
The Fire phone debacle - czr80
http://fastcompany.com/3039887/under-fire
======
saosebastiao
This has classic Amazon politics written all over it. I'm pretty far removed
from anything Kindle/Fire related, but this was my best guess at what happened
based off of the Amazon I know:

Jeff said make a phone (probably like 5 years ago). They pulled orgs apart and
mashed them into this superorg with several VPs and dozens of Directors, with
the software teams in Seattle but the hardware folks in a completely different
city, and then told them to work it out. In the course of working it out, the
hundreds of cooks elbowing each other in the overcrowded kitchen resulted in
delay after delay, with the final feature set being a mashup of 40 different
director's flagship bullshit-o-tron that they expect to be promoted for
(OMG...everybody is gonna think useless 3D stuff that kills the battery is so
coool...I can't wait to be reporting directly to Jeff!!!). Come crunch time,
the product managers all schedule their SDEs to show up to a 2 hour meeting so
they can discuss the same exact plan to ship on time that they discussed
yesterday for 2 hours.

Now that it is a dud, nobody wants to touch it, so all the Directors/VPs
migrate laterally to different orgs (or quit) and then rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile, the bug list grows bigger by the day, a handful of software
engineers go crazypants optimization on a non-bottleneck feature, and all the
sane people just hope for a day where we can forget about it all and focus on
some other new whizburger.

~~~
puredemo
That sounds pretty different from the scenario the article outlined, with
Bezos working directly as the product manager..

~~~
m_mueller
Let's not get facts in the way of a good story though..

------
bambax
> _When Bezos insisted that the original 2007 Kindle include a cellular
> connection so customers could download and access e-books from anywhere,
> people thought the idea was an exorbitant flourish (...) When Bezos
> encouraged a free-shipping initiative, executives pushed back, nervous about
> its impact on earnings. (...) So when it came to the Fire Phone, says one
> former product lead, "Yes, there was heated debate about whether it was
> heading in the right direction. But at a certain point, you just think,
> ‘Well, this guy has been right so many times before.’"_

It must be extremely hard/impossible to challenge Jeff Bezos when you're...
well when you're not him.

However, the examples given here of Jeff being right, are about features that
_benefit customers_ (at a cost that some people thought was too high).

But the problem with the 3-D functionality wasn't that it was costing the
company too much. It was that nobody could figure out how it would be useful
-- at any cost for Amazon, or the customer.

I remember the videos promoting the Fire phone with random people saying
"wow"... they reminded me of the Windows Vista videos, with random people
looking out their window and staring at deer in the morning sun.

If you have to pay actors to say "wow" in a video maybe there's a problem.

~~~
potatolicious
Right on - the biggest (and IMO only truly relevant) reason why the Fire Phone
flopped is because it doesn't _benefit customers_.

The Fire Phone wasn't built to be a superior phone, or give customers
something truly new and useful. It was built to be an Amazon Content Delivery
Device.

This is a phone whose primary raison d'etre is to get people to buy more stuff
from Amazon. It's a distillation of a platform strategy, not the desire to
produce a genuine product.

Until Amazon starts coming at this with the primary goal of producing a
greater, better phone - and the goal of selling more Amazon content a
_distant_ second - they will keep failing.

~~~
qq66
The Kindle Fire tablets are also designed to sell Amazon content, but they
benefit the customer with their rock-bottom pricing which the Fire Phone did
not have.

~~~
davidw
I have one of the original Fire tablets, and would not buy another one if not
for the express purpose of delivering Amazon content - videos in that case,
since the actual reading experience is far superior on a real Kindle. It's not
a bad tablet, but not having the Google apps, as well as something relatively
close to stock Android, makes it not as useful as it could have been.

~~~
Methusalah
It's really worth jailbreaking it, if only for the sake of installing google
play.

------
blisterpeanuts
In my opinion, Amazon should have gone with a generic budget phone to augment
their "Amazon Basics" line of dependable, economical cables, USB hubs, and so
forth.

I would make it a plain, vanilla Nexus-like phone running vanilla Android with
no skins and not tied to any contracts or carriers, but priced $50 less than a
comparable Nexus 5 or whatever is the current Nexus. Or else, make it about
$400 but throw in a year of Prime to sweeten the deal. Maybe add a couple of
features to distinguish it, such as a microSD memory expansion port. Forget
the lame Amazon AppStore, or at least provide both -- AppStore and Google
Play, and let the customer choose.

Such a device might not sell 20 million units in the first week, but it would
sell a heck of a lot better than the Fire Phone did. Heck, I would have bought
one. I went with a Nexus 5 just a couple of months ago, after the very pricey
Nexus 6 was announced. There's a good market for a vanilla, plain Android
phone, and Prime would make it a no-brainer.

