PDA

View Full Version : Amazon Planning to Take on Apple in Smartphone Market




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jul 6, 2012, 08:48 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/amazon-planning-to-take-on-apple-in-smartphone-market/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/amazon_logo-150x30.jpg

Bloomberg reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/amazon-said-to-plan-smartphone-to-vie-with-apple.html) that Amazon is currently working with Foxconn on a new smartphone product, one that would compete head-to-head with the iPhone and Android devices.A smartphone would give Amazon a wider range of low-priced hardware devices that bolster its strategy of making money from digital books, songs and movies. It would help Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos -- who made a foray into tablets with the Kindle Fire -- carve out a slice of the market for advanced wireless handsets.Amazon is also said to be looking to acquire a portfolio of wireless technology patents that would help it stand up to competitors in the market.

Amazon has already generated a considerable amount of interest with its Kindle Fire tablet, a heavily-customized Android device launched late last year. By adding a smartphone to the mix, Amazon would have mobile devices in several different form factors to help spur consumption of the company's extensive library of digital content.

Article Link: Amazon Planning to Take on Apple in Smartphone Market (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/amazon-planning-to-take-on-apple-in-smartphone-market/)



spiderman0616
Jul 6, 2012, 08:49 AM
Google is going to be pissed.

MacDawg
Jul 6, 2012, 08:50 AM
Not something I would be remotely interested in, but I'm sure there would be some who would find it compelling

emvath
Jul 6, 2012, 08:50 AM
I love my Kindle Fire, but it isn't even close to stable enough for me to consider using the software (similar at least) in my phone.

miles01110
Jul 6, 2012, 08:52 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

SandboxGeneral
Jul 6, 2012, 08:53 AM
Sounds interesting. Though I have to wonder how well it would be adopted considering the market of iOS and Android.

At only the thought of it, I don't think it would be something I would buy.

LachlanH
Jul 6, 2012, 08:53 AM
Just what we need, more android fragmentation.

Mad-B-One
Jul 6, 2012, 08:53 AM
Well, welcome to the smart phone market... 5 years too late. Maybe it will also create a "considerable amount of interest" - what ever that is. In the end, we will see who actually wil make money with it.

pawelthegreat
Jul 6, 2012, 08:54 AM
One word: Competition, my dear friends, competition.

Always a good thing.:apple:

CodeBreaker
Jul 6, 2012, 08:54 AM
This would had been a good move some 4 years back...

MacDawg
Jul 6, 2012, 08:55 AM
One word: Competition, my dear friends, competition.

Always a good thing.:apple:

It has to be a viable alternative in order to be considered healthy competition
That remains to be seen

coder12
Jul 6, 2012, 08:55 AM
What will its major selling points be? That will be the big question.

taltal
Jul 6, 2012, 08:55 AM
As a matter of fact, I don't think there will be such a thing as a Smartphone Market in a few years. There will be smaller or larger tablets equipped with 4G/LTE internet and Voice over IP numbers.

Phone is going to be just one of several communication apps on the device.

Asia8
Jul 6, 2012, 08:55 AM
Please, please, please use Android.... we don't need any more new OS for phones right now.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jul 6, 2012, 08:56 AM
I don't see this gaining any traction. But an interesting move none-the-less

----------

Please, please, please use Android.... we don't need any more new OS for phones right now.

of course they will use android. A heavily modded version like their Fire

MarkNY
Jul 6, 2012, 08:58 AM
Amazon could acquire RIM with spare change.

sillypooh
Jul 6, 2012, 08:58 AM
Taking their sweet time...

Oletros
Jul 6, 2012, 08:59 AM
Google is going to be pissed.

Why?

sikkinixx
Jul 6, 2012, 08:59 AM
I'm sure this will set the world on Fire.

sillypooh
Jul 6, 2012, 09:00 AM
Amazon could acquire RIM with spare change.

No way! They don't care about that crowd. They're all in with consumers.

G5isAlive
Jul 6, 2012, 09:00 AM
Sounds interesting. Though I have to wonder how well it would be adopted considering the market of iOS and Android.

At only the thought of it, I don't think it would be something I would buy.

competition is always a good thing... well almost always. I have to agree with you, hard to believe Amazon can enter at this point. But will be interesting to watch.

tasset
Jul 6, 2012, 09:02 AM
It's one thing to have a diverse set of options for computers or tablets that are not tied to a service provider, but it is an entirely different and scary scenario to have diversity that lack cohesiveness and you need to go to a cell carrier or provider.
With iOS and to some extent Google's nexus program, power has finally been wrestled from carriers into the hands of the consumer. Forking android, other android variants, even a Facebook phone threaten to spread OEMs even thinner and relinquish to more demands of the carriers and crapware. Why else would the carriers be so interested in pushing a 3rd alternative like Windows phone or their own OS built on Mozilla's gecko? Because with confusion in the marketplace they return to a stronger position where consumers turn to them for solutions.
I vote NO on Amazon doing this.

brendu
Jul 6, 2012, 09:02 AM
I wonder what kind of issues amazon may run into with the carriers. The US carriers caused Vizio to kill its smartphone off before it ever made it to the market because they are so difficult to work with. Hopefully amazon can make a great product but I don't see how it will be very different from any other heavily skinned android phone at this point.

rafaltrus
Jul 6, 2012, 09:02 AM
I am all for it! I may sound cliché, but competition is *always* good for customers and companies :D.

applesith
Jul 6, 2012, 09:02 AM
Tardy to the party.

MarkNY
Jul 6, 2012, 09:02 AM
No way! They don't care about that crowd. They're all in with consumers.

Right, but RIM's intellectual property is damn near worthless without a consumer ecosystem in place. It's possible that Amazon could acquire that IP and make it valuable.

poloponies
Jul 6, 2012, 09:03 AM
One word: Competition, my dear friends, competition.

Always a good thing.:apple:

Because there's currently no competition in the smartphone market? Ask Nokia how good competition is.

MonkeySee....
Jul 6, 2012, 09:04 AM
They won't make a Phone. What a waste of time for an online retailer.

WindWaker
Jul 6, 2012, 09:05 AM
"A smartphone would give Amazon a wider range of low-priced hardware devices..."

The Kindle Fire didn't exactly take on the iPad....

Don't think the FireFone or whatever it'll be called will take on the iPhone.

Apple = high-end consumer market
Amazon = lower-end consumer market

Not the same market.

ryanasimov
Jul 6, 2012, 09:05 AM
Awesome! More patent legality news! I enjoy reading about arguments about who owns existing IPs instead of new innovations. :rolleyes:

newagemac
Jul 6, 2012, 09:05 AM
Amazon has already generated a considerable amount of interest with its Kindle Fire tablet, a heavily-customized Android device launched late last year.


The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device. In fact, they are legally barred from calling it an "Android" device so I'm not sure why MacRumors is calling it that.

Android is a brand name and Kindle isn't an Android device. It's just as wrong as calling any tissue a Kleenex.

ristlin
Jul 6, 2012, 09:09 AM
e-ink smartphone? Not a bad idea. I'm sure there's a market for it, and it would add more flavor to existing options. Sort of tired of iPhone and iPhone lookalikes to be honest (not that they are bad, just that it would be nice to see something new).

charlituna
Jul 6, 2012, 09:10 AM
Amazon could acquire RIM with spare change.

Now that could be a smart move. If played right

helmsc
Jul 6, 2012, 09:10 AM
While I do think competition is healthy, I don't think this is the correct arena for Amazon. I love Amazon as an online retailer, I don't think they will be replacing my iPhone anytime soon. I'd have to be able to use it for a week or so before I pass final judgement tho.

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 09:13 AM
more competition is a beautiful thing.

as an Apple customer, i can expect products to be developed faster, better, and with more innovative features

----------

While I do think competition is healthy, I don't think this is the correct arena for Amazon. I love Amazon as an online retailer, I don't think they will be replacing my iPhone anytime soon. I'd have to be able to use it for a week or so before I pass final judgement tho.

they're not likely to win over any die-hard Apple customers who have owned an iPhone since 2009...but they are likely to win over people fed up with Android phones with horrendous support

charlituna
Jul 6, 2012, 09:13 AM
The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device.


What software runs the fire.

tigres
Jul 6, 2012, 09:14 AM
I am not certain I understand (should this be true) the reasoning behind this.
Amazon does things very well, and the phone business is not remotely one of them. *other than selling phones made by others*

Of course, the same could be true of Apple in 07'; but they are already a hardware and software direct supplier- Amazon sells the tablets to shop in their store.

IDK, I just don't see a justification for Jeff to step foot in these muddied waters; but who knows.

newdeal
Jul 6, 2012, 09:15 AM
There is no reason this couldnt work because the android hardware currently out is missing what people want. A thin device that is comfotable to hold and has killer battery life. The ones on the market are either too big to hold easily, have poor battery life or are thick and heavy, or a combination of the three

charlituna
Jul 6, 2012, 09:15 AM
more competition is a beautiful thing.

as an Apple customer, i can expect products to be developed faster, better, and with more innovative features

As an Apple customer of more than a few months you should be aware that competition is NOT what does anything at Apple. They don't do as or when the other boys do. On timetables, features etc.

gnasher729
Jul 6, 2012, 09:17 AM
Why?

Possibly because of the name association. With the Kindle Fire, Amazon took Google's software, adapted it, and created a product that is associated in the consumer's mind with Amazon, not with Google. And I suppose an Amazon smartphone would do the same. Amazon also doesn't have any interest in letting Google take financial advantage of the fact that a customer would buy an Android phone. I wouldn't think that Google gets too much in advertising money via Kindle Fire buyers.

rei101
Jul 6, 2012, 09:20 AM
For Apple to create an iPhone was a move forward, they made a great change to the industry and they had a great background succeeding after the iPod.

Amazon... they are experimenting, is not an "evolution" for them, is a "market share and a business". Is almost like like Ford or Adidas selling smartphones too.

I still do not have an iPhone but you bet I won't get one from Amazon.

poloponies
Jul 6, 2012, 09:20 AM
As an Apple customer of more than a few months you should be aware that competition is NOT what does anything at Apple. They don't do as or when the other boys do. On timetables, features etc.

