Depending upon how the test was conducted, the battery life relationships between the Fire Phone and an iPhone and the Fire Phone and a Samsung might have little to do with the relationship between the Samsung and the iPhone, even though one might surmise from the test that there's only a 9% difference. But even that 9% difference, if that's accurate, could mean 97 minutes difference in an 18-hour day. That isn't a minor difference.
If the firephone's battery life was 25% less than the iPhone but only 19% less than the Samsung this means the iPhone has a better battery life than the Samsung. This is the opposite of what their adverts are saying.
He goes so far as to call one of Dynamic Perspective's headline use cases -- Auto Scroll, which scrolls the content of the display based on the angle at which the user holds the phone -- "downright annoying," saying that the "best thing about Auto Scroll is that you can turn it off."
We'll, duh! Anyone who has ever thought about how they use a smartphone would instantly realize this "feature" is totally ridiculous. People constantly and unconsciously move their phones around when they use them. Did Amazon even try this thing out before they shipped it?
The highly-touted Firefly image and audio recognition functionality works well, he says, but currently serves little purpose other than directing users to Amazon's storefront.
Did the reviewer actually expect Amazon to include a feature for the convenience of the user? The sole propose of this phone is to direct users to the Amazon storefront.
Depending upon how the test was conducted, the battery life relationships between the Fire Phone and an iPhone and the Fire Phone and a Samsung might have little to do with the relationship between the Samsung and the iPhone, even though one might surmise from the test that there's only a 9% difference. But even that 9% difference, if that's accurate, could mean 97 minutes difference in an 18-hour day. That isn't a minor difference.
Yeah, I'm not sure if this was a shot at Apple or Samsung but what he's reporting is that Apple's battery life is better. Also, if you're talking about 18 hours of phone time, a 9% difference is barely on a consumer's radar. There will be tons of opportunities to charge your phone in 18 hours...
We'll, duh! Anyone who has ever thought about how they use a smartphone would instantly realize this "feature" is totally ridiculous. People constantly and unconsciously move their phones around when they use them. Did Amazon even try this thing out before they shipped it?
Did the reviewer actually expect Amazon to include a feature for the convenience of the user? The sole propose of this phone is to direct users to the Amazon storefront.
I believe the term you are looking for is "lipstick on a pig"
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181535/review-roundup-fire-phone-is-good-for-amazon-but-doesnt-stack-up-to-competitors#post_2568380" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Crosslad</strong> <a href="/t/181535/review-roundup-fire-phone-is-good-for-amazon-but-doesnt-stack-up-to-competitors#post_2568380"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><br />
If the firephone's battery life was 25% less than the iPhone but only 19% less than the Samsung this means the iPhone has a better battery life than the Samsung. This is the opposite of what their adverts are saying.</div></div><p> </p>
That's what is implied by the ads, but if you watch them closely what they really say is that you get more battery life if you put the phone into power saving mode, which from what I've read, offers almost no functionality and turns the screen to black & white. You can do almost the same thing on an iPhone by turning off location services and Bluetooth (and avoiding making phone calls).
Nonetheless, Samsung's hits at both the iPhone and iPhone users do ring (sic) true with a lot of people and I'd concede that while they're lowbrow, they're very effective ads. That of course doesn't mean that Samsung can ever make a profit on their phones or get past the disadvantages of Android, but that's a different story.
Meanwhile, I personally believe that users are more concerned about battery life than thinness, but Apple continually pushes form over function. Frankly, I'd love it if my iPhone had an easily replaceable battery in spite of the fact that it might mean a "line" in the back of the case and one of the things I love about my late-2008 Mac Book Pro is that I can easily swap out the battery, add memory, replace the hard drive (which I've done twice) and even replace the optical drive. I don't see Apple taking away that flexibility (and the optical drive) as a positive. I think Apple really has a blind spot in this regard and it's one of the reasons I haven't replaced the machine and will continue to use this MBP as long as possible. It's not like you can walk into Apple and have them switch the battery out or put in a larger hard (or solid state) drive while you wait. They want to keep the machine for several days and there are the obvious security issues. That's not practical for most people, especially if the machine is used for business.
"Start with the customer experience, work backward to the technology." (Said Whit Falcon)
I agree. Too bad Mr Ive does not agree.
How do you figure Mr. Ive does not agree?
He regularly talks about the fact that technology in itself is not an end, but a means to an end - it's a tool you use to build a user experience, with the user experience being centrally important.
The products themselves then evidence that philosophy. I'm not seeing the disconnect.
When I watched the intro video, I wondered how that auto scrolling feature was going to work. In daily use, would it be a nuisance or a godsend? I felt that it might be something that sounds wonderful but in reality, quite annoying. What angle is the phone at while clicking on an article...does the article start scrolling immediately? And how fast/slow?
This is the kind of issue that should never see the light of day. It's like trying to install an app on your iPhone and move it into a folder on another screen. Whoever decided on that interface should be boiled in the tears of users....
