Did they really? I bet that's fun as a B cam. Hook it up to a remote viewfinder and it could pretty useful.
  - jychang 12y ago
    Magic Lantern is pretty fun, but I bought it because it fits in my to-go bag unlike my dSLR and it's ridiculously cheap for an APS-C camera. It's by far the best mirrorless camera in its price category. You need to go up to to almost twice the price before things get competitive.
- arrrg 12y ago
  There are so, so many excellent inexpensive phones. The Nokia Lumia 630 (€150 unlocked, probably free with most contracts) is an excellent phone for many, many people. There are so many excellent cheap Android phones. There is no need to pick up this mess from Amazon.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Joe Dealfinder can get a Moto G for $179 and get a monthly pre-paid plan for peanuts from a variety of carriers that he can leave at anytime, include budget resellers of the major carriers. He could walk away with a monthly $30-50 bill with lots of data, minutes, sms, etc. Or he can get this jalopy, pay his extra monthly fee to pay for the actual phone, and then pick from a pricey non-prepaid plan while being locked to this one carrier. Even with modest data caps, he's looking at a near $100 monthly bill. The dealfinders know these .99 cent phones are ripoffs in the long run.
  - zdean 12y ago
    I bought a Moto G (on Amazon!) last week for under $80...$40/month on Boost for an unlimited plan. For me, phones/plans have just about hit the sweet spot of value with this combo.
arenaninja 12y ago
Safe to say, IMO. I have no idea why I would want this phone. The free-with-2-year-contract model is also hilariously outdated by now. Amazon imposing its own walled garden excluding Google's means your favorite apps are probably not there.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
Kind of hard to say whether they won or lost considering they pulled the plug rather quickly. For me, this is pretty myopic. Unless they thought you could introduce a device, sell millions of them and get out with a bankable profit; which is pretty staggering logic when you think about it. When companies do this is completely trashes the general public's confidence in a product. At least have some confidence in your equipment to take a few hits and keep moving forward.
- bengali3 12y ago
  i agree, this is a huge missed opportunity while damaging their reputation. I imagine if this 99cent price had been revealed at launch that the response would have been much greater.
serve_yay 12y ago
Maybe. There's no doubt this phone was a flop, but they've started product lines before with a clunker first release and then built from there. Amazon might not need these devices to be smash hits the way some other companies need that.
josefresco 12y ago
Amazon's timeframe for determining a product or service to be a "loss" is way, way longer than most understand. I wouldn't for a second believe that Amazon is slashing investment in this particular venture just because version 1 didn't sell like hotcakes.
- bengali3 12y ago
  Exactly. The value for amazon is future purchases of all kinds via the device, not profits on devices or music. This is a successful extension of the lessons learned with Kindle, not merely an iPhone competitor.
  - vitd 12y ago
    Beyond music, videos, and books, how many people actually purchase products from their mobile devices? I know I don't, and have never seen my spouse or any friends do so, though I realize that's not a scientific survey. Also, if they've only sold 10's of thousands of units as has been claimed recently, that doesn't seem like it translates into many additional sales, even if users are buying additional things on them. At least not compared with iOS or other Android platforms.
- QuantumGood 12y ago
  Amazon doesn't want to defend this phone. It want to fix it, but it isn't ready to yet: The most popular critical review on Amazon points out that the phone has features that are: • Supposed to always work working very inconsistently; • Features that are useful and expected in Android inconsistently implemented. Plus it has no alternatives for many common apps. This implementation of the phone is broken. Amazon may or may not be able to iterate into a make of a better phone, but if it can't, this will be a loss.
snowwrestler 12y ago
Price drops do not necessarily mean that a product is being abandoned. The initial iPhone price was dropped signficantly only 2 months after it launched. Amazon may have simply set a high price in the beginning to gauge demand, soak up any early-adopter profits, or mitigate initial high per-unit costs. Consider that they are still spending a lot of money to advertise it. I saw multiple ads during Sunday Night Football last night, which is not cheap air time.
stronglikedan 12y ago
Not to mention that it's carrier exclusive. That only worked once, for the iPhone, and will likely never work that way again. Besides, AT&T has good coverage where I live, but I've heard that they are pretty bad in some metro areas, so they locked out a lot of potential customers from the start.