Apple didn't jump on the netbook bandwagon, their notebooks and desktops are priced at non-competing price points to the rest of the market yet they still manage to make it work. Apple competes for your new dollars by developing new products, they don't have knee-jerk reactions to what others are doing. That doesn't make them saintly, just focused.

KdParker
Jul 6, 2012, 09:20 AM
As a matter of fact, I don't think there will be such a thing as a Smartphone Market in a few years. There will be smaller or larger tablets equipped with 4G/LTE internet and Voice over IP numbers.

Phone is going to be just one of several communication apps on the device.

Isn't that what the iphone already is? How many of us just talk on our phones anymore?

LachlanH
Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 AM
The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device. In fact, they are legally barred from calling it an "Android" device so I'm not sure why MacRumors is calling it that.

Android is a brand name and Kindle isn't an Android device. It's just as wrong as calling any tissue a Kleenex.

Does it not run a modified android os? Sure you would never call OSX and Ubuntu the same but they are still both Unix spinoffs no?

Is the kindle fire OS not an Android spinoff ?

bandalay
Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 AM
…is a wily competitor. There were dozens of Android me too tablets before the Fire came out.

Sure, he's losing money on each unit, but he's the only competitor with a popular retail operation attached to it.

He'll do something ballsy with the phone too - it'll be cheap, it'll be "good enough", and it will sell you stuff from his store.

Bezos has no choice - this either works for him, or Apple eats his lunch slowly but surely.

Kabeyun
Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 AM
"A smartphone would give Amazon a wider range of low-priced hardware devices that bolster its strategy of making money from digital books..."

Doesn't Amazon lose money on digital books?? They monopolize(d) the e-book market by lowballing prices, knowing they'll make it up everyewhere else, including sales of Kindles. This established strategy of using it's market power to undercut competitive pricing (fighting against which Apple, et al, have been rewarded by being indicted by the USDOJ) makes me nervous when they enter any new market.

roland.g
Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 AM
I go to Amazon to order stuff.
I go to Google to search stuff. And get directions.
I go to Apple for the important stuff: computer, phone, tablet, digital media, apps.

gnasher729
Jul 6, 2012, 09:23 AM
Sure you would never call OSX and Ubuntu the same but they are still both Unix spinoffs no?

MacOS X is a POSIX certified Unix implementation. Ubuntu is Linux, Linux is similar to Unix, but it isn't Unix.

parapup
Jul 6, 2012, 09:23 AM
In other news, Apple plans to take them on with the tried and true approach of litigation. Amazon is clearly ripping them off by releasing a smart phone that can be used to buy stuff from stores.

bandalay
Jul 6, 2012, 09:23 AM
Doesn't Amazon lose money on digital books??

The undercut their retail, but make up for it by offering the content owner less per sale.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 09:24 AM
I have to laugh at the comment "late to the party" and its variants.

Apple came on the scene quite awhile after there were other phones in the marketplace. And sure - someone (or many) will say that smartphones didn't exists until Apple came along. I'll answer that quickly. That's false.

Second - Several people are excited about an Apple Television set. Apple is certainly very very very late to that party.

Point is - it doesn't matter when you arrive on the scene (unless you are absolutely first) - it matters what you bring with you to the game. And if Amazon offers something that others don't - it could be a success.

It's all conjecture at this point anyway. I sincerely doubt there will be an Amazon phone for at least 10-18 months from now...

lsvtecjohn3
Jul 6, 2012, 09:25 AM
Amazon and WebOS????

spiderman0616
Jul 6, 2012, 09:25 AM
Why?

From TechCrunch:

Much of the device’s potential appeal also rests on the operating system it runs on, and Android is a very likely choice considering their track record with the Kindle Fire. The question then becomes what will Amazon do to Android — the heavily tweaked fork seen on the Fire bears very little resemblance to the mobile OS that most of us know, and it’s not impossible to think that Amazon would do something similar for a new smartphone in an attempt to make it stand out among a sea of competitors.

And this is from me:
If this thing were to take off, it will just add to the fragmentation. Google doesn't want that. Hence the existence of the Nexus 7.

qtx43
Jul 6, 2012, 09:25 AM
The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device. In fact, they are legally barred from calling it an "Android" device so I'm not sure why MacRumors is calling it that.

Android is a brand name and Kindle isn't an Android device. It's just as wrong as calling any tissue a Kleenex.Are you saying that if somebody asks you for a highly modified kleenex then you won't know what they're talking about or what it is they want?

KdParker
Jul 6, 2012, 09:26 AM
Amazon could acquire RIM with spare change.

Why...who would want that mess....

RIM needs a complete make over to survive.

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 09:26 AM
As an Apple customer of more than a few months you should be aware that competition is NOT what does anything at Apple. They don't do as or when the other boys do. On timetables, features etc.

you think the features that Apple includes in iOS and physical device features were originally developed, designed, and implemented by Apple? you're joking right......

look at how behind the game Apple is with their iOS 6 release. iOS 6 is "catch up" for Apple, not leading the way for anyone or anything

Apple is brilliant at polishing whatever they get their hands on. hell i should hire them to do my hardwood floors properly

i want the most competition possible to speed up innovation at Apple so i, as an Apple customer, get better products. the more players the better

KdParker
Jul 6, 2012, 09:27 AM
Are you saying that if somebody asks you for a highly modified kleenex then you won't know what they're talking about or what it is they want?

modified how....I would be a little concerned rolleyes:

Mad-B-One
Jul 6, 2012, 09:28 AM
The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device. In fact, they are legally barred from calling it an "Android" device so I'm not sure why MacRumors is calling it that.

Android is a brand name and Kindle isn't an Android device. It's just as wrong as calling any tissue a Kleenex.

Well, even if they are legally barred from it, we can call it what it is. Just because you paint your house a different color, it won't change its shape or address. For the ease of discussion, the Kindle Fire runs Android software which is highly customized and locked down to some degree. I can call the Crysler Crossfire a cheap version of the Mercedes Benz SLK. Sure, it's not a Mercedes on the outside. But once you open the hood, you see the star all over it: Mercedes engine, base frame, etc. You could even call it a Karmann - because that is the company which built both. It doesn't matter. If it is clear to a lot of people what is meant by calling something a certain name, who cares if the producer can call it that legally? Chrysler is not allowed to call the Crossfire a Mercedes... but I can.

Blakjack
Jul 6, 2012, 09:28 AM
Amazon in the tablet space is a joke to me. I assume I will feel the same about any phone they may come up with.

iSee
Jul 6, 2012, 09:28 AM
It's hard to image them doing better than fighting for 4th place unless they have some kind of game-changing plan. E.g., by far the biggest problem with smart phones are the service providers and the service contracts. If they could come up with something 50% better on that front, they'd be in business. Otherwise, this seems like a money pit.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 09:29 AM
you think the features that Apple includes in iOS and physical device features were originally developed, designed, and implemented by Apple? you're joking right......

look at how behind the game Apple is with their iOS 6 release. iOS 6 is "catch up" for Apple, not leading the way for anyone or anything



Catch up is subjective. Personally - I still find many features either lacking or haven't been touched since the original iOS release that easily could have been and should have been.

iOS 6 is a progression for sure - but I'm not sure I would call it a catch up in regards to what's possible/available elsewhere.

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 09:29 AM
Why...who would want that mess....

RIM needs a complete make over to survive.

anyone who knows anything about RIM knows that their only business unit that is failing is the US consumer market. they still are untouchable in enterprise and government, and they are entrenched overseas in many developing countries (where the growth is...there is no more mobile device growth by definition in the US...the market is already saturated).

however with that said, they should completely pull out of the consumer market all together at this point because investing any resources into that business unit is a waste and just detracts from being spent better on their better segments

qtx43
Jul 6, 2012, 09:31 AM
MacOS X is a POSIX certified Unix implementation. Ubuntu is Linux, Linux is similar to Unix, but it isn't Unix.So... you're saying that you agree with him that they're both Unix spinoffs?

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 09:31 AM
It's hard to image them doing better than fighting for 4th place unless they have some kind of game-changing plan. E.g., by far the biggest problem with smart phones are the service providers and the service contracts. If they could come up with something 50% better on that front, they'd be in business. Otherwise, this seems like a money pit.

I see it differently. Amazon is a business. And if they can make money (operative word is IF) - they don't NEED to be #1, 2 or 3. The question is how high is high (and enough).

While it is fantastic if you can be #1 in the industry - you can still be quite profitable being #8, #15, etc.

bushido
Jul 6, 2012, 09:32 AM
probably running a custom android rom pushing their cloud and kindle service, not such a bad move actually. they have their ecosystem

drewyboy
Jul 6, 2012, 09:32 AM
I have to laugh at the comment "late to the party" and its variants.

Apple came on the scene quite awhile after there were other phones in the marketplace. And sure - someone (or many) will say that smartphones didn't exists until Apple came along. I'll answer that quickly. That's false.


True, but the smartphones were no where near the capability or function that the iPhone ushered in. The "smartphone" was considered Blackberry's and the like.

Sackvillenb
Jul 6, 2012, 09:32 AM
To be honest, I don't feel like this will be very successful... That being said, I always think competition is good, for Apple... but I'm not sure if Apple will get much stiff phone related competition from Amazon...

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 09:33 AM
Catch up is subjective


it becomes instantly objective when you compare to features offered by competitors


iOS 6 is a progression for sure - but I'm not sure I would call it a catch up in regards to what's possible/available elsewhere.


it's progressive b/c it used to be called 5 and now it's called 6. it's also progressive because what should have been in 5 wasn't, and now it's being included in 6. if you compared iOS 5 in its present state to what else is out there, it's a bit sad. but heck, it works all of the time which is why i own iOS devices. but i don't have tunnel vision in the industry, i know what features are being offered by the competitors. i chose Apple, but i can also recognize their short comings

iMikeT
Jul 6, 2012, 09:33 AM
When it comes to dethroning Apple in the mobile market, many have tried but none have succeeded.

drewyboy
Jul 6, 2012, 09:34 AM
It's one thing to have a diverse set of options for computers or tablets that are not tied to a service provider, but it is an entirely different and scary scenario to have diversity that lack cohesiveness and you need to go to a cell carrier or provider.
With iOS and to some extent Google's nexus program, power has finally been wrestled from carriers into the hands of the consumer. Forking android, other android variants, even a Facebook phone threaten to spread OEMs even thinner and relinquish to more demands of the carriers and crapware. Why else would the carriers be so interested in pushing a 3rd alternative like Windows phone or their own OS built on Mozilla's gecko? Because with confusion in the marketplace they return to a stronger position where consumers turn to them for solutions.
I vote NO on Amazon doing this.