The article makes Bezos sound a bit over-controlling and zany, but at least
the author hastens to add that second guessing Bezos and Amazon is a risky
business. Who knows? Perhaps the Fire 2 will get it right. (I hope Jeff's
reading this!)

~~~
dotBen
The whole point of the exercise is not to just ship volumes of units, but
build an ecosystem _(just like what Apple and Google are doing too)_. A budget
phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music and video
and all of the other traits Amazon is looking at with it's 'Fire' ecosystem.

> Forget the lame Amazon AppStore, or at least provide both -- AppStore and
> Google Play, and let the customer choose.

Again, the point here is NOT to let the customer choose, it's to force the
consumer into their ecosystem instead of Googles.

Switching costs are high, so getting people hooked into the Amazon Appstore
might mean a lifetime customer, etc. One of the reason Amazon has designed
Fire Tablets for children.

And this is another reason the Fire Phone is having a hard time - developers
think the Amazon AppStore is shit.

~~~
rasz_pl
>A budget phone doesn't work because it won't be geared up to play the music
and video

wait what? do you realize even $40 chinese phones are 2 core 1GHz with
dedicated hardware decoders for every popular codec?

~~~
Max_Mustermann
Everyone keeps implying there are super cheap super good chinese phones. Is
there a site that reviews these or a link where an uninitiated can check the
best options out?

~~~
maxsilver
Depends on what you mean by "super cheap", but :

$350 Nexus 5 [http://www.google.com/nexus/5/](http://www.google.com/nexus/5/)

$250-ish - Lumia 1320 [https://www.cricketwireless.com/cell-
phones/smartphones/noki...](https://www.cricketwireless.com/cell-
phones/smartphones/nokia-lumia-1320)

$200 - ZTE Grand X Max [http://www.androidcentral.com/hands-zte-grand-x-
max](http://www.androidcentral.com/hands-zte-grand-x-max)

$180 - Motorola G [http://www.motorola.com/us/Moto-G-2nd-Gen/moto-g-2nd-gen-
pdp...](http://www.motorola.com/us/Moto-G-2nd-Gen/moto-g-2nd-gen-pdp.html)

They've all gotten good reviews for their hardware.

I don't think it's crazy to expect that Amazon could build a really solid
"Basics" phone at around $200 - $250, since their competitors all do so with
reasonable margins to spare.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
You can take the Nexus 5 off that list. It's been end-of-life'd, though Google
now says it will continue to be sold until end of 1st quarter 2015.
[http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-
communications/mobil...](http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-
communications/mobile-phones/google-confirms-nexus-5-production-has-
stopped-1276585?src=rss&attr=all)

------
devindotcom
When I attended the launch, they had a hands-on period where I noticed a few
of the issues people have pointed out in reviews. But every phone has issues.

More worryingly, I asked about a few things that the unique tech in the Fire
Phone could be used for - nothing groundbreaking, just little suggestions:
"It'd be great to have the tilt controls do ____ here" or "Do you have plans
to allow users to turn this on/off?" Things like that. Almost all were met
with a "wow, no, I don't think so, we haven't looked into that at all."

I don't mean to suggest I'm some sort of UX genius or anything, these were
just ordinary features one would expect to have been considered (and possibly
rejected) based on everything Apple, Google, and Microsoft have done to
advance the state of the art. Amazon hadn't given a moment's thought to any of
them! Combined with the other stuff they tend to do in their original
hardware, it cemented my thoughts that there's some kind of weird naivete
pervading their entire hardware process, and no one to even recognize it, much
less address it.

I was pretty sure from the second I was given the phone to hold that it would
be a dud, but felt it was possible that ingenuity might save the day.
Unfortunately not the case, and it's too bad because there's so much cool
stuff in there!

~~~
nailer
It's really weird. The FireTV voice recognition is innovative and in practice
works incredibly well. Also the box is delivered already configured to your
account. Both those ideas are so good they're retrospectively obvious, and you
wonder why Apple and Google never did them. I'd buy it again at twice the
price.

But the Fire phone? Ugly, overpriced, and nothing that's new is useful. I
wouldn't buy it at half the price.

I've never seems company release two things so dramatically different in
approach at around the same time before.

~~~
Raphael
Apple and Google have had voice recognition for years.

Pre-authentication seems insecure.

The Fire Phone is priced high with the assumption that the price will be lower
with carrier contracts, a la iPhone and Galaxy. Although, if they get the
price down, it could become the "free" phone like old iPhones are.

~~~
girvo
The Apple TV doesn't have voice recognition. I wish it did, Siri to control it
would be brilliant (and it's a lovely machine regardless).

 _> Pre-authentication seems insecure._

Do you mind explaining how? Because I can't see it.

~~~
mschuster91
All it needs is the postman confusing two packages (or the wrong phone in the
correct parcel) and a stranger has total access to your account.

~~~
maherbeg
Do you really think the password is on the device instead of using some sort
of revokable token authentication mechanism?

