Amazon reportedly planning smartphone to take on Apple's iPhone - Page 2

I still don't have an account with them. I get a headache every time I try to purchase something on the site. A cluttered, mish-mash mess, just like the company itself.

LMAO  

 

Amazon essentially has no capital left.  The cash balance is actually the day delta between cash for purchases and time they pay vendors.  It accounts for vast majority of the cash on books.  And, they earn 1.5% net profit margin.  Putting in air conditioning in their warehouses is deemed a "material expense"  

 

Something big is going to happen @ Amazon.  And if I were a betting man, I would bet its to the downside in a substantial way  

 

You've obviously never been in Australia on a Friday afternoon on your way to the pub.

 

That's one hell of a race.

 

You better go check Apple's website again, because they have a $399 iPad that will pretty much do everything a $499 one will.  Just as with iPhones over the last few years, more competition leads to lower pricing sooner or later...

He anticipated your flack. Carefully re-read the first paragraph of his post.

RIM and Nokia are just waiting for Amazon to come and grab them....boy would that juice Microsoft if Amazon grabbed Nokia...

Depends on what your purpose is and what definition you are using.


In the U.S., the most important definition of 'race' would come from the EEOC. Unfortunately, the EEOC does not define the term (seems odd to have an entire division suing people for race discrimination, but never defining the term).

They say:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_race_color.html
"What is "Race"?

Title VII does not contain a definition of "race." Race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of ancestry or physical or cultural characteristics associated with a certain race, such as skin color, hair texture or styles, or certain facial features.

Note that forms used for collecting federal data on race and ethnicity in the workforce use five racial categories: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White; and one ethnicity category, Hispanic or Latino."

In addition to the Federal workforce categories, in other locations, EEOC uses the following statement to describe different races:
"Everyone is protected from race and color discrimination Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Arabs, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, persons of more than one race, and all other persons, whatever their race, color, or ethnicity."

I don't see the EEOC defining 'Australian' as a race anywhere. Of course, for different purposes, you may use a different definition. There is, for example, a Wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Race), but it doesn't meet Wiki's guidelines.

There is a book called "the Australian Race", but it was written in the 19th century and probably isn't a very useful guide. The rest of the front page links on a search for "australian race" lead to horse racing and other racing events.

During their earnings call one of the Nokia execs said that they already have backup plans for their mobile market in case their Microsoft partnership doesn't pan out. Some sources believe they're considering Android. That could of course just be a rumor started by Nokia themselves to push their value to Microsoft a little higher just as some guessed Moto did with Google.

Too true. What really needs to happen is the industry needs another Apple. Not a clone of Apple, but a company that actually "gets it", or willing to go miles and miles to deliver a product that is usable and (gasp) "cool".

 

The industry is in the mess it is in today because of the persisting "me too" attitude towards producing consumer products.

 

Until then, the "choice" in hardware and software is only an illusion.

 

Quote:

That is the reason Amazon's partner- Foxconn's CEO got fired last night.

Why would Apple tolerate such behaviour from Foxconn.

 

Not gonna happen: agree wth you. It's a ridiculous idea, and even if it happened, it would just fail miserably.

 

Poor people's operating system: disagree. While I and my family are fully Apple for obvious reasons, most of my collegues (who are not exactly "poor people") carry Android phones. Don't react aggressively to Android, as while iPhone is still better, it could learn a few things from Android (like a notification system -no, that's already photocopied- or the reflowing of webpages/text )

There is a company that came and looked at Yahoo Search and Altavista, etc... and said: "we can do better, more usable, more cool". That company's still there and offers most of the free software that people use (on average, as people like apple][ clearly have an allergy to all things G.)

 

Google "gets it". Google goes miles and miles for usable and cool products. There is a price, though, which is they harvest tremendous amounts of information on you and resell that.

I expect what you mean is, you want a hardware-world PURE PLAYER who gets it with a high quality focus.

 

What he means is another company that knows how to do a vertical business model right.

 

You can't have the kind of quality, cachet and robust ecosystem Apple has when you whore out your OS to everyone and their dog. 

 

So, yes. This:

 

a hardware-world PURE PLAYER who gets it with a high quality focus.

Is there any company out there in the consumer electronics market that can innovate for themselves? Does every meeting of their R&D departments start with "What does Apple make we can copy?"

 

You most definitely wouldn't want a clone of Apple.

 

That would make two of them.

 

Then that would make a pear.

 

Sorry, pair.

It's really great that, years ago, Apple said "how can we make the best possible mobile phone/internet device/media player?" What a great question.

 

And now, years later, others are asking "how can we compete?" What a lame question by comparison.

 

While they ask themselves that (again), Apple is likely asking itself "how can we make the best possible..."

This makes sense -- as it is the same strategy Microsoft is using with the Surface.