So true on so many levels. Carriers are smiling at this.

KdParker
Jul 6, 2012, 09:34 AM
So... you're saying that you agree with him that they're both Unix spinoffs?

geek war :)

qtx43
Jul 6, 2012, 09:35 AM
modified how....I would be a little concerned rolleyes:And that's also a problem with Amazon's modified Android, just not in a disease inducing way.

geek war :)
Nah, I'm just being a grammar nazi. He ignored the word 'spinoff'.

BMNB1tch
Jul 6, 2012, 09:36 AM
Amazon should buy Nokia :D:D:D:D:D:D:eek:

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 09:36 AM
True, but the smartphones were no where near the capability or function that the iPhone ushered in. The "smartphone" was considered Blackberry's and the like.

maybe you forgot but the first iPhone lacked quite a lot of capability and function that the competitors had as standard for years... cut/copy and paste? picture messaging...the list goes on. it took 2 iterations for the iPhone to be on par feature wise (not talking about the amazing touch screen...just strictly software features and function). once that crossing point was hit, the iPhone skyrocketed upwards in innovation where the rest continued at their regular pace and actually started to slow down

tigress666
Jul 6, 2012, 09:36 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

You know, there were several people (including me to be honest) who said Apple should stick to making computers when they came out with the iphone (or even the iPods)... Don't write off a company just cause it's in a different direction than before.

Anyways, I'd welcome it to see if they come up with some thing decent cause I don't want to get stuck in Google's eco system (I don't like where they are heading in some ways, especially with how they see everything being in the cloud, I don't want to be that dependant on a company that one decision from them could lock me away from all my stuff if I relied on them too heavily) and I don't like the Windows phone. Just in case Apple ends up losing developer interest or something (Hey, just cause a company is big doesn't mean they can't fall).

Radio
Jul 6, 2012, 09:36 AM
It has to be a viable alternative in order to be considered healthy competition
That remains to be seen

It will be.

The kindle touch has already changed the tablet market. Google is now selling a very competitive tablet at $200 and now Apple is looking to join in the game for the cheaper tablet market.

While i doubt they will sell their 7" tablet at $200 (more like $299) competition is great by providing consumers with alternatives while still being under the apple ecosystem.

So yes Amazon - come join the party!

ablashek
Jul 6, 2012, 09:37 AM
apple, google, amazon, facebook, next we'll hear that Ebay and LinkedIn are releasing a Phone. :confused:

drewyboy
Jul 6, 2012, 09:37 AM
it becomes instantly objective when you compare to features offered by competitors




it's progressive b/c it used to be called 5 and now it's called 6. it's also progressive because what should have been in 5 wasn't, and now it's being included in 6. if you compared iOS 5 in its present state to what else is out there, it's a bit sad. but heck, it works all of the time which is why i own iOS devices. but i don't have tunnel vision in the industry, i know what features are being offered by the competitors. i chose Apple, but i can also recognize their short comings

Very true. But we do have to remember that Apple has been in a state of transition last 2 OSX & iOS releases. Lion & iOS5 started the cloud transition and w/ Mt. Lion & iOS6 they are completing. Not the length I had hoped for but quick enough. MS has made a huge jump yet has had lots of time and Google, they were the "cloud" so I would have assumed they would be first and quickest to integrate these features, which they have. All in all, it's about the ecosystem. If you're into google, ms, or apple great.. enjoy the magic and wizardry that is modern technology.

Ryth
Jul 6, 2012, 09:37 AM
Just can't see it. If I was an Amazon shareholder I wouldn't be too happy about this.

There is no reason for them to get into the phone market...considering in probably about 5 years...the line between portable computer and phone will be gone and a 'phone' will no longer exist...in fact I'd say that is already here...most people I know with iPhones barely use their voice plans at all.


The kindle touch has already changed the tablet market. Google is now selling a very competitive tablet at $200 and now Apple is looking to join in the game for the cheaper tablet market.

You mean the Kindle Fire is being sold at a loss and Google is now also selling a tablet at a loss.

Meanwhile Apple will be selling a smaller tablet at a profit.

Which business model here does not work in the long run...

drewyboy
Jul 6, 2012, 09:40 AM
It will be.

The kindle touch has already changed the tablet market. Google is now selling a very competitive tablet at $200 and now Apple is looking to join in the game for the cheaper tablet market.


1. What's the Kindle Touch???
2. Apple will "join in the game" to finish dominating the market... i.e. iPod style. By no means is it because they are being cannibalized. There market share is shrinking yet sales are increasing due to market is growing.

Edit: Found out what kindle touch was... all I can saw is wow. Looks like a over size Palm Pilot.

dashiel
Jul 6, 2012, 09:41 AM
What will its major selling points be? That will be the big question.

Amazon’s ecosystem. Google’s efforts in content and social ecosystems are the purview of hardcore Google/Android fans and consumers who simply don’t know/care. The latter, along with search, is why Google is ok with fragmentation.

With iOS and to some extent Google's nexus program, power has finally been wrestled from carriers into the hands of the consumer.

That certainly seemed to be the way things were heading, then the Nexus failed because carriers were still pissed about the amount of control they ceded to Apple. Android was no where near strong enough to demand the same control from the carriers so Google capitulated, got in to bed with the carriers – to the point of going back on their formerly strong stance on Network Neutrality – all in order to grab as much market share as possible (which they need with 95% of their revenue coming from search). I keep hoping Google is working the long con and one day will turn on their own pipes circumventing the need for telcos entirely.

ThunderSkunk
Jul 6, 2012, 09:44 AM
Oh cool, then I'll have something equally pointless to replace my Facebook phone with.

2bikes
Jul 6, 2012, 09:44 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Isn't selling kindle or a kindle phone, selling other people`s OS? :D

ixodes
Jul 6, 2012, 09:45 AM
I quote:

"Bloomberg reports that Amazon is currently working with Foxconn on a new smartphone product, one that would compete head-to-head with the iPhone and Android devices."

As compared to the title of this thread:
"Amazon Planning to Take on Apple in Smartphone Market"

Amazon is _NOT_ planning to "Take On Apple".

There's a big difference. The only reason I know that Amazon's intent is not to take on Apple, is due to the people I know within the organization.

Are they building a smartphone? Yes, but not to compete with Apple.

Amazon's intent is to build "another smartphone choice" for the public to choose from.

Furthermore in an obvious move, they are building one to sell their content, just like Apple builds the iPhone to sell content via iTunes.

The Amazon phone is being very carefully designed to _NOT_ look like, nor infringe on anyone's patents, as they have no intention of being fodder for Apple.

This will be very interested because it will be different, if not similar to others. After all it will be in the category of Smartphones, therefore just like above... many assumptions will be made.



http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/amazon-planning-to-take-on-apple-in-smartphone-market/

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 09:45 AM
When it comes to dethroning Apple in the mobile market, many have tried but none have succeeded.

And who says they are looking to dethrone Apple? Again - you can be profitable and successful without being #1.

Coke and Pepsi are both very profitable. Burger King and McDonalds (not to mention all the other burger chains).

Lastly - if some people had their way - there would be no android, nokia, windows and RIM phones. Only iPhone. No thanks. No thanks at all. Not to mention - what WOULD everyone here talk about if those who wished all competitors to die off got their "wish." Boring indeed.

Ubuntu
Jul 6, 2012, 09:50 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/amazon-planning-to-take-on-apple-in-smartphone-market/)


Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/amazon_logo-150x30.jpg)

Bloomberg reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/amazon-said-to-plan-smartphone-to-vie-with-apple.html) that Amazon is currently working with Foxconn on a new smartphone product, one that would compete head-to-head with the iPhone and Android devices.Amazon is also said to be looking to acquire a portfolio of wireless technology patents that would help it stand up to competitors in the market.

Amazon has already generated a considerable amount of interest with its Kindle Fire tablet, a heavily-customized Android device launched late last year. By adding a smartphone to the mix, Amazon would have mobile devices in several different form factors to help spur consumption of the company's extensive library of digital content.

Article Link: Amazon Planning to Take on Apple in Smartphone Market (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/amazon-planning-to-take-on-apple-in-smartphone-market/)

"Take on"? Like they planned to "take on" Apple with their Kindle Fire? Not at all. They simply looked at market areas Apple doesn't really cater for, which was a smart idea. It's more a case of taking on Google.

tasset
Jul 6, 2012, 09:51 AM
And who says they are looking to dethrone Apple? Again - you can be profitable and successful without being #1.

Coke and Pepsi are both very profitable. Burger King and McDonalds (not to mention all the other burger chains).

Lastly - if some people had their way - there would be no android, nokia, windows and RIM phones. Only iPhone. No thanks. No thanks at all. Not to mention - what WOULD everyone here talk about if those who wished all competitors to die off got their "wish." Boring indeed.

My concern would be that Amazon (or Google or Microsoft) do not care about being profitable on HARDWARE. The whole razors vs razor blades theory. They want to sell the software, services, and media. But where does that leave other OEMs who do not have those profitable revenue streams, only hardware sales? In the grave, or capitulating to carriers' crapware demands if they want to sell any hardware at all.

bushido
Jul 6, 2012, 09:54 AM
Edit: Found out what kindle touch was... all I can saw is wow. Looks like a over size Palm Pilot.

the Kindle Touch is a eBook Reader and not a full on Tablet, completely different purpose. what he meant was the Kindle Fire i guess

rhett7660
Jul 6, 2012, 09:56 AM
Possibly because of the name association. With the Kindle Fire, Amazon took Google's software, adapted it, and created a product that is associated in the consumer's mind with Amazon, not with Google. And I suppose an Amazon smartphone would do the same. Amazon also doesn't have any interest in letting Google take financial advantage of the fact that a customer would buy an Android phone. I wouldn't think that Google gets too much in advertising money via Kindle Fire buyers.