~~~
mschuster91
And tokens can be abused or stolen (given they're not stored or paired with
other tokens/keys residing inside a TPM), we have seen numerous cases of
people hijacking others' AWS accounts and using them for mining bitcoin, of
all things.

~~~
nailer
That's done with an AWS secret key, which is effectively your password to the
AWS API, and not a limited use token.

~~~
mschuster91
I know that, still people have managed to commit their passwords, ssh keys and
more to github.

------
dperfect
Amazon seems to have truly become the Walmart of e-commerce, and I'm not just
talking about what the company _does_ (commerce), but rather what the brand
represents.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Walmart and Amazon have proven that if you
dominate the supply chain landscape and offer a huge variety with low margins,
you can do moderately well (i.e. stay in business). But with so much being
essentially commodity goods and services (physical and digital), you really
can't expect higher margins. So Amazon lives on, even after 20 years in the
business.

But with that much history and branding (intentional and unintentional), you
really can't expect to create demand for your own _premium_ products -
competing with companies that have spent the same amount of time (decades)
marketing themselves as design-driven, high quality, premium brands.

It appears that Amazon expects to pull a complete 180 with their brand
overnight, as if a product itself (if it's "cool enough") can negate and rise
above 20 years of commodity reseller branding.

Sounds a bit like the lone hacker who expects their next mobile app to explode
with popularity just because it exists and might have a small edge on the
competition. Except in this case, Fire Phone didn't even have an edge. Still,
I'm convinced that _even if it had been better_ than the iPhone (or whichever
best Android phone) in almost every way, it still would have been doomed for
failure.

No one brags about getting the Walmart version of something. The same could be
said for Amazon.

I do respect the company's efforts to take "bold" risks. I also really want
Amazon to succeed - I'm a very happy Prime and AWS customer, and I think their
hardware is actually pretty good. I just wonder if the big bets would be
better placed on products and services that better align with the brand
they've created already.

~~~
aslewofmice
I think they could succeed by modeling themselves after a Costco/Kirkland-type
relationship

~~~
mrxd
Or any other of the popular value brands like Ikea, Target, Old Navy,
Southwest, H&M or Honda. Amazon is perceived as utilitarian, but that's not
inevitable for a value retailer.

There's a fundamental mismatch. Jeff Bezos wants to be perceived as cool,
cutting edge, an explorer, an innovator. These are elitist concepts that work
for a premium, aspirational brand. Value brands need to come across as
ordinary people.

------
ursidae
For an example of the phone Amazon should have built, check out the Yotaphone
2:

[https://yotaphone.com/gb-en/](https://yotaphone.com/gb-en/)

Wonder if Amazon could buy them?

~~~
yid
Wow, did not know about that! What a shame that Amazon didn't go with the dual
e-ink/LCD idea, given that they're practically singlehandedly responsible for
e-ink going mainstream.

Throw in free-with-Prime, Android, and a few carrier discounts (e.g. free data
for a year) and I'd happily dump my iPhone in a heartbeat.

~~~
scott_karana
> Throw in ... Android

Huh? The Yotaphone already runs Android, and not an Amazon-crippled version at
that. :)

------
serve_yay
It was a huge flop, but I wonder how much of a problem that really is for
Amazon. They'll keep trying until they hit something that works for them. And
they don't make their revenue from devices - a phone flopping would be an
unmitigated disaster for Apple. For Amazon I'm not sure why it's anything more
than a slight embarrassment. (Well, I guess a series of flops could damage
their brand to the point that future efforts are doomed simply by association.
That would be bad.)

The article seems to be making the point that this is an indicator of
something wrong at Amazon but I am extremely skeptical of that. I think they
just try stuff and see what works.

------
bengali3
> As an investor you have to ask yourself, Is this company doing too many
> things?

I'd be more inclined to ask: Are they winning at enough things? If no, then
are they doing enough things?

One of my favorite quotes that I gathered last year is from Jeff: "Risk is a
necessary component of progress"

------
aetherson
This article really reminded me how much Apple screwed up to let Android get a
foothold. Look how unassailable the Apple and Android are now -- you can't get
a foothold at the bottom of the market because it's hugely fragmented and
there are no profit margins, while at the top of the market you're taking on
beloved brands and have to try crazy over-the-top bets to get in the door --
which usually backfire.

Android could have been the Fire Phone of its day. The earliest Android phones
were just amazingly bad compared to the iPhone. But iPhones were only
available on AT&T. Do you live in an area where AT&T had no service? Your only
choice was an Android. iPhones insisted for years on having exactly one
clearly unpopular screen size. Want a 4" screen? Your only choice was an
Android. Apple refused to develop a downmarket phone. Want something less than
a flagship? Your only choice was an Android.