 

But I think that Google will similarly lose it's Android support as Microsoft will with Windows RT because any third party vendor can notice the "two tiers" of software coming from their major competitor and supplier.

 

The timing of this is crazy -- as Android WOULD HAVE picked up most of Microsoft's remaining RT customers as they read the tea leaves. Now all the 3rd party phone manufacturers are going to have to look for the "none of the above" option. Could this mean that RIM might be resurrected?

 

I predict a quiet panic behind the scenes.

Then short their stock.

 

I think all your points are well-made.  And you're not the only person who, during the early days of the Internet, made assumptions about common standards of decency that later turned out to be naive.  As of today, I happen to trust Apple but not Amazon, Google, Microsoft or Facebook.  

 

And yes, the 'vegemite' comment says more about the person who said it than anything else.

 

I know, I didn't catch that until after I posted, I figured what the heck I'll leave it up there.  I was half reading his post at work...

 

I guess you can say I'm the "smart ass" that likes to call out "dumb ass" posts.  I hate it when some one thinks they are right as long as you follow bad logic to get to their conclusion.  The fact is you can buy a new iPad for $399 which is a $100 less starting point.  Apple wouldn't have done that had their not been "stronger" competition this year versus the prior two years where they completely dominated the market.  Valid competition such as from Amazon, will affect the pricing of iPhones one way or another other wise we'd still be paying $599 (or more) for 8GB iPhones.

 

Not in the least. "Australian" is not a race and hence cannot be a motivator for "behavior or beliefs motivated by racial stereotypes"

 

No it doesn't, except in maybe some liberal academic tome of political correctness that nobody cares about.

Really? You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

NOAD:
race 2
noun
1 students of many different races: ethnic group, racial type, origin, ethnic origin, color.
2 a bloodthirsty race: people, nation.

Stop kidding yourself folks. Their goal isn't to take on or even go up against Apple. It's to get a small part of the market of smart phones, no more, no less.

 

1, 2, 6% of this BIG pie is a good chunk of change, as long as it doesn't cost to much to have their name put on someone else's phone. They are not dummies, and they know anything they can do to add to the bottom line, STAY in the news as "Apple Beaters" - then this is a good thing (for them).

 

There is a rumor of a phone that WILL kick Apple's ass … the iPhone 5, 6, 7

 

Skip 

oh pul-leeze. another "universe vs. Apple" storyline at AI.

 

it could not be more obvious that Amazon is locked in direct competition with Google, not Apple. having ripped off (aka "forked") Google's Android OS (it's open!), and hard at work building a competing shopping-based ecosystem with it that mirrors much of Google's.

 

and it could not be more obvious Google is responding in kind vs. Amazon with its new Nexus tablet aimed directly at the same market as the Kindle Fire - both being sold at or below cost as "loss leaders" for $200.

 

The Nexus is going to force Amazon to come out with a new much improved version of the Fire tablet this year. and to make some strategic alliances that complement its special focus on everyday consumer needs (like a deal with Yahoo?).

 

so yes, Amazon may likely add a Fire smartphone too to extend this strategy. but it will certainly be $0 down to buy. and no doubt feature a special bar code reading app that let's you buy the same thing from Amazon you are looking at in the store with just one tap. but overall it will be pretty basic for a smartphone. Amazon would be smart to dumb-down the Android UI as much as possible for it.

 

Apple on the other hand is not caught up in this Google vs. Amazon fight. it has a very different agenda: build the best products (and ecosystem) it can and charge a fair - not low - price for them. that is a different part of the market.

This is all the more scary when you know that Amazon tracks everything about how you read a book on their devices.  From NPR:

 

 

 

 

More: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132058735/is-your-e-book-reading-up-on-you

Don't worry ktappe, it won't be long before the NYT releases a similar story about iBooks... 

Without mentioning Amazon at all. Because Apple is the only one who would ever dare to do this.

It's hard to see a compelling reason for Amazon to do this - where is the upside here? 

 

It's not like the $200 tablet market that didn't exist before the Fire (whose sales seem to have burnt out)...you can get free high end smart phones with a wireless contract and get "free" phones (you just pay for the air time) for pre-paid phones.

 

No carrier is going to let Amazon subsidize their air time plan....where's the angle for Amazon?  Would people buy more Amazon stuff with an Amazon phone as opposed to a regular smart phone?

 

I suppose Amazon could entertain this from a defensive standpoint of keeping people streaming their audio / visual goodies...maybe that would be worth it to them.

That is a very salient comment! All the other companies seem to be chasing their tales - right up their a**hole.

 

Apple has given them the Rx. Take some time and develop a really compelling, game changing product(s).

 

I did in fact look it up.    Your definition does not really support your claim.  It does not define anything, really, but just gives nebulous examples, and ones which don't apply when talking about racial politics and racism.  There are alternative definitions of race in use that have nothing to do with race when used in racism or racial politics.