This, when was the last time you even heard about the Amazon's google tablet?

Geckotek
Jul 6, 2012, 09:57 AM
Tardy to the party.

I remember saying the same thing about Apple.


What people fail to realize is that you don't have to dominate the market to make money. I recall Jason Callacanis saying that all he (Mahalo) needed was 1% of Google's market share to make $1B. Of course, hardware is a bit different...but they don't have to blow Android or Apple out of the water to make a profitable product.

Edit: I see samcraig beat me to it. :)

rotax
Jul 6, 2012, 09:57 AM
Has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. There is no way they can compete. They are not a technology company. Annual releases? Engineering? great new compelling features?

I love seeing my friends and associates text messages come up in blue for the first time. After some of them have told me, "oh I will never use an iPhone, I can't stand not having a keyboard" etc .blah blah blah... I reply to their text immediately with the old line from back in the day about Microsoft comedically. "Welcome to the Borg, you have been assimilated"

The kindle is already sold at a loss with the expectation that sales will cover. Amazon is trying to compete for content sales in what has to be very narrow margins with its competitors. I wonder how much of an installed base, that is actually buying their content. will be necessary for them to break even. Bad business idea IMHO.

newagemac
Jul 6, 2012, 09:59 AM
Does it not run a modified android os? Sure you would never call OSX and Ubuntu the same but they are still both Unix spinoffs no?

Is the kindle fire OS not an Android spinoff ?

So why do people call it OS X then? Why does MacRumors have an iOS blog? Shouldn't the iOS blog be called the UNIX blog?

If the Kindle Fire can be called an Android device (despite both Google and Amazon insisting it is not), then the Android name is just a meaninglessly generic name that seems to serve almost no purpose other than that it (might) run (some) apps made for Android. But heck even RIM's Playbook OS can run Android apps. Which further illustrates my point.

The Fire not only doesn't run many Android apps, it has an entirely different ecosystem, distribution chain, user interface, etc. It is entirely stripped of anything Google and competes against Google's Android ecosystem.

And again, (and most importantly), Amazon does not call it an Android device and Google themselves do not allow Amazon to call it an Android device even if they wanted to.

So why would MacRumors decide to go completely against the maker of the device and the maker of the OS in question and call it Android anyway? Boggles my mind.

bsolar
Jul 6, 2012, 10:00 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Why? Apple didn't stick to desktop computers and that's what made them a much more successful company. Let's see what Amazon is able to do.

rjohnstone
Jul 6, 2012, 10:00 AM
The Kindle Fire isn't an "Android" device. Amazon does not call it an Android device. In fact, they are legally barred from calling it an "Android" device so I'm not sure why MacRumors is calling it that.

Android is a brand name and Kindle isn't an Android device. It's just as wrong as calling any tissue a Kleenex.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Android is open source and can be used by anyone without giving anything to Google.
The only restriction is Google's apps and the trademarked Android logo.
Amazon cannot use them without paying a license fee to Google.
The name "Android" simply refers to the OS.

But that doesn't change the fact that it IS an Android device.
The underlying frameworks are still pure Android. Their Android App Store would not work on the Fire if they were not using proper Android frameworks.
Customizing the front end doesn't change what it is... another Android device.

bushido
Jul 6, 2012, 10:00 AM
Has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. There is no way they can compete. They are not a technology company. Annual releases? Engineering? great new compelling features?

I love seeing my friends and associates text messages come up in blue for the first time. After some of them have told me, "oh I will never use an iPhone, I can't stand not having a keyboard" etc .blah blah blah... I reply to their text immediately with the old line from back in the day about Microsoft comedically. "Welcome to the Borg, you have been assimilated"

The kindle is already sold at a loss with the expectation that sales will cover. Amazon is trying to compete for content sales in what has to be very narrow margins with its competitors. I wonder how much of an installed base, that is actually buying their content. will be necessary for them to break even. Bad business idea IMHO.

they sell it at a loss because the device is basically just a platform to sell their kindle books, cloud services, music services etc. thats where they make their money. sony did the same with their ps3, they make the money with the games

ixodes
Jul 6, 2012, 10:02 AM
You mean the Kindle Fire is being sold at a loss and Google is now also selling a tablet at a loss.

Meanwhile Apple will be selling a smaller tablet at a profit.

Which business model here does not work in the long run...

Google is not selling their tablet at a loss.

They are selling for a razor thin margin by choice. There's a big difference. It's obvious they do not have the pull that Apple does in the marketplace, therefore they are taking a bit of a gamble to build market share with a tablet of their own.

It may or may not work, but if not, it will not put Google out of business. Conversely if it does work they can always gradually increase it's price down the line. This is a proven, age old strategy.

The same thing can be said for Amazon. If one looks at how long Amazon has been a leader in their internet space, you would know they have profits to play with and hence they've decided to build a phone to sell more of their content. Again it may or may not work, but at least they are not afraid to try.

It's a huge market out there, one with plenty of room and an abundance of buyers for a variety of brands. If not, there would be a rapidly shrinking market for Android. The only other viable product at this very moment.

Competition is the backbone of free enterprise. That's a fact that's proven itself over and over for more than one hundred years. Nothing would be more destructive than to have an Apple monopoly with no other choices.

Make no mistake, I'm _NOT_ advocating for any company. Furthermore this post, is coming from someone that is a huge Apple enthusiast.

Yet one that understands business, and is not afraid of competition.

It's as simple as that :)

applesith
Jul 6, 2012, 10:02 AM
I remember saying the same thing about Apple.


What people fail to realize is that you don't have to dominate the market to make money. I recall Jason Callacanis saying that all he (Mahalo) needed was 1% of Google's market share to make $1B. Of course, hardware is a bit different...but they don't have to blow Android or Apple out of the water to make a profitable product.

Edit: I see samcraig beat me to it. :)

Very true, but apple did change the game for smart phones. Amazon hasn't changed the game with Fire and that leaves little hope they will bring a big change to the smartphone market. It will probably just be another Android device.

newagemac
Jul 6, 2012, 10:03 AM
Are you saying that if somebody asks you for a highly modified kleenex then you won't know what they're talking about or what it is they want?

No I'm saying when an article about a Kleenex competitor is written by a respected information outlet, that the writers would know not to refer to the competitor itself as Kleenex.

orfeas0
Jul 6, 2012, 10:04 AM
2007: Iphone is revealed.
People claim it's dumb, it has no 3g *ruble*ruble* stupid phone, expensive.
Same year, android is announced.
*ruble*ruble* android is better than iPhone *ruble*ruble*.
2008-until now:
New iPhone sucks *ruble*ruble* (even though it has the biggest smartphone profit).
New iPhone-Killer android smartphone revealed by _random_manufacturer_.
Nothing kills the iPhone.
Another iPhone-killer spotted in the wild! Is this maybe it? blablabla, no, it's not!

Now Amazon thinks they can go head to head with the iPhone on the first smartphone they ever made...

cmwade77
Jul 6, 2012, 10:06 AM
I think they could do it, if they do it right. They should offer their own cellular service that is cheaper than the competitors, as they can make up the money by selling content.

newagemac
Jul 6, 2012, 10:06 AM
You couldn't be more wrong.
Android is open source and can be used by anyone without giving anything to Google.
The only restriction is Google's apps and the trademarked Android logo.
Amazon cannot use them without paying a license fee to Google.
The name "Android" simply refers to the OS.

But that doesn't change the fact that it IS an Android device.
The underlying frameworks are still pure Android. Their Android App Store would not work on the Fire if they were not using proper Android frameworks.
Customizing the front end doesn't change what it is... another Android device.

So despite Amazon and Google insisting the Kindle Fire is not an Android device, you obviously know more than them. :rolleyes:

bushido
Jul 6, 2012, 10:07 AM
2007: Iphone is revealed.
People claim it's dumb, it has no 3g *ruble*ruble* stupid phone, expensive.
Same year, android is announced.
*ruble*ruble* android is better than iPhone *ruble*ruble*.
2008-until now:
New iPhone sucks *ruble*ruble* (even though it has the biggest smartphone profit).
New iPhone-Killer android smartphone revealed by _random_manufacturer_.
Nothing kills the iPhone.
Another iPhone-killer spotted in the wild! Is this maybe it? blablabla, no, it's not!

Now Amazon thinks they can go head to head with the iPhone on the first smartphone they ever made...

compete does not mean they r trying to become #1 they just need to survive and be accepted by enough people to make it affordable. nothing wrong with that

tasset
Jul 6, 2012, 10:07 AM
they sell it at a loss because the device is basically just a platform to sell their kindle books, cloud services, music services etc. thats where they make their money. sony did the same with their ps3, they make the money with the games

Yes which is why we have Samsung racing to knock-off Apple's stuff with S-Voice and S-Cloud, and HTC acquiring Mog and Beats Audio. Samsung has the supply chain brute force to pull it off. But I suspect HTC, Nokia, Dell, HP, Acer will eventually cede hardware business or justify to their shareholders less than 5% profit margin. How could they have more if you have Amazon selling tablets or phones (or Google's Nexus 7) at cost?

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:07 AM
they sell it at a loss because the device is basically just a platform to sell their kindle books, cloud services, music services etc. thats where they make their money.

Exactly. I'm not sure what people don't get understand. Google and Amazon sell their product at a very low profit margin because they know they will make a boatload of cash with the things consumers can get while using the product.



New iPhone-Killer android smartphone revealed by _random_manufacturer_.
Nothing kills the iPhone.
Another iPhone-killer spotted in the wild! Is this maybe it? blablabla, no, it's not!


None of these manufactures claim to be 'the killer' to the best of my knowledge. Media pins those products as such. As for a legitimate potential 'iphone killer'? Nexus, packed with JellyBean, would like to have a word with you. Of course there will always be people buying Apple products, but there are a lot of people that will switch to the new Nexus. Head over the iPhone subforum here. A lot of people are saying they are switching. You just can't argue that it's not a VERY impressive phone. Being as how it's so impressive, Apple will be forced to step their game up which is great.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 10:08 AM
Very true, but apple did change the game for smart phones. Amazon hasn't changed the game with Fire and that leaves little hope they will bring a big change to the smartphone market. It will probably just be another Android device.