That window has closed. iOS has finally filled in all the places it used to
suck (well, maybe except for developing an economical model, but last year's
phone looks better now than it used to, and in any case Android filled that
niche to the overflowing).

~~~
fpgeek
Apple didn't screw up. The disadvantages you cite are inevitable consequences
of the strategy they consciously chose (selling premium devices differentiated
by user experience).

If Apple hadn't waited until carriers (especially Verizon) to come to them,
iPhones would be as full of branding and bloatware as any other carrier-sold
phone, not to mention interference with updates, interference with retail
launches and who knows what else. Limiting the range of phones they offer
means they miss niches, but also helps control costs (allowing them to use
premium components more affordably), simplifies the buying process for
customers, supports a broader and deeper accessory ecosystem and so on. Not
jumping on many new technologies (e.g. LTE), creates an opening for
competitors, but also lets Apple avoid the associated growing pains so they
can provide a more consistent user experience.

If Apple had followed the path you advocate, they'd have picked up many of the
disadvantages of the Android ecosystem, without the corresponding advantages
(most notably rapid improvements via intra-ecosystem competition). That seems
obviously worse than the path they actually chose.

~~~
aetherson
They certainly chose their strategy consciously -- it was just a bad strategy,
relative to the counterfactual.

Apple was wise to launch on just AT&T, you're right that it did in fact let
them create the (clearly very popular) experience that it did. But once the
iPhone was a mega-hit, they went 4 years before getting Verizon in on the
game. That was a huge mistake, and Apple clearly had the power to negotiate a
pure iPhone experience with Verizon and get out of its exclusivity contract
with AT&T far before 2011.

Certainly getting onto LTE early and increasing screen size earlier than they
did would have provoked little missed steps in their UI and general experience
-- and once Android was an entrenched competitor, perhaps that was exactly the
right decision, since purity of user experience is a core part of the iOS
versus Android value prop. But back when the Android user experience was just
purely awful, it's pretty hard to argue that the iPhone would have been
materially hurt by a few little grinding points. The Motorola DROID wasn't
released until Nov 2009, and I had one of those -- it was clearly far, far
behind the iPhone of the time in terms of UI.

If Apple had followed the path I described, the iPhone might well be
materially worse now than it actually is -- but it would also have 80%+ market
share with no serious competitor, rather than 21% market share.

------
sekasi
Bold or irresponsible move? Not sure. Given the incredibly low profit margin
of most non-iphone smartphones on the market today (I think the average
samsung profit margin on a phone is $11) I can't help but wonder what the real
source of revenue was planned to be.

Increased shopping through mobile? Make your android/ios products better?

It just never made any sense, but I guess many successful products don't make
initial sense either.

~~~
rhino369
More and more digital content consumption is happening on mobile devices. And
Amazon can't sell on iOS devices because Apple locks out anyone who won't pay
a 30% ransom.

You can't buy a book or rent an instant movie on an iPhone. It is a big weak
spot.

~~~
al2o3cr
"ransom"? Funny, you can't rent a movie from Google on Amazon.com either. Or
buy a Taco Bell burrito from McDonalds.

~~~
rhino369
My iphone isn't apple.com. It is mine. I'm not asking apple to make sure I can
get amazon products. I'm asking them not to go out of their way to make sure I
can't.

Imagine if Microsoft would only allow software on windows that it approved and
got 30% ransom.

------
pbreit
I don't get the Fire phone at all. iPhone users are never going to switch to
it. Can't see Android users switching either. I appreciate that they tried
some new things such as Firefly (although that is apparently available on
iOS/Android, as it should be), the gestures and some of the other UI
differences. But the 3D stuff is lame and the overall aesthetic is dreadful.

The Kindle is apparently doing well and makes perfect sense.

And 2 of my new favorite gadgets are Fire TV (vocal search is the way to go)
and Echo (very well done an a no-brainer at $99).

ps I got my Fire phone for $199 no-contract with free year of Prime ($99 net
unlocked).

~~~
patja
The Kindle does so many things right but like many of Amazon's products leaves
me shaking my head and asking "what are they thinking?" Case in point is the
Special Offers, or ads shown on the Kindle. Initially I kind of liked them,
especially when they would occasionally just throw you $5 off your next Kindle
purchase or make me aware of new books. But the lack of targeting became so
annoying. I had so many ads for titles I already purchased for the Kindle, and
so many annoying ads for things like toilet paper and home security monitoring
that I lost quite a bit of respect for Amazon and the utter lack of
optimization they did around Special Offers.

~~~
eropple
They are thinking that they are making a somewhat cheaper device for people
who don't have the capacity to lose respect for a corporation over a lack of
ad-targeting.

I'm pretty sure they're right.

~~~
sofal
You say that as if it were some kind of moral failing. I bought the version
with ads not because I want to be specially targeted by ads, but because it
was cheaper and the ads are not intrusive and don't bother me. I use my Kindle
to read books, not to get shopping tips. The only reason an ad would annoy me
is if it intruded on my attention while I'm reading my book. They can try to
sell me pink panties while it's off for all I care. If they're not targeting
correctly, that's their problem, and it is no skin off my nose.

~~~
eropple
I don't say it as if it is a moral failing, I say it as it is a comic lack of
perspective.

Or, put another way: chill.

------
pbhjpbhj
>"it now sells for 99 cents" (OP) //

Where can I get one for 99c, in UK on ebay [new] they're about £200 (~$300) on
O2 network or £250 unlocked. Lowest monthly for a contract is £28.