I think at this point we can say that Amazon gambled w/ this device and lost the bet. This is simply not a device that consumers want. Lesson learned.

by kin 12y ago

I think at this point we can say that Amazon gambled w/ this device and lost the bet. This is simply not a device that consumers want. Lesson learned.

jychang 12y ago

It might be picked up as a budget device for customers who are willing to buy dirt cheap devices that didn't sell well during its production run. I can imagine the Fire phone joining products like the Canon EOS M in that category. (The EOS M camera was panned by reviewers when it was released, for being unusably slow. Sales were horrible, and the price dropped like a rock from $899 to $250. However, Canon also released firmware updates that fixed a lot of the speed issues, so some people are buying it now as a great budget camera).

potatolicious 12y ago
There isn't exactly a lack of such devices though. There is now a plethora of low-end Android devices that are actually very solid phones in their own right. The EOS M achieved some redemption because there aren't any good mirrorless cameras in the $250 range, but there are IMO good Android phones even in the "next to free" price range. Between the Fire Phone and the Moto G I'd probably still pick the Moto.
post_break 12y ago
The EOS M was rejuvenated because hackers got Magic Lantern on the thing.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  Did they really? I bet that's fun as a B cam. Hook it up to a remote viewfinder and it could pretty useful.
- jychang 12y ago
  Magic Lantern is pretty fun, but I bought it because it fits in my to-go bag unlike my dSLR and it's ridiculously cheap for an APS-C camera. It's by far the best mirrorless camera in its price category. You need to go up to to almost twice the price before things get competitive.
arrrg 12y ago
There are so, so many excellent inexpensive phones. The Nokia Lumia 630 (€150 unlocked, probably free with most contracts) is an excellent phone for many, many people. There are so many excellent cheap Android phones. There is no need to pick up this mess from Amazon.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Joe Dealfinder can get a Moto G for $179 and get a monthly pre-paid plan for peanuts from a variety of carriers that he can leave at anytime, include budget resellers of the major carriers. He could walk away with a monthly $30-50 bill with lots of data, minutes, sms, etc. Or he can get this jalopy, pay his extra monthly fee to pay for the actual phone, and then pick from a pricey non-prepaid plan while being locked to this one carrier. Even with modest data caps, he's looking at a near $100 monthly bill. The dealfinders know these .99 cent phones are ripoffs in the long run.
- zdean 12y ago
  I bought a Moto G (on Amazon!) last week for under $80...$40/month on Boost for an unlimited plan. For me, phones/plans have just about hit the sweet spot of value with this combo.

arenaninja 12y ago

Safe to say, IMO. I have no idea why I would want this phone. The free-with-2-year-contract model is also hilariously outdated by now. Amazon imposing its own walled garden excluding Google's means your favorite apps are probably not there.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

Kind of hard to say whether they won or lost considering they pulled the plug rather quickly. For me, this is pretty myopic. Unless they thought you could introduce a device, sell millions of them and get out with a bankable profit; which is pretty staggering logic when you think about it. When companies do this is completely trashes the general public's confidence in a product. At least have some confidence in your equipment to take a few hits and keep moving forward.

bengali3 12y ago
i agree, this is a huge missed opportunity while damaging their reputation. I imagine if this 99cent price had been revealed at launch that the response would have been much greater.

serve_yay 12y ago

Maybe. There's no doubt this phone was a flop, but they've started product lines before with a clunker first release and then built from there. Amazon might not need these devices to be smash hits the way some other companies need that.

josefresco 12y ago

Amazon's timeframe for determining a product or service to be a "loss" is way, way longer than most understand. I wouldn't for a second believe that Amazon is slashing investment in this particular venture just because version 1 didn't sell like hotcakes.

bengali3 12y ago
Exactly. The value for amazon is future purchases of all kinds via the device, not profits on devices or music. This is a successful extension of the lessons learned with Kindle, not merely an iPhone competitor.
- vitd 12y ago
  Beyond music, videos, and books, how many people actually purchase products from their mobile devices? I know I don't, and have never seen my spouse or any friends do so, though I realize that's not a scientific survey. Also, if they've only sold 10's of thousands of units as has been claimed recently, that doesn't seem like it translates into many additional sales, even if users are buying additional things on them. At least not compared with iOS or other Android platforms.
QuantumGood 12y ago
Amazon doesn't want to defend this phone. It want to fix it, but it isn't ready to yet: The most popular critical review on Amazon points out that the phone has features that are: • Supposed to always work working very inconsistently; • Features that are useful and expected in Android inconsistently implemented. Plus it has no alternatives for many common apps. This implementation of the phone is broken. Amazon may or may not be able to iterate into a make of a better phone, but if it can't, this will be a loss.

snowwrestler 12y ago

Price drops do not necessarily mean that a product is being abandoned. The initial iPhone price was dropped signficantly only 2 months after it launched. Amazon may have simply set a high price in the beginning to gauge demand, soak up any early-adopter profits, or mitigate initial high per-unit costs. Consider that they are still spending a lot of money to advertise it. I saw multiple ads during Sunday Night Football last night, which is not cheap air time.

stronglikedan 12y ago

Not to mention that it's carrier exclusive. That only worked once, for the iPhone, and will likely never work that way again. Besides, AT&T has good coverage where I live, but I've heard that they are pretty bad in some metro areas, so they locked out a lot of potential customers from the start.