Amazon reportedly planning smartphone to take on Apple's iPhone

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 83

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    At the time the comment was posted there was no issue regarding danger.


     


    Amazon wasn't even very big back then, and none of their Terms and Conditions explained that the email address supplied to create an account would become a publicly viewable username. There was no option to create your own username.


     


    At a later point, when the potential for danger was there, the request and consideration of the customer suddenly became a non-issue for Amazon over their desire for a single review, despite the fact that it could quite easily be removed from a technical point of view.


     


    Do you think this falls within the category of good customer service?


     


    Do you also think they'll be selling me, my family, and friends, many 'Amazon Phones' now?


     


    By the way, if the definition of 'Racism' is 'behavior or beliefs motivated by racial stereotypes', would you consider your comment regarding 'vegemite sandwiches' to fall within this category?



     


    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.

  • Reply 62 of 83
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 920member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


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



     


    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.

  • Reply 63 of 83
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post

     

    By the way, if the definition of 'Racism' is 'behavior or beliefs motivated by racial stereotypes', would you consider your comment regarding 'vegemite sandwiches' to fall within this category?

     

    Not in the least. "Australian" is not a race and hence cannot be a motivator for "behavior or beliefs motivated by racial stereotypes"
  • Reply 64 of 83
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    I think they just need to add phone circuitry to the Fire. By the time they do that, Android phones will be near the 7" range.

    The definition for race also includes nationality and ethnic groups.

     

    No it doesn't, except in maybe some liberal academic tome of political correctness that nobody cares about.
  • Reply 65 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    The definition for race also includes nationality and ethnic groups.
    chadbag wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 66 of 83
    nceencee Posts: 836member


    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 

  • Reply 67 of 83
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member


    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.

  • Reply 68 of 83
    ktappektappe Posts: 759member


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


     


     


     


    Quote:


    It's easy to imagine a near future in which paper books are the exception, not the norm. But are book lovers ready to have their reading tracked?


    Most e-readers, like Amazon's Kindle, have an antenna that lets users instantly download new books. But the technology also makes it possible for the device to transmit information back to the manufacturer.


    "They know how fast you read because you have to click to turn the page," says Cindy Cohn, legal director at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It knows if you skip to the end to read how it turns out."


    Checking Someone's Alibi, Tracking A Device


    Cohn says this kind of page-view tracking may seem innocuous, but if the company keeps the data long-term, the information could be subpoenaed to check someone's alibi, or as evidence in a lawsuit.


    And it's not just what pages you read; it may also monitor where you read them. Kindles, iPads and other e-readers have geo-location abilities; using GPS or data from Wi-Fi and cell phone towers, it wouldn't be difficult for the devices to track their own locations in the physical world.


    But it's hard to find out what kind of data the e-readers are sending. Most e-book companies refer all questions about this to their posted privacy policies. The policies can be hard to interpret, so Cohn and the EFF created a side-by-side comparison. It's just been updated to include Apple's iPad.


    The privacy policies also leave important questions unanswered. For instance, how long do the companies store page-view data?


     




     


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

  • Reply 69 of 83
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 920member


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

  • Reply 70 of 83
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    razorpit wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 71 of 83
    sasparillasasparilla Posts: 121member


    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.

  • Reply 72 of 83
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,273member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post


    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 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).

  • Reply 73 of 83
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,080member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    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.


     


    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.

  • Reply 74 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    chadbag wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 75 of 83
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    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.

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

    racism |?re??s?z?m|
    noun
    • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
    • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief

    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).
  • Reply 76 of 83
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 167member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    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.



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

  • Reply 77 of 83
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,080member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    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.


    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.


     


    --

  • Reply 78 of 83

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





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


     


    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

  • Reply 79 of 83

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


     


     Take some time and develop a really compelling, game changing product(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.

  • Reply 80 of 83
    rednivalrednival Posts: 331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    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?"


     


     


    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.