~~~
andybak
What I don't get about US pricings is that the phone price stays constant
whatever the contract.

In the UK a phone might be free on a £45/month contract, £100 on a £30/month
contract and so on. Does that not appen in the US?

~~~
dsr_
It used to be that you paid for the phone, then you paid for service. You can
still do that, if you're prepared to pay $400-$1000 for a phone. (Except
Google's Nexus 4 was reasonably priced.)

But the usual method for the last decade was that you paid for a 24 month
contract, and pay a lump up front that paid for the differentiation of the
low-end phones (free, or 99c, or $50) from the high end phones ($100 - $300).
The rest of the price was invisibly wrapped into the contract -- and there
would likely be a hefty early termination fee if you wanted to walk away from
the contract.

Recently, phone companies have been trying to extract even more money by
offering a non-contract service contract (cancel any time, no fee) along with
a rent-to-own plan on the phone (pay a chunk up front, then after 24 payments
it's yours.) For some reason this does not result in a discount for the
service plan...

------
jayess
So one product didn't pan out during its first iteration. Not exactly the end
of the world.

This also makes me wonder if they are rolling out the Echo the way they are
because of Fire Phone. Invitation only and a (presumably) demand-driven supply
chain.

~~~
throwawaymsft
It's not that they can't make an occasional mistake, it's that they can
misjudge things so poorly. What were they expecting people to do with this
device? ("Oh man, I'll give up my iPhone and its ecosystem so I can get 3d
home screen.")

Kindle, echo, etc. were decent in their first iteration and provided some
value.

------
umbs
"In October, Amazon shocked shareholders when it reported a $437 million net
loss for the quarter, its biggest in 14 years."

Please pardon my ignorance on Accounting. I don't have basic Accounting 101
knowledge, but please help me understand this. If I, as an individual, loose
certain amount of money, it is most likely from my savings. Otherwise, it must
be on my credit card, which means, I lost the bank's money. Eventually, I need
to repay.

How can a company that hasn't made much profit over the years, loose $437
million? If it hasn't made profit, it has no savings. Clearly 'someone' is
giving Amazon credit. I assume its the investors. But in what form does Amazon
borrow money? Does Amazon issue bonds and raise money? Does it issue more
shares/stock? In short, how is Amazon getting so much money and loosing it in
each quarter.

Any links to read will also be helpful.

~~~
stickfigure
When people say Amazon is not profitable, they mean "not very profitable".
With their enormous revenue, they still generate enough money to maintain a
pile of billions of dollars:

[http://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand](http://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand)

(found by googling for "amazon cash on hand")

------
programminggeek
My feeling on the Fire phone was just that they build the wrong phone for
their audience. They built the Moto X when they should have built the Moto G.

There is a market for a really solid Android phone for say $150 off contract.
Amazon could have partnered with any number of prepaid providers and also
normal providers to have "the best deal in wireless".

They built a whole market around driving down prices and reaching a mass
audience, then they compete with top end phones. If the Kindle Fire was $500,
it would have flopped. The $600 Fire Phone DID flop.

It feels like Kindle tech's value proposition is quality technology at an
unbeatable price. The Fire Phone didn't hit that at all.

~~~
nailer
The Moto X is a genuinely good phone though, the Fire phone is awful.

But yes, everyone expected and wanted a Moto G type phone.

------
marcusgarvey
>Clearly, Amazon isn’t yet on the same side of the "loved" spectrum as the
brands Bezos named in his memo. Devoted fans of Apple, Nike, and Disney will
spend any amount of money just for a small taste of their products and
culture. Amazon certainly isn’t in the same camp as supposedly "unloved"
brands like Walmart—far from it. But Amazon just isn’t as cool or beloved as
Bezos might hope.

People also fall out of love, as they have done at one point or another with
many of the examples mentioned here. Be essential, that' s much better.

------
noisy_boy
When it comes to phones, Amazon was in a great situation. It didn't have any
baggage in terms of older models. No risk of cannibalizing existing models if
the new phone is superior. It completely knew the strenghts and weaknesses of
its competitors. All it had to do is plug the weaknesses and provide something
which is superior. Something whose uniqueness lies not in useless 3-D gimmicks
but solid features which other leaders are overlooking.

For example:

1\. Provide a truely great display. This is not necessarily to trump others
but something which is just a must. The display is the face of the phone.

2\. Provide two SD card slots. Which market leading phone has them? None. With
2x128 GB sdcards (which also happen to be sold by Amazon) and say, 64 GB
internal storage, the user gets 320GB of storage. On a phone. Unique? Yes.
Useful? Hell yes.

3\. Provide two SIM card slots. Granted, there are a whole bunch of phones
that provide them but usually not in a phone with 320GB storage.