Amazon changed the game for e-Readers. Yes - they existed before - but Amazon put them on the map and made them popular. Sound familiar?

2007: Iphone is revealed.
People claim it's dumb, it has no 3g *ruble*ruble* stupid phone, expensive.
Same year, android is announced.
*ruble*ruble* android is better than iPhone *ruble*ruble*.
2008-until now:
New iPhone sucks *ruble*ruble* (even though it has the biggest smartphone profit).
New iPhone-Killer android smartphone revealed by _random_manufacturer_.
Nothing kills the iPhone.
Another iPhone-killer spotted in the wild! Is this maybe it? blablabla, no, it's not!

Now Amazon thinks they can go head to head with the iPhone on the first smartphone they ever made...

They never said they were going head to head with the iPhone.

Over The Hill
Jul 6, 2012, 10:09 AM
When i read „to take on iPhone" sounds like the end of the story even before the story starts.

mytdave
Jul 6, 2012, 10:11 AM
I don't get it... Amazon is a warehouser and an online retailer. They sell everyone else's shi* so I don't understand their interest in building electronic gizmos.

They'd do better to stick to their core competencies. Spreading out too much usually spells disaster for companies. News flash - the Kindle Fire isn't doing all that well. Why would they want get into another money losing product?

johncrab
Jul 6, 2012, 10:12 AM
Another entry diving for a piece of the 8% and another phone which will be given away.

rotax
Jul 6, 2012, 10:14 AM
they sell it at a loss because the device is basically just a platform to sell their kindle books, cloud services, music services etc. thats where they make their money. sony did the same with their ps3, they make the money with the games

Thats exactly what I said it my past paragraph. The problem is that the ecosphere of Amazon is minuscule in terms of crossover with the iPhone and with the exception of music and movie content has very little relationship to the rest of what they sell. I like Amazon, I buy many things from them already. Why do I need their phone? Because I might save some small amount on the music and movies and books I buy from Apple? I spend so much time on my iPhone for a whole range of things having nothing to do with music, movies, or books ... hence the move toward mobile computing eating into laptop sales etc. My experience in that space is far more valuable then the 20 or even 40 dollars I might save in music, movies, or book content buying it from Amazon, and that assumes I could only buy their content if I had an Amazon phone. I can buy their stuff online, through their app, and dont they even have a reader for iOS?

itsjayswelly
Jul 6, 2012, 10:15 AM
With the news of Amazon, Facebook, and Mozilla Firefox all attempting to move into the smartphone industry, it means one thing: these devices are now becoming common. Very soon, basic phones will be history like giant cell phones were in the 90's. Then someone will once again have to revolutionize the mobile technology industry. Apple did that in 2007 with the iPhone.

Saying that these things won't sell is pretty silly. Most consumers who go into a store looking for a new phone will buy what they see on TV, what they hear is good, or what they sales rep recommends. Unlike people on Internet forums, they have developed no preference aside from "Ooh, this gets on the Internet."

Also, fragmentation? Amazon has nothing to do with Android aside from using it for their OS. They will be handling all of the updates themselves probably. The Kindle Fire has received no updates from Google, so why would a Amazon phone? If anything, Amazon will receive the OS update from Google, heavily edit it to fit the Amazon guidelines, and then roll it out according to their own schedule.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:15 AM
News flash - the Kindle Fire isn't doing all that well. Why would they want get into another money losing product?

I'd like to see the source that says they are losing money from the Fire. Even if they are, they are more than making up for it in the selling of their e-books. They run the world of e-books.

RMo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:17 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Actually, Amazon makes--or rebrands or whatever--some decent products of their own via their AmazonBasics line (rechargeable and alkaline batteries, cases for phones or music players, basic computer hardware like mice and optical drivers, and more).

Of course, if their phone is the Kindle Fire of smartphones, it will leave something to be desired, but it shouldn't be completely horrible and will probably at least be reasonably priced.

itsjayswelly
Jul 6, 2012, 10:19 AM
I don't get it... Amazon is a warehouser and an online retailer. They sell everyone else's shi* so I don't understand their interest in building electronic gizmos.

They'd do better to stick to their core competencies. Spreading out too much usually spells disaster for companies. News flash - the Kindle Fire isn't doing all that well. Why would they want get into another money losing product?

Ah, you've missed Amazon's whole strategy. Amazon plans to sell their own branded electronics at a lost intentionally. Google is the same way. Google actually doesn't earn much money from the sale of Android devices, aside from Nexus devices. The whole idea behind Amazon and Google's plan is to seed the public with tons of devices, no matter what the cost, and then offer services (and ads for Google) tied in directly to their phone. THIS is their profit making strategy. Being able to access Amazon in one click and not having to type in confidential information all the time is a huge plus for those who order off of Amazon regularly.

gnasher729
Jul 6, 2012, 10:20 AM
So... you're saying that you agree with him that they're both Unix spinoffs?

MacOS X is not a Unix spinoff - MacOS X _is_ Unix.

Linux is not a Unix spinoff - Linux is a completely independent development, intended to be Unix compatible to some degree, but not related in any way.

I didn't say that I agreed with him, and I can't see where you saw that. And for the record, I disagree with him quite strongly.

Geckotek
Jul 6, 2012, 10:21 AM
Very true, but apple did change the game for smart phones. Amazon hasn't changed the game with Fire and that leaves little hope they will bring a big change to the smartphone market. It will probably just be another Android device.

And??? I think that's their goal. Get a device out there that is focused on delivering THEIR content. Not sure why they have to "change the game".

ombrenelcielo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:23 AM
So why do people call it OS X then? Why does MacRumors have an iOS blog? Shouldn't the iOS blog be called the UNIX blog?

If the Kindle Fire can be called an Android device (despite both Google and Amazon insisting it is not), then the Android name is just a meaninglessly generic name that seems to serve almost no purpose other than that it (might) run (some) apps made for Android. But heck even RIM's Playbook OS can run Android apps. Which further illustrates my point.

The Fire not only doesn't run many Android apps, it has an entirely different ecosystem, distribution chain, user interface, etc. It is entirely stripped of anything Google and competes against Google's Android ecosystem.

And again, (and most importantly), Amazon does not call it an Android device and Google themselves do not allow Amazon to call it an Android device even if they wanted to.

So why would MacRumors decide to go completely against the maker of the device and the maker of the OS in question and call it Android anyway? Boggles my mind.

Typical technology illiterate post.

Geckotek
Jul 6, 2012, 10:24 AM
Has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. There is no way they can compete. They are not a technology company. Annual releases? Engineering? great new compelling features?

I love seeing my friends and associates text messages come up in blue for the first time. After some of them have told me, "oh I will never use an iPhone, I can't stand not having a keyboard" etc .blah blah blah... I reply to their text immediately with the old line from back in the day about Microsoft comedically. "Welcome to the Borg, you have been assimilated"

The kindle is already sold at a loss with the expectation that sales will cover. Amazon is trying to compete for content sales in what has to be very narrow margins with its competitors. I wonder how much of an installed base, that is actually buying their content. will be necessary for them to break even. Bad business idea IMHO.

I'm guessing they've analyzed the data (or paid some big consulting firm to do so) and determined that the path they started on with their e-readers and the Fire, has been successful so far and that they should continue.

estrides
Jul 6, 2012, 10:24 AM
I mean, in regards to how well their tablets sell, im sure they can pull a nice piece of the market for themselves.

rjohnstone
Jul 6, 2012, 10:25 AM
So despite Amazon and Google insisting the Kindle Fire is not an Android device, you obviously know more than them. :rolleyes:
No, but apparently I know more than you do.
Pull the Fire's source code... it's Android.
They can refuse to call it Android for marketing purposes, but the source code doesn't lie.

Here... see for yourself.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200203720

Android.mk files all over the place.

Randomly open any file and see for yourself.

Oh and what is this.... LinearLayout.java
/*
* Copyright (C) 2008 The Android Open Source Project
*
* Licensed under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/

package mock_android.widget;

import mock_android.view.ViewGroup;

public class LinearLayout extends ViewGroup {

public class LayoutParams extends mock_android.view.ViewGroup.LayoutParams {

}

}


They're even using StageFright for media. StagefrightMediaScanner.h

/*
* Copyright (C) 2009 The Android Open Source Project
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/

#ifndef STAGEFRIGHT_MEDIA_SCANNER_H_

#define STAGEFRIGHT_MEDIA_SCANNER_H_

#include <media/mediascanner.h>

namespace android {

struct MediaMetadataRetriever;

struct StagefrightMediaScanner : public MediaScanner {
StagefrightMediaScanner();
virtual ~StagefrightMediaScanner();

virtual status_t processFile(
const char *path, const char *mimeType,
MediaScannerClient &client);

virtual char *extractAlbumArt(int fd);

private:
sp<MediaMetadataRetriever> mRetriever;

StagefrightMediaScanner(const StagefrightMediaScanner &);
StagefrightMediaScanner &operator=(const StagefrightMediaScanner &);
};

} // namespace android

#endif // STAGEFRIGHT_MEDIA_SCANNER_H_

mrxak
Jul 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
I bet this will compete really well against the Facebook Phone.

Geckotek
Jul 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
Now Amazon thinks they can go head to head with the iPhone on the first smartphone they ever made...

Don't believe everything you read. Just because they are coming out with a smartphone does not mean they have intentions of going head-to-head with Apple.

Bubba Satori
Jul 6, 2012, 10:28 AM
I love the smell of angst and fear in the morning. :cool:

Ryth
Jul 6, 2012, 10:29 AM
Google is not selling their tablet at a loss.

They are selling for a razor thin margin by choice. There's a big difference.

WRONG.

If you buy it through them, it is at 0. That doesn't include Google's shipping cost to you if you buy it through them. If you buy it through ANY retailer, which it's going to be sold at all AT&T/Verizon/Best Buys etc, they will take a LOSS

And guess where most people buy their tablets...at big box retailers like the Apple Store or Best Buy/Carrier stores.

A loss either way you cut it.