10 phones could be given to smart friends of Bezos and within 7 minutes, the most annoying 'features' of the interface would be sussed out.
It's the final R&D and one that is not used enough.
Yeah, what company would sell devices that are meant to lock you into an ecosystem that is not easily portable to other vendors. Oh, that's right, Apple comes to mind.
Amazon is in a much different position than other handset makers. It has content and cloud storage. They have a legitimate business position to sell phones. I think they made a mistake by incorporating too much tech in the first iteration. They should have focused on the camera and cloud storage and rolled out the high tech stuff after they started to build a reputation and had some developers. They also should have made the hardware improvements something that app developers could use.
Amazon is in a much different position than other handset makers. It has content and cloud storage. They have a legitimate business position to sell phones. I think they made a mistake by incorporating too much tech in the first iteration. They should have focused on the camera and cloud storage and rolled out the high tech stuff after they started to build a reputation and had some developers. They also should have made the hardware improvements something that app developers could use.
Yeah, I agree. They might have pushed a bit hard for glit on v1, but the ecosystem is definitely there. Kindle does just fine. An amazon phone would be my second choice.
Yeah, I agree. They might have pushed a bit hard for glit on v1, but the ecosystem is definitely there. Kindle does just fine. An amazon phone would be my second choice.
Amazon is a loser when it comes to HW. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. That's their entire business plan. They make cheap crap that only digs into their sales system. And I say this as someone who probably has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 at Amazon. So I am NOT anti-Amazon.
But let's not pretend that their HW is anything but junk that is sold at a loss. That's what it is.
Who the hell wants a phone designed to generate sales of Amazon's goods?
How is it any different from iPhones being designed to generate sales on Apple's various storefronts, or an Android phone being designed to direct traffic to Google's search portals?
How is it any different from iPhones being designed to generate sales on Apple's various storefronts, or an Android phone being designed to direct traffic to Google's search portals?
Everyone's trying to lock you into an ecosystem.
Apple created the iTunes Store because iPod owners wanted a place to buy digital music. They created the App Store because iPhone users demanded it. They created the iBook store to provide people who wanted to read on iPads with another venue to purchase books. Apple creates stores to enhance the iOS experience; this is the exact opposite of what Amazon is doing.
Why does AI editorialize on other people's editorials? Do you consider AI reader's too stupid to comprehend quotes from an outside review without AI's interpretation and intervention? Why not put pertinent quotes in context and provide actual links to the article? Isn't AI embarrassed to craft such an obvious hit piece? I don't know if the Fire phone is good or not but AI's hit piece certainly isn't credible.
Where is the editorializing? Each of them has a link to the source article, as far as I can see, and from a casual skimming of the others it seems to be a simple summary.
If you can't see the editorialising, then it's worked. Bit like technology.
How is it any different from iPhones being designed to generate sales on Apple's various storefronts, or an Android phone being designed to direct traffic to Google's search portals?
Everyone's trying to lock you into an ecosystem.
As others have pointed out, that was not the point of the iPhone. The fact that the App Store opened in July 2008, more than a year AFTER the iPhone was released should be a fairly clear piece of evidence.
As others have pointed out, that was not the point of the iPhone. The fact that the App Store opened in July 2008, more than a year AFTER the iPhone was released should be a fairly clear piece of evidence.
And even still (since the App Store was created as a concept from the very beginning), Amazon is built on hocking crap to people; the phone only exists to do so. Apple is the opposite. Their phone is the reason people can hock crap in the first place.
Comments
If the firephone's battery life was 25% less than the iPhone but only 19% less than the Samsung this means the iPhone has a better battery life than the Samsung. This is the opposite of what their adverts are saying.
I agree. Too bad Mr Ive does not agree.
We'll, duh! Anyone who has ever thought about how they use a smartphone would instantly realize this "feature" is totally ridiculous. People constantly and unconsciously move their phones around when they use them. Did Amazon even try this thing out before they shipped it?
Did the reviewer actually expect Amazon to include a feature for the convenience of the user? The sole propose of this phone is to direct users to the Amazon storefront.
Depending upon how the test was conducted, the battery life relationships between the Fire Phone and an iPhone and the Fire Phone and a Samsung might have little to do with the relationship between the Samsung and the iPhone, even though one might surmise from the test that there's only a 9% difference. But even that 9% difference, if that's accurate, could mean 97 minutes difference in an 18-hour day. That isn't a minor difference.
Yeah, I'm not sure if this was a shot at Apple or Samsung but what he's reporting is that Apple's battery life is better. Also, if you're talking about 18 hours of phone time, a 9% difference is barely on a consumer's radar. There will be tons of opportunities to charge your phone in 18 hours...
Unfortunately the world is full of morons, well at least they provide comedy to laugh at.
"never underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools"
We'll, duh! Anyone who has ever thought about how they use a smartphone would instantly realize this "feature" is totally ridiculous. People constantly and unconsciously move their phones around when they use them. Did Amazon even try this thing out before they shipped it?