4\. Massive 4000mAh battery. Make the phone slightly bigger, say 5.5 inches to
manage heat. As numerous very successful large phones have proven, a big
display is not a bad thing for a lot of people.

Without getting into the drawbacks of not latching into the Play Store
ecosystem, the hardware i.e. the product itself would have generated so much
positive buzz.

Unfortunately, focusing on solid and useful features is often overlooked and
in case of Amazon, it squandered a great opportunity.

~~~
untog
_Provide two SD card slots. Which market leading phone has them? None._

Because people don't want them. Very few people would use or want 320GB of
storage on their phone.

 _Provide two SIM card slots._

Also a feature only wanted by a tiny minority of users.

If Amazon made the phone you describe it would be a huge hit with a tiny
minority of users. They'd be passionate about it, but the vast majority if
people wouldn't care.

------
SwellJoe
I have a Fire Phone. I couldn't resist, when they were $199 and include a year
of Prime (which I already pay for), it's $100 for a quite high end piece of
hardware. And, the hardware actually is really great. Camera is great, display
is great, touchscreen is great. 2GB of RAM and 32 GB of storage. It's very
high end phone hardware at a very low end phone price.

That said, it's an awful phone. The OS feels clunky and old. The 3D stuff is,
as mentioned in the article, gimmicky and pointless. Firefly is just annoying
(it seemingly pops up at random, as if to say, "Hey, wanna buy something? You
should totally buy something."). The interface, where it has diverged from
Android, is confusing as hell. Menus pop up when you rock the phone, or shake
it, or something, I dunno. It just randomly pops stuff up sometimes and I
don't know why or how to replicate it. The status bar is disabled by default
and the launch screen is more limited and frustrating than the original launch
screen on the G1 (the first Android devices). Camera comes up every time I try
to adjust the volume because the buttons are right next to each other. This
also seems to be a trigger for Firefly...maybe. I honestly don't know how
Firefly is called into existence, but it's popped up dozens of times since
I've owned the phone, none of which were times I wanted it.

Amazon built the phone Amazon wanted. It's not a phone designed around
customer needs/wants, at all. They even pulled out a bunch of functionality
for seemingly no reason other than they want people to buy more things from
Amazon. For example, you can't use your music on the device as a ring tone or
alarm (a feature that has existed in Android approximately forever). But,
Amazon will sell you ring tones.

It is possible to sideload the Google Play Store, which is one redeeming
characteristic of the phone...so, I have GMail, Firefox browser (which is not
in the Amazon store, but can also be sideloaded), calendar, docs, etc. But,
it's still not a pleasant phone experience. The UI is needlessly opaque, and
the unique features of the phone are pointless or annoying. The unique
features are also not at all discoverable. I didn't know Firefly could
recognize music and art, that's kinda neat. I don't know how to use any of the
buttons and movements to make the phone do things. They seem nearly random
when I try to use those features, which is quite frustrating.

I gave it, I think a 3 star review, at Amazon, on the strength of the
hardware, the very low price, and the fact that Google Play Store can be
sideloaded relatively easily. But, I would never recommend it for someone who
isn't a tinkerer. It's just too confusing, and the native apps (for email,
maps, etc.) are weak.

Edit: And perhaps the most frustrating thing is that there is no back button.
You have to do a swipe gesture from the bottom (the very bottom, or it scrolls
instead) of the display. I sometimes find myself having to attempt this a half
dozen times to make it work. It is _incredibly_ frustrating; and worse, I find
myself doing it on my Nexus 7 (which _has_ a back button and doesn't respond
to this gesture). It's training me to be their kinda stupid.