Surprise! You were right. Google's Android guru Andy Rubin confirmed to AllThingsD yesterday that even when the Nexus 7 gets purchased from the company's own Google Play distribution channel, it "basically gets (sold) through," meaning it doesn't make or lose money. Which means at best, Google's tablet is break-even when you buy it directly from them. When you find it in a big box retailer? Google's throwing dollar bills out of the window of a moving car.

JGowan
Jul 6, 2012, 10:29 AM
I so wish (for so many reasons) that Steve Jobs was alive and well... but one would be to hear his thoughts on the Amazon Phone.

rhuber
Jul 6, 2012, 10:30 AM
I might be in the minority here, but I think this is one to watch. Amazon is no slouch in the innovation department. They did things with kindle that were way ahead of the game and significantly changed the landscape that even apple now enjoys. When the Fire came to be, it wasn't targeting iPad, but reader devices such as the Nook, and they dominated that market.

I purchase music from iTunes, but I purchase movies from Amazon, because I can play them anywhere on any device, and just about any TV. In fact, most new TV's come with amazon built-in. They have a long-term strategy that's working, building up an interesting ecosystem that's working, and building quality products (within their niche) that are very well received.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but their history and reputation tell me that this isn't going to be a flop. It won't be an iPhone, but I seriously doubt that's the intention. Whatever they have up their sleeve will likely be pretty interesting, and no doubt offer something new.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:32 AM
Google's throwing dollar bills out of the window of a moving car. [/I]

While outside of that moving car, the dollar bills multiply and vacuum right back in once the tablet or phone is turned on with ads and such. You really think Google would lose money just for the sake of it?

AustinIllini
Jul 6, 2012, 10:39 AM
Amazon and WebOS????

That was my first thought, also. I guess Amazon wasn't interested when HP was looking to sell it, or HP's asking price was too high. Either way, if HP isn't going to do something with WebOS, someone should.

Mr. Gates
Jul 6, 2012, 10:40 AM
Wow.
Look at everyone getting their panties in a bunch.
It's just another option.
Some of you are just way to brainwashed to even have a conversation with.
Yeah, we get it. You worship Apple , move on.
Amazon rocks.

CausticPuppy
Jul 6, 2012, 10:43 AM
OK, I'm calling it now. The new device will be called:


Kindle Ember


Or possibly

Kindle Spark.

I totally should work in marketing.



Other possibilities which will be rejected: Kindle Smokepuff, Kindle Bic Lighter

Obese Lobsters
Jul 6, 2012, 10:46 AM
I might be in the minority here, but I think this is one to watch. Amazon is no slouch in the innovation department. They did things with kindle that were way ahead of the game and significantly changed the landscape that even apple now enjoys. When the Fire came to be, it wasn't targeting iPad, but reader devices such as the Nook, and they dominated that market.

I purchase music from iTunes, but I purchase movies from Amazon, because I can play them anywhere on any device, and just about any TV. In fact, most new TV's come with amazon built-in. They have a long-term strategy that's working, building up an interesting ecosystem that's working, and building quality products (within their niche) that are very well received.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but their history and reputation tell me that this isn't going to be a flop. It won't be an iPhone, but I seriously doubt that's the intention. Whatever they have up their sleeve will likely be pretty interesting, and no doubt offer something new.

I agree, although I don't see this phone hurting iPhone sales too much but like the kindle fire I can see this phone taking sales away from other android devices. I believe that people prefer the amazon to samsung, htc etc...

Bwilky
Jul 6, 2012, 10:48 AM
I see multiple benefits from this.

1) More competition. Right now there's just android, iphone, and windows phone . A Fourth one will have to bring some really cool features, or low cost to get somebody to blink. Good for us!
2) Maybe they'll get so fed up with this whole sandbox play with software patent trolls and finally fix it

Hastings101
Jul 6, 2012, 10:53 AM
OK, I'm calling it now. The new device will be called:


Kindle Ember


Or possibly

Kindle Spark.

I totally should work in marketing.



Other possibilities which will be rejected: Kindle Smokepuff, Kindle Bic Lighter

I actually like the sound of Kindle Spark :D

Rogifan
Jul 6, 2012, 10:55 AM
Apple didn't jump on the netbook bandwagon, their notebooks and desktops are priced at non-competing price points to the rest of the market yet they still manage to make it work. Apple competes for your new dollars by developing new products, they don't have knee-jerk reactions to what others are doing. That doesn't make them saintly, just focused.

That's why I think these rumors of an iPad Mini are bunk.

powers74
Jul 6, 2012, 10:57 AM
What will its major selling points be? That will be the big question.

Duh! E-books on a phone (which everyone loves), AngryBirds!, In Space!! Buying things from Amazon from your phone (which everyone does), and lots of other stuff!! Duh! It's a great idea!

jdawgnoonan
Jul 6, 2012, 10:58 AM
Android and WinMo have both helped iOS become better. There are countless features in iOS that are obviously inspired by the other two platforms. This is nothing but a good thing.

History might be different on this if Amazon had not had to break their iOS apps to keep themselves from being forced to give Apple a 30% cut.

(And Amazon's cloud is free)

lifeinhd
Jul 6, 2012, 10:58 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Yeah! And Google should stick to search and web mail! And Apple should stick to Macs!

;)

tasset
Jul 6, 2012, 10:59 AM
Wow.
Look at everyone getting their panties in a bunch.
It's just another option.
Some of you are just way to brainwashed to even have a conversation with.
Yeah, we get it. You worship Apple , move on.
Amazon rocks.

I actually like Google's unadulterated Nexus OS better than iOS. But I still only use iOS because I care about the long game. I want quality for consumers to continue and I have more trust in that happening with Apple's hardware business model than others' models of ad revenue, media, or capitulating to carriers. You don't think Microsoft is being led by the hand with Windows phone in their pronouncement to push carrier billing and ISIS support?

kiljoy616
Jul 6, 2012, 10:59 AM
Google is going to be pissed.

Title makes me ROFLMAO. Its more like Amazon is pissed that Google is going to compete with them on tablet so Amazon is going after Google with their own Android OS.

For Amazon to compete with Apple then Amazon need to bring out their own non Android phones. :rolleyes:

ladymacintosh
Jul 6, 2012, 11:00 AM
Why is this front page news on a Mac rumors blog????

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:00 AM
So... you're saying that you agree with him that they're both Unix spinoffs?

Linux is not a Unix spinoff at all. In fact, it hasn't been spun off of anything, it's an OS written by Linus Torvalds from scratch.

kiljoy616
Jul 6, 2012, 11:05 AM
I love my Kindle Fire, but it isn't even close to stable enough for me to consider using the software (similar at least) in my phone.

Its still just Android, hardware is Amazon specific but OS is just Android locked down. I always love how everyone is out to compete with Apple but no one bring out their own OS, well except Microsoft which I salute them for that.;)

----------

Why is this front page news on a Mac rumors blog????

Because its so funny and we, I mean most of us get a kick out of these headlines. :D

----------

Linux is not a Unix spinoff at all. In fact, it hasn't been spun off of anything, it's an OS written by Linus Torvalds from scratch.

Based and inspired by Unix, even he said so, old news. No one cares anymore since Linux has come so far since those days. But for some reason it does crop up here and there like it means something. Something is normally based or inspired by something else, reason I hate software patents. :mad:

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:06 AM
You couldn't be more wrong.
Android is open source and can be used by anyone without giving anything to Google.
The only restriction is Google's apps and the trademarked Android logo.
Amazon cannot use them without paying a license fee to Google.
The name "Android" simply refers to the OS.

But that doesn't change the fact that it IS an Android device.
The underlying frameworks are still pure Android. Their Android App Store would not work on the Fire if they were not using proper Android frameworks.
Customizing the front end doesn't change what it is... another Android device.

Hence, they can't call it Android. Android is a trademark before anything else. The code base they are using might be the same, but it's still not Android.

kiljoy616
Jul 6, 2012, 11:11 AM
Android and WinMo have both helped iOS become better. There are countless features in iOS that are obviously inspired by the other two platforms. This is nothing but a good thing.

History might be different on this if Amazon had not had to break their iOS apps to keep themselves from being forced to give Apple a 30% cut.

(And Amazon's cloud is free)

I doubt they inspired as much as they forced them to implement. I find it really hard to believe the 1000's of programers and designers at Apple could not come up with stuff everyone else is doing, but knowing Apple and I love them for it they are so fanatically conservative at giving out features until they are brainless to use. Same for the other companies I doubt they steal ideas as much as they are forced to implement them because of competition. I love competition.

Apple cloud is free also up to 5 gigs which I have yet to pass the 3 gig mark.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:12 AM
Based and inspired by Unix, even he said so, old news. No one cares anymore since Linux has come so far since those days. But for some reason it does crop up here and there like it means something. Something is normally based or inspired by something else, reason I hate software patents. :mad:

Based on what from Unix exactly ? Linux isn't even POSIX compatible entirely. BTW, Linus was inspired by Andrew Tannebaum's work on Minix (which also isn't Unix), not AT&T or BSD's implementation of Unix, and was free of any Minix code (so it's not based on Minix, only inspired by). The original USENET post for reference :

Linus Benedict Torvalds
Post reply
More message actions
26/08/1991

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

Driving the point home, later that same day :

As to POSIX,
I'd be delighted to have it, but posix wants money for their papers, so
that's not currently an option. In any case these are things that won't
be supported for some time yet (first I'll make it a simple minix-
lookalike, keyword SIMPLE).



Can't get clearer than that.

kiljoy616
Jul 6, 2012, 11:13 AM
Hence, they can't call it Android. Android is a trademark before anything else. The code base they are using might be the same, but it's still not Android.

So what should you call the OS? :rolleyes:

This is as bad as calling the iPad 3 "the new iPad Retina gen. 3" because Apple decided to stop using a number. Can't wait for iPad 4 so that we can call it "the newer but not new iPad Retina gen. 4 or not" iPad.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:15 AM
So what should you call the OS? :rolleyes:

That's not my call to make, write Amazon and ask them what the OS is called.