 

Australian is not a race and references to vegemite is not racist, except maybe by those who are trying to be offended and grasp at straws.

Nation -> nationality. nationality->race. Ignoring the definition because it doesn't say what you want it to say doesn't make sense.

Even if that's completely not true, I think it's just as poisonous to look down on any such group or person because of that.

While that might be colloquially used (and therefore correct because it's popular) I think racism is still defined as:


I'd use bigotry as the all encompassing term.


It's like the terms reverse discrimination or reverse racism to refer to racism against the majority group of a populace by a minority group. It's bullocks! It's just racism. Of course, language isn't always created because it's logical or reasoned so if harlots wants to use it in a different way who am I to stop them. (Disclaimer: my use of harlot is not about anyone on this thread but a specific word to illustrate a radical change in meaning).

It will be interesting to see if Google can pull this off with their purchase of Motorola.

No one is ignoring the definition because it doesn't say what you want it to say.  We are ignoring the definition because it does not fit.  Period.  When talking of "racism" as a form of "bigotry", race does not include nationality in the common usage.  Period.

 

And no one is looking down at any group.  I bet the Aussies were the first to laugh at the statement.  I know, as some one of Norwegian and Swedish heritage, we have lots of things about the Scandinavian culture that we accept and laugh at.  We also tell Sven and Olé jokes.

 

Lighten up.  If you go looking for trouble, you usually find it.

 

--

 

Apple has been victimized and persecuted for years.  By now, it has become part of the culture.

 

It all started way back when, with Microsoft doing its nasty deed.  It has not let up one bit in the intervening years. 

 

At this point, certain people can detect it a mile away.  It is always a good thing to articulate the perception.

 

Even when the victimization in question has not yet even happened.

 

 

/s

 

 

That is easier said then done.  :)

 

Apple has had three such products, starting with the iPod, then the iPhone, and most recently, the iPad.

 

I'm not really aware of any other company that has done that.  Sony maybe?  I dunno.

 

 

It irritates me that people claim everyone copies Apple and give Apple a pass at the things they have copied.  Apple is a master at improving and innovating existing products and they deserve all the credit in the world for doing so.  Rarely have they invented them.  Even the iPad is an improvement of the tablet PC concept that never went anywhere until Apple got a hold of it.  The iPhone was an amazing innovation, but Apple didn't invent the smartphone.  They just made it cool.

 

In instances where companies blatantly rip of Apple patents, there should be consequences.  But we have not seen what Amazon is putting forth yet.  As far as I know, Amazon and Apple are not in any kind of lawsuit regarding patents.  (There is a lawsuit where Apple is suing Amazon because it believes it owns the phrase "App Store").  That means that Amazon is either deviating its technology enough that Apple does not have grounds to sue, or they may be paying Apple royalties.  It would not surprise me.  Amazon seems to have a Netflix model.  They have released Kindle for Roku, Apple, Android, and other devices.  They view devices as merely gateways to their retail initiatives, which is their core business.  I am sure Amazon would rather you purchase their device, but they are fine making money off of any device.  I believe their goal is to simply provide low cost tablets and phones that will help drive more sales for their core business.  If they just use their devices to generate retail sales, there's no reason for Amazon to not pay Apple royalties so the keep a good relationship with the the number one maker of gadgets.

So your claim is that Apple didn't invent a general category so they didn't invent anything regarding the product that has changed the face of computing time and time again? Makes perfect sense¡

 

On the contrary,  I clearly said (and you even quoted it), "Apple is a master at improving and innovating existing products and they deserve all the credit in the world for doing so".  That innovation CLEARLY involves inventing new features, but rarely have they completely invented a whole new product out of thin air that was not based on an existing product or idea.  Even multi-touch screens were around at least a decade before Apple made them popular.

 

Frankly, I don't understand your complaint.  I am saying Apple is a master at fixing and perfecting products that no one else can get right.  They invent new market segments through that innovation.  NO ONE was buying tablets before the iPad.  Only businesses bought smart phones before the iPhone.  

 

Besides, my main point was to wait and see what Amazon offers up before commenting that it is going to be a copy.  And if they do copy Apple but pay royalties, what does it matter?  As I stated, I don't think Amazon's goal is to innovate tablets or smart phones but to grow and innovate in the retail space.  I think what Apple and Amazon are doing is already quite different.  I don't foresee them trying to be a major device company.  You don't see Amazon putting aggressive ads on TV for Kindle Fire that bash the iPad.  The Kindle Fire appears to be marketed as a gateway to all that Amazon offers in books, entertainment, and software.  I wouldn't expect them to market a phone any differently.  

 

Apple is more interested in creating the coolest gadgets on earth.  Period.