~~~
morsch
So I take it there is no custom stock Android ROM available for the Fire
phone? I only found a fake Android L ROM. You can root it, though, a fairly
recent development apparently.

~~~
SwellJoe
I haven't looked into that yet, and am hesitant to go that route, as it often
means giving up some features...sometimes important ones. My old Sensation 4G
never got a new ROM because WiFi and the camera were non-working with
Cyanogenmod; I rooted it and stipped it of all of its T-Mobile and HTC
shovelware, but it kept its default OS.

I didn't need to root it to get the Google Play Store side loaded, so I
haven't looked into that, either. That said, if I can't figure out how to
replace the awful launcher/home screen on this thing, I may eventually give it
over the to CM gods (or whatever custom ROM comes along). I would like my back
button, as well.

Edit: this conversation led to me googling how to replace the annoying
launcher...it was as easy as installing Google Now Launcher. I just reduced my
dislike of my phone by another large measure. Now, if I can just get the back
button to come back, the stupid tilt functions disabled, and google maps to
work right, this might turn out to be a decent phone.

------
VLM
Amazon's simplified big picture strategy is the application of perfect
execution to dominate a market. They're really good at it. They optimize the
whole process from the website, to the box magically appearing at my door two
days later. For books and food and ebooks and "stuff" in general, I find that
ability to perfectly execute rather important, and they get lots of my
business. They're the kings of detail orientation. Process failure is not an
option.

They thought they could execute perfectly on designing and shipping phones. I
believe they can. The problem is the market for phones doesn't care about
flawless execution. Legendarily the existing network providers suck and the
existing phones aren't too great either but people love them anyway and never
make their buying decisions based on who's most likely to ship on time or
least likely to crash.

They would fail exactly the same way if they tried to sell fast food or
American cars or car insurance, where nobody cares about quality and only want
low price. They would be a huge success in something like medical supply
logistics (don't they already sell stuff like that?) or aerospace (spaceX
better look out)

The challenge for them is trying to sell perfect logistics, perfect
performance, perfect execution in general to markets where people currently
really don't care. I think they are running out of consumer markets that they
don't already dominate where people care about flawless execution.

Its interesting that all the stuff I use with my phone comes from Amazon.
Case, bluetooth ear piece, BT headphones, charger, cable... I'd even buy a
phone from them, although I'd buy the phone I want, not a fire.

Also note they're good at shipping a variety but not good at making anything.
I never want Amazon's XYZ, ever. I want an XYZ, and Amazon is the best in the
business at getting a XYZ delivered to me.

------
kbrwn
E-ink is what made Amazon a device company. Copying the Yota phone seems like
it would have been a better bet then going with the 3D gimmick. Yota has a
really interesting product but hasn't really gained support due to a few
issues (there isn't really Android SDK support for e-ink screens) that Amazon
could have easily solved.

------
bsclifton
> _" We’re trying to break the mold of how TV has been made for the last 75
> years," Amazon Studios content chief Joe Lewis explained, before dropping a
> familiar Bezos trope: "It’s still Day One."_

At least cable TV has a way to deliver most of the content consumers want,
even if it sucks and is overpriced.

Further fragmenting the market with _Yet Another Marketplace_ in the quest to
regain that 30% only hurts the consumer IMO. I personally want nothing to do
with locking myself into an ecosystem. Apple, Google and Amazon will never see
my cash for eco-system specific purchases.

------
throwaway1x7q
I was there for a year. On that team. This article is quite inaccurate.

~~~
anindyabd
You were on the Fire Phone team? Fascinating. Care to elaborate on some of the
inaccuracies?

~~~
throwaway1x7q
Yes i was on the original team, before [almost] everyone walked out.

see below

------
andrewmutz
It is extremely difficult for large organizations to create the sort of
innovative leaps that startups can create.

Amazon is attempting to do this. They have been successful in many different
ways, but for every winner they create they need to create multiple losers.
The fire phone seems to be one of these losers, but time will tell.

I really admire Amazon's tolerance for failure. Most large companies would
never take such risks.

~~~
discodave
Another way of thinking about it is that it is extremely difficult for
_startups_ to create successful innovative leaps since most of them fail.

Amazon is more like a VC fund or an incubator than one individual startup.
What's the 2014 revenue of all YC companies combined? That would be a good
number to compare Amazons revenue to.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I'm surprised at how clueless the Fire phone is described to be, given that
the Amazon products I am familiar with (Kindle, various AWS services, Prime,
Instant Video) are actually rather good.

------
chuckcode
With apple charging 30% of revenue [1] for in app purchases I'm sure that
Bezos and others will continue to be concerned about the platform as well as
the content. Might be a better strategy to partner with android than start a
new ecosystem but I'm sure they want to have more control over the platform.

[1] [http://www.macstories.net/stories/a-discussion-about-
apples-...](http://www.macstories.net/stories/a-discussion-about-apples-
unsatisfactory-in-app-purchase-policies/)

~~~
aroch
Google[1] and Amazon[2] also charge 30%...

[1] [https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
developer/answ...](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
developer/answer/112622?hl=en)

    
    
        >You receive 70% of the payment
    

[2] [http://gameservices.s3-website-us-
east-1.amazonaws.com/inapp...](http://gameservices.s3-website-us-
east-1.amazonaws.com/inapppurchasing.html)

    
    
        >developers earn 70 percent

~~~
chuckcode
As stated in the original article I reference [1] and the google play
developer policies [2] google/android has exceptions for goods that can be
used on other devices like amazon prime movies, music, magazines, etc. That is
why you can't buy new movies etc. in the amazon app on iPhone but you can on
Android.

In either case it is clear that the owners of the platform don't want it to
turn into a commodity like the rest of the web and want a slice of all
revenue. That means that amazon will need to have more leverage over the
platform and devices.

[1] [http://www.macstories.net/stories/a-discussion-about-
apples-...](http://www.macstories.net/stories/a-discussion-about-apples-
unsatisfactory-in-app-purchase-policies/) [2]
[https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-
policy.html](https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html)

------
fidotron
I think the missing piece of discussion here is what's alluded to in the
article: Amazon, or at least a critical mass of decision makers at Amazon,
want to become aspirational. It really is in the same category of Costco or
Walmart, but they constantly wish they could go higher end for higher margins.
The Fire Phone is a demonstration of what happens when these two worlds
collide. It is a box shifter's definition of a high end phone.