----------

So what should you call the OS? :rolleyes:

This is as bad as calling the iPad 3 "the new iPad Retina gen. 3" because Apple decided to stop using a number. Can't wait for iPad 4 so that we can call it "the newer but not new iPad Retina gen. 4 or not" iPad.

Uh ? The iPad is simply called iPad.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 11:16 AM
So what should you call the OS? :rolleyes:

This is as bad as calling the iPad 3 "the new iPad Retina gen. 3" because Apple decided to stop using a number. Can't wait for iPad 4 so that we can call it "the newer but not new iPad Retina gen. 4 or not" iPad.

Why do you need to call the OS anything? It's the Kindle Fire's OS. How's that?

kiljoy616
Jul 6, 2012, 11:17 AM
That's not my call to make, write Amazon and ask them what the OS is called.

ROFL your statement was that its not Android. Now your asking me to call Amazon.

Amazon tablet is an Android tablet then everything else is semantics.

Shearwater
Jul 6, 2012, 11:18 AM
They were saying similar things about Apple....2003-2006



Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 11:19 AM
ROFL your statement was that its not Android. Now your asking me to call Amazon.

Amazon tablet is an Android tablet then everything else is semantics.

Wow, you should think about stopping.

iMikeT
Jul 6, 2012, 11:20 AM
And who says they are looking to dethrone Apple? Again - you can be profitable and successful without being #1.

Coke and Pepsi are both very profitable. Burger King and McDonalds (not to mention all the other burger chains).

Lastly - if some people had their way - there would be no android, nokia, windows and RIM phones. Only iPhone. No thanks. No thanks at all. Not to mention - what WOULD everyone here talk about if those who wished all competitors to die off got their "wish." Boring indeed.


I'm sure we'd find something to talk about here at MacRumors.

Keep in mind, for many years Apple had nothing but Macs and there was still a lot to talk about.

Morod
Jul 6, 2012, 11:20 AM
Yeah! And Google should stick to search and web mail! And Apple should stick to Macs!

;)

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:21 AM
ROFL your statement was that its not Android. Now your asking me to call Amazon.

My statement was that it used the same code base, but couldn't be called Android. Don't mix things up.

Here, you can read my statement again :

Hence, they can't call it Android. Android is a trademark before anything else. The code base they are using might be the same, but it's still not Android.

Just in case it's not sinking in yet that you just put your foot firmly in your mouth :

The code base they are using might be the same, but it's still not Android.

That's because :

Android is a trademark before anything else.

And

Hence, they can't call it Android.

NeXT MacRumors
Jul 6, 2012, 11:22 AM
I believe that Amazon would do an awesome job at designing a phone. I mean just look at the kindle fire.:p

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 11:26 AM
I believe that Amazon would do an awesome job at designing a phone. I mean just look at the kindle fire.:p

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but there is nothing wrong with the Fire. It's a quality tablet that is affordable.

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2012, 11:27 AM
Did I just read

"More competition is great" platitudes coming every other post? More competition is NOT great.

How many times have you walked into interview for a potential job ..saw 50 other people sitting there for the same job and said "hey this is great I'm 1 of 50!!"

How many times have you walked into a club and saw 8 guys for every gal and said "Hooray! Look at all this competition!"

**** with the pithy platitudes. Amazon proved they are incompetent with the Fire. Who's going to trust them with a phone? I know a 13 year old that'll sell you here Fire. She told me yesterday "this this is a piece of ****"

Amazon should stay the hell out of markets they don't understand. Buying up companies and trying to acquire patents isn't going to help.

headp
Jul 6, 2012, 11:27 AM
That was my first thought, also. I guess Amazon wasn't interested when HP was looking to sell it, or HP's asking price was too high. Either way, if HP isn't going to do something with WebOS, someone should.

I like this idea. I had a WebOS phone, the software was great, it was the hardware that was crappy. I'm very disappointed how HP handled it, but AFAIK it's now free to use for Amazon. It would offer a different choice.
I doubt they'd do anything with it since they already invested in a android platform.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 11:28 AM
I'm sure we'd find something to talk about here at MacRumors.

Keep in mind, for many years Apple had nothing but Macs and there was still a lot to talk about.

sarcasm, iMikeT. sarcasm :)

lifeinhd
Jul 6, 2012, 11:29 AM
Actually, this makes perfect sense to me.

It does to me too. But imagine everything we wouldn't have if they'd just done that. We'd still be using Archos MP3 players, Palm phones, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft-powered tablet PCs. We'd be sharing documents by email instead of working collaboratively, we'd be manually syncing our devices, and our TVs would be independent of our content.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 11:31 AM
Did I just read

"More competition is great" platitudes coming every other post? More competition is NOT great.

How many times have you walked into interview for a potential job ..saw 50 other people sitting there for the same job and said "hey this is great I'm 1 of 50!!"

How many times have you walked into a club and saw 8 guys for every gal and said "Hooray! Look at all this competition!"

**** with the pithy platitudes. Amazon proved they are incompetent with the Fire. Who's going to trust them with a phone? I know a 13 year old that'll sell you here Fire. She told me yesterday "this this is a piece of ****"

Amazon should stay the hell out of markets they don't understand. Buying up companies and trying to acquire patents isn't going to help.

bad analogy is a bad analogy.

Amazon didn't prove they were incompetent at all with the Fire. Good luck spreading that fact pulled out of your hindquarters.

And you have no idea or in a position to judge what markets Amazon does or doesn't understand.

I guess Apple buying up companies and acquiring patents hasn't helped them. :rolleyes:

TheRainKing
Jul 6, 2012, 11:31 AM
Well since they have their own well established book store and music store, they could be a decent competitor.

Rennir
Jul 6, 2012, 11:31 AM
Did I just read

"More competition is great" platitudes coming every other post? More competition is NOT great.

How many times have you walked into interview for a potential job ..saw 50 other people sitting there for the same job and said "hey this is great I'm 1 of 50!!"

How many times have you walked into a club and saw 8 guys for every gal and said "Hooray! Look at all this competition!"

**** with the pithy platitudes. Amazon proved they are incompetent with the Fire. Who's going to trust them with a phone? I know a 13 year old that'll sell you here Fire. She told me yesterday "this this is a piece of ****"

Amazon should stay the hell out of markets they don't understand. Buying up companies and trying to acquire patents isn't going to help.

When we talk about Apple and Amazon, we're examining things from the perspective of a consumer, and Apple and Amazon are the producers, who provide the goods and services that we ultimately use. When people are looking for a job, they are the producers since they are offering their labor to companies, who are the consumers because they buy labor through wages/salary. Thus, competition is always good for the consumer. If a firm has 50 people competing for a job, they are much more likely to find a suitable and desirable candidate than say, if there were only 3 people applying for said job.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:33 AM
Did I just read

"More competition is great" platitudes coming every other post? More competition is NOT great.

How many times have you walked into interview for a potential job ..saw 50 other people sitting there for the same job and said "hey this is great I'm 1 of 50!!"

Uh ? If I were to try and compete in the smartphone market with my own smartphone offering, then you'd have a point with your ridiculous analogy, but as a consumer, as the employer in your analogy, god am I glad to have 50 choices. That way, there's less chances of me having to compromise on what I want as there's more chance of finding a product/employee that matches my criteria as closely as possible.

jdawgnoonan
Jul 6, 2012, 11:36 AM
Title makes me ROFLMAO. Its more like Amazon is pissed that Google is going to compete with them on tablet so Amazon is going after Google with their own Android OS.

For Amazon to compete with Apple then Amazon need to bring out their own non Android phones. :rolleyes:

Amazon uses hardware as a vehicle for their services. I do not believe that they care which platform users use. If you have their apps and consume their content than they win. The whole Kindle ecosystem and the Fire are about the content. Amazon even views the "Kindle" app on an iPhone as a "Kindle".

knewsom
Jul 6, 2012, 11:40 AM
Amazon has realized something really important. What they're selling isn't a computer, and it isn't an ecosystem. It's an appliance.

SpectatorHere
Jul 6, 2012, 11:42 AM
With LG, Huawei, Samsung, Motorola, HTC all turning out Android phones, why wouldn't Amazon get in on the business?

I don't think they'd build one themselves, they'd just buy a model from someone else (as they did bringing the BB Playbook and turning it into the Fire) and price it dirt cheap with their own services highly integrated.

The price of phones and the tech is so competitive, soon companies will practically be giving them away and will love a contract to supply hardware to Amazon.

It's a good deal for everyone involved.

LanPhantom
Jul 6, 2012, 11:45 AM
I can just see it now.... One Click Calling.:p

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2012, 11:45 AM
Hey guys

Thanks for setting me straight. I'm a happy Amazon Prime member but one thing that has been pretty consistent with Amazon is their lack of design skills. They bought IMDB.com and that place has become a cluttered mess.

Amazon lacks that kind of panache needed to make waves. I can buy stuff from the Amazon store on any device. Why would I need or benefit from buying my phone through Amazon?

As for choice. It's a myth.

VO6XEQIsCoM

rjohnstone
Jul 6, 2012, 11:46 AM
Hence, they can't call it Android. Android is a trademark before anything else. The code base they are using might be the same, but it's still not Android.
Incorrect.
Not being able to use a trademark descriptor does not change what it is.
It is still Android.
It's using the level 10 SDK and API stack. (Gingerbread).
That makes it an Android device.

Google can only bar them from using trademarks, not the name of the open source code it was built upon.

Read the build.prop file.