Did the reviewer actually expect Amazon to include a feature for the convenience of the user? The sole propose of this phone is to direct users to the Amazon storefront.
I believe the term you are looking for is "lipstick on a pig"
If the firephone's battery life was 25% less than the iPhone but only 19% less than the Samsung this means the iPhone has a better battery life than the Samsung. This is the opposite of what their adverts are saying.</div></div><p> </p>
That's what is implied by the ads, but if you watch them closely what they really say is that you get more battery life if you put the phone into power saving mode, which from what I've read, offers almost no functionality and turns the screen to black & white. You can do almost the same thing on an iPhone by turning off location services and Bluetooth (and avoiding making phone calls).
Nonetheless, Samsung's hits at both the iPhone and iPhone users do ring (sic) true with a lot of people and I'd concede that while they're lowbrow, they're very effective ads. That of course doesn't mean that Samsung can ever make a profit on their phones or get past the disadvantages of Android, but that's a different story.
Meanwhile, I personally believe that users are more concerned about battery life than thinness, but Apple continually pushes form over function. Frankly, I'd love it if my iPhone had an easily replaceable battery in spite of the fact that it might mean a "line" in the back of the case and one of the things I love about my late-2008 Mac Book Pro is that I can easily swap out the battery, add memory, replace the hard drive (which I've done twice) and even replace the optical drive. I don't see Apple taking away that flexibility (and the optical drive) as a positive. I think Apple really has a blind spot in this regard and it's one of the reasons I haven't replaced the machine and will continue to use this MBP as long as possible. It's not like you can walk into Apple and have them switch the battery out or put in a larger hard (or solid state) drive while you wait. They want to keep the machine for several days and there are the obvious security issues. That's not practical for most people, especially if the machine is used for business.
"Start with the customer experience, work backward to the technology." (Said Whit Falcon)
I agree. Too bad Mr Ive does not agree.
How do you figure Mr. Ive does not agree?
He regularly talks about the fact that technology in itself is not an end, but a means to an end - it's a tool you use to build a user experience, with the user experience being centrally important.
The products themselves then evidence that philosophy. I'm not seeing the disconnect.
When I watched the intro video, I wondered how that auto scrolling feature was going to work. In daily use, would it be a nuisance or a godsend? I felt that it might be something that sounds wonderful but in reality, quite annoying. What angle is the phone at while clicking on an article...does the article start scrolling immediately? And how fast/slow?
This is the kind of issue that should never see the light of day. It's like trying to install an app on your iPhone and move it into a folder on another screen. Whoever decided on that interface should be boiled in the tears of users....
10 phones could be given to smart friends of Bezos and within 7 minutes, the most annoying 'features' of the interface would be sussed out.
It's the final R&D and one that is not used enough.
Yeah, what company would sell devices that are meant to lock you into an ecosystem that is not easily portable to other vendors. Oh, that's right, Apple comes to mind.
Amazon is in a much different position than other handset makers. It has content and cloud storage. They have a legitimate business position to sell phones. I think they made a mistake by incorporating too much tech in the first iteration. They should have focused on the camera and cloud storage and rolled out the high tech stuff after they started to build a reputation and had some developers. They also should have made the hardware improvements something that app developers could use.
Yeah, I agree. They might have pushed a bit hard for glit on v1, but the ecosystem is definitely there. Kindle does just fine. An amazon phone would be my second choice.
Yeah, I agree. They might have pushed a bit hard for glit on v1, but the ecosystem is definitely there. Kindle does just fine. An amazon phone would be my second choice.
Amazon is a loser when it comes to HW. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. That's their entire business plan. They make cheap crap that only digs into their sales system. And I say this as someone who probably has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 at Amazon. So I am NOT anti-Amazon.
But let's not pretend that their HW is anything but junk that is sold at a loss. That's what it is.
Who the hell wants a phone designed to generate sales of Amazon's goods?
How is it any different from iPhones being designed to generate sales on Apple's various storefronts, or an Android phone being designed to direct traffic to Google's search portals?
Everyone's trying to lock you into an ecosystem.
Because the iPhone isn’t designed to do this.
Apple created the iTunes Store because iPod owners wanted a place to buy digital music. They created the App Store because iPhone users demanded it. They created the iBook store to provide people who wanted to read on iPads with another venue to purchase books. Apple creates stores to enhance the iOS experience; this is the exact opposite of what Amazon is doing.
If you can't see the editorialising, then it's worked. Bit like technology.
You mean Sir Jonathan Ive. And you're wrong; he does agree.
How is it any different from iPhones being designed to generate sales on Apple's various storefronts, or an Android phone being designed to direct traffic to Google's search portals?
Everyone's trying to lock you into an ecosystem.
As others have pointed out, that was not the point of the iPhone. The fact that the App Store opened in July 2008, more than a year AFTER the iPhone was released should be a fairly clear piece of evidence.
And even still (since the App Store was created as a concept from the very beginning), Amazon is built on hocking crap to people; the phone only exists to do so. Apple is the opposite. Their phone is the reason people can hock crap in the first place.