I admire Amazon a lot, but this one was a misfire.

------
guiomie
"When Bezos insisted that the original 2007 Kindle include a cellular
connection so customers could download and access e-books from anywhere,
people thought the idea was an exorbitant flourish that would eat into
profits. But his prescience was part of what made the Kindle a smash hit." ...

Really? Anyone can back this up? I would have thought the opposite. I didn't
buy the 3G Kindle because it was more exepensive, all I cared was the eink
display.

~~~
tdicola
Ancecdotal, but I remember when the original Kindle came out I thought exactly
that. Who would want to pay more money just so you can buy a book when you're
sitting at a park or coffee shop? Just give me a device I can tether to my
computer and load in books like it's iTunes.

The beauty of the cell connection was that it got rid of all the pain of
putting stuff on the device. My parents had no idea how to get music on an
iPod, but they could easily click a buy button on Amazon.com and see their
book on the Kindle within moments like it was magic.

------
jph
The Fire phone is a gorgeous hardware success in my opinion -- if you try it,
it's fast and sleek. The Firefly scanner is super-convenient for shopping.

The show-stopper issue for me is the UI. It feels as if screen elements are
sloshing, or hard to find, and the UI is hard to use when I'm in motion.

I expect the UI will be easy for Amazon to solve. The phone is a version 1 and
a strong debut -- even if it didn't sell well.

~~~
killface
Someone who isn't me helped work on this portion of the project. The system UI
was written and re-written a half dozen times. They tried to do it internally,
they tried design agencies, they tried consultants, and all failed miserably.
Not because they sucked, but because the Amazon management team was nearly
impossible to deal with. Developers would get conflicting requirements from
multiple stakeholders, who would then argue like children. You had managers
who would throw a tantrum if they didn't get a pet feature in. Etc, etc.

The last I heard, they basically downloaded the android OS, and re-wrote all
of the system UI framework components. Of course, this meant that most android
apps broke because they failed to make all of the options functional, so they
spent somewhere around twice the time fixing issues as they did writing them.

------
blhack
I wonder if we'll ever see on-demand assembly of stuff like this.

Amazon doesn't have to invest anything into phones that might not get sold,
just "raw materials" that get assembled into phones on demand in their
fullfillment centers.

Any unassmbled processors, screens, cameras, etc. just get sold back onto the
market if the phone doesn't gain success.

~~~
ansible
_I wonder if we 'll ever see on-demand assembly of stuff like this._

That is and has been done. Like for the Moto X, which is custom assembled if
you do a custom order.

However, there is a substantial ongoing cost to keep a manufacturing line up
and running for a product. If you're not currently running phones (or whatever
product) every day, then you'd want to use the line space for other products.
This implies setup / teardown costs and (re)training.

In general, the manufacturer would prefer to start running the product at some
given volume per day, be given plenty of notice to scale up or down the
volume, and then cease production and be done with it. That minimizes their
costs.

------
varunjuice
Amazon should've focussed on an inexpensive handset with Amazon services for
shopping built in to it, and launched it in emerging markets. This would give
it a shot to get to the next billion. Heck, it could've even provided free
data if a user does a certain amount of shopping on Amazon a month.

------
PaulHoule
Hey everybody wants to sell a $700 flagship phone since the profit is so high
the trouble is does anybody want it?

------
minusSeven
I haven't seen the fire phone yet but isn't it too early to say its a
disaster. They have only just entered the market and are obviously going to
get better.

------
comrh
Makes you wonder why any company would get into hardware.

------
CamperBob2

       But will all of Bezos’s risk-taking ultimately pay off? 
       "They make no money!" former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
       exclaimed in a recent TV interview. "In my world, 
       [that’s] not a real business. I get it if you don’t make 
       money for two or three years, but Amazon is, what, 21 
       years old?"
    

I don't know many people who have made money betting against Jeff Bezos, or
lost it betting against Steve Ballmer. (iPhone, anyone?)

------
osehgol
despite the criticism it has some seriously cool features like firefly and
'MayDay'. Not everything has to gel in with the consumer right away. He's
casting the net far and wide, and keeping his foot in the devices game. That's
awesome.

------
blueskin_
As son as I saw the fire phone, I knew it'd fail. It's an Android phone
without any of Android's advantages, weak hardware, and the only purposes it
seemed to serve is to facilitate users buying more stuff from amazon (imagine
that!).

------
taigeair
interesting insights on the PMing process

------
ninv
Jeff should spilit the Amazon in to two companies, Amazon.com and Amazon
Research Labs. Amazon.com will be the old Amazon and he can continue his "copy
the latest gadget or trend" in Amazon Research Labs.

I think he should shut down everything and focus on AWS and Amazon.com only.

~~~
RyJones
Hardware is developed at lab126.com.