# begin build properties
# autogenerated by buildinfo.sh
ro.build.id=GINGERBREAD
ro.build.display.id=L27.12.1-P1_QUANTA_20110422_quantaonly-1027-gefdcdf8
ro.build.display.kernel_id=android-2.6.35-2.3-omap4.12.1-886-ge3f1520
ro.build.display.labapks_id=
ro.build.version.incremental=6.2.1_user_3103920
ro.build.version.sdk=10
ro.build.version.codename=REL
ro.build.version.release=2.3.4
ro.build.date=Fri Dec 16 06:11:51 UTC 2011
ro.build.date.utc=1324015911
ro.build.type=user
ro.build.user=ubuntu
ro.build.host=ip-10-174-42-153
ro.build.tags=release-keys
ro.product.model=Full Android on Blaze or SDP
ro.product.brand=generic
ro.product.name=blaze
ro.product.device=blaze
ro.product.board=omap4sdp
ro.product.cpu.abi=armeabi-v7a
ro.product.cpu.abi2=armeabi
ro.product.manufacturer=TI
ro.product.locale.language=en
ro.product.locale.region=US
ro.wifi.channels=
ro.board.platform=omap4
# ro.build.product is obsolete; use ro.product.device
ro.build.product=blaze
# Do not try to parse ro.build.description or .fingerprint
ro.build.description=blaze-user 2.3.4 GINGERBREAD 6.2.1_user_3103920 release-keys
ro.build.fingerprint=generic/blaze/blaze:2.3.4/GINGERBREAD/6.2.1_user_3103920:user/release-keys
# end build properties
# system.prop for ldp
# This overrides settings in the products/generic/system.prop file
#
# rild.libpath=/system/lib/libreference-ril.so
# rild.libargs=-d /dev/ttyS0
com.ti.omap_enhancement=true
opencore.asmd=1
keyguard.no_require_sim=1
wifi.interface=tiwlan0
dalvik.vm.heapsize=64m
ro.sf.lcd_density=160
ro.opengles.version=131072
# Define modem related settings
ro.radio.use-ppp no
ro.config.nocheckin yes
#define defaults for audio D/A mic and power mode
omap.audio.mic.main=AMic0
omap.audio.mic.sub=AMic1
omap.audio.power=PingPong
#upgrading the resampler quality
af.resampler.quality=2
persist.lab126.chargeprotect=1

#
# ADDITIONAL_BUILD_PROPERTIES
#
keyguard.no_require_sim=true
ro.com.android.dateformat=MM-dd-yyyy
ro.com.android.dataroaming=true
ro.ril.hsxpa=1
ro.ril.gprsclass=10
ro.config.notification_sound=ro.config.alarm_alert=Alarm_Classic.ogg
net.bt.name=Android
dalvik.vm.stack-trace-file=/data/anr/traces.txt

OMG... it says it's Android.... Google should sue! :rolleyes:

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:49 AM
Incorrect.
Not being able to use a trademark descriptor does not change what it is.
It is still Android.
It's using the level 10 SDK and API stack. (Gingerbread).
That makes it an Android device.

Google can only bar them from using trademarks, not the name of the open source code it was built upon.

Read the build.prop file.

I did say it used the same code base, it just can't be called Android. No matter what the code base for it says. Like killjoy, might I suggest actually reading my posts ?

Some people really are obtuse it seems and just can't grasp simple concepts. Amazon will never call it Android, they will never write "Android tablet" anywhere in market material, they won't even write "runs the Android OS code base".

For all intents and purposes, it's not an Android device. It doesn't fragment Android at all. And Google can't sue them, they are the ones licensing the code base under an open source license.

Just like IceWeasel isn't Firefox, even though it uses the same source code as Firefox. It's IceWeasel. They even explain how you're not running "Firefox" :

http://www.geticeweasel.org/useragent/

qtx43
Jul 6, 2012, 11:51 AM
MacOS X is not a Unix spinoff - MacOS X _is_ Unix.

Linux is not a Unix spinoff - Linux is a completely independent development, intended to be Unix compatible to some degree, but not related in any way.

I didn't say that I agreed with him, and I can't see where you saw that. And for the record, I disagree with him quite strongly.
I dont think you and I agree on the meaning of the word 'spinoff'.


Linux is not a Unix spinoff at all. In fact, it hasn't been spun off of anything, it's an OS written by Linus Torvalds from scratch.
Or you either. So you're saying that Torvalds took no guidance at all from unix? He just happened by the most amazing coincidence to use nearly all the same APIs? Nonsense.

SpectatorHere
Jul 6, 2012, 11:52 AM
Hey guys

Thanks for setting me straight. I'm a happy Amazon Prime member but one thing that has been pretty consistent with Amazon is their lack of design skills. They bought IMDB.com and that place has become a cluttered mess.

Amazon lacks that kind of panache needed to make waves. I can buy stuff from the Amazon store on any device. Why would I need or benefit from buying my phone through Amazon?

As for choice. It's a myth.

YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM)

I think it's a matter of where the market is headed. Cell phones are developing at a crazy rate and it's more and more competitive with prices falling and quality increasing.

I think they probably look at it more like, why shouldn't we be the ones making a couple bucks on the hardware side? We already have our Fire/Kindle version of Android, we can simply make the cellular features accessible. Then we have an Amazon phone.

If they didn't have a gazillion manufacturers putting out better and cheaper products by the minute, it wouldn't be so attractive.

Just my guess.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 11:57 AM
As for choice. It's a myth.

YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM)

It's only a myth to people who subscribe to Barry's philosophy. Personally, I don't buy it, I like choice.

----------

I dont think you and I agree on the meaning of the word 'spinoff'.

Unfortunately for you, he's using it correctly, you're not or do not understand what Linux and Mac OS X are and their histories and components unfortunately.

----------

Or you either. So you're saying that Torvalds took no guidance at all from unix? He just happened by the most amazing coincidence to use nearly all the same APIs? Nonsense.

Read my later posts on the subject. Linux originally didn't have any support for POSIX. API support != spinoff.

First, what part of Unix do you refer to that OS X or Linux was spun off from ? The copyrighted AT&T codebase ? The SUS specification ? The UNIX trademark owned and controlled by the Open Group ?

There seems to be a lot about UNIX you just don't grasp to make such a simple and misguided claim.

rjohnstone
Jul 6, 2012, 11:59 AM
I did say it used the same code base, it just can't be called Android. No matter what the code base for it says. Like killjoy, might I suggest actually reading my posts ?

Some people really are obtuse it seems and just can't grasp simple concepts. Amazon will never call it Android, they will never write "Android tablet" anywhere in market material, they won't even write "runs the Android OS code base".

For all intents and purposes, it's not an Android device. It doesn't fragment Android at all.
OMG you can't be serious.
It requires apps to be loaded from... wait for it... the Amazon Appstore for Android.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200729570

Yes... they even describe the Fire as an Android device in the developer comments.
Our goals are to maintain a unified discovery experience for apps within the Amazon Appstore and to ensure that customers who purchase your app on Kindle Fire will be able to enjoy it on other Android devices registered to their Amazon.com accounts.

A little note to Kindle Fire users as well.
Most apps in the Amazon Appstore are compatible with Kindle Fire and other compatible Android devices, but for technical reasons developers have created a Kindle Fire exclusive version of their apps to ensure you're able to use your favorite apps on Kindle Fire.
In other words, developers can make an app that only works on the Fire by simply requiring "ro.product.device=blaze" be present in the build.prop before the app will install.
Same crap other vendors do when they want to lock an app to their specific device.

gixxerfool
Jul 6, 2012, 12:02 PM
So... you're saying that you agree with him that they're both Unix spinoffs?

IIRC Linux is GNU with the Linux kernel. And GNU actually stands for GNUs Not Unix.

SpectatorHere
Jul 6, 2012, 12:03 PM
Most seem to agree that Amazon could easily do a phone with their "not really Android" Android OS on top. And, this is made possible by how cheap and available all these great phones are. So, where does this leave iPhone?

Used to be iPhone was superior in every way to everything else out there. (I know, especially here I'll get people saying it still is, but hear me out.) I think most people see the iPhone now as a really well built phone with a small screen and a great OS. The hardware though, I think most people are visual and look at the vibrant huge AMOLED screens on the newer HTC's, Samsung, et al., they see the LTE, and I think most non-tech people see the iPhone as dated (and fragile!)

That probably will change in the fall with the new model coming out, but assuming it doesn't have the biggest screen, and given that it won't be updated at the rapid pace of the Android phones...where does this leave the iPhone?

Can it still keep people buying it as those Android phones get even cheaper and the OS more polished? Ultimately, Amazon phone or not, how does this all impact the iPhone?

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 12:06 PM
OMG you can't be serious.
It requires apps to be loaded from... wait for it... the Amazon Appstore for Android.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200729570

Yes... they even describe the Fire as an Android device in the developer comments.


A little note to Kindle Fire users as well.

In other words, developers can make an app that only works on the Fire by simply requiring "ro.product.device=blaze" be present in the build.prop before the app will install.
Same crap other vendors do when they want to lock an app to their specific device.

I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere in those notes where they refer to Amazon's Kindle Fire as an Android devices. I see reference to other devices that run Android.

Again, that's something they have to adhere to in order to respect the OHA's rules on the use of the Android Trademark, since they are not an official Android device, even though the run the same code base.

why is that so hard to accept ? BTW, the Amazon App Store is not exclusive to Kindle Fire. They do sell applications for both the Kindle Fire and other Android devices. The store was there before there was a Kindle Fire.

I can't understand what is so hard to understand here. Android is a trademark, first and foremost. See my Firefox - IceWeasel example.

----------

IIRC Linux is GNU with the Linux kernel. And GNU actually stands for GNUs Not Unix.

Linux based distributions are GNU. Linux itself is not a GNU project. Their OS kernel is called HURD.

qtx43
Jul 6, 2012, 12:15 PM
It's only a myth to people who subscribe to Barry's philosophy. Personally, I don't buy it, I like choice.

----------



Unfortunately for you, he's using it correctly, you're not or do not understand what Linux and Mac OS X are and their histories and components unfortunately.

----------



Read my later posts on the subject. Linux originally didn't have any support for POSIX. API support != spinoff.

First, what part of Unix do you refer to that OS X or Linux was spun off from ? The copyrighted AT&T codebase ? The SUS specification ? The UNIX trademark owned and controlled by the Open Group ?

There seems to be a lot about UNIX you just don't grasp to make such a simple and misguided claim.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html

...system calls capable of supporting POSIX.1. ...

Since you mention POSIX. Not that that is the only reason. Something he would 'love to have', he did support bash and was clearly thinking about unix and developing on minix. Oh well, I'm sure I'm not changing you mind. I did initially think the original had some posix support.

gnasher729
Jul 6, 2012, 12:18 PM
Amazon lacks that kind of panache needed to make waves. I can buy stuff from the Amazon store on any device. Why would I need or benefit from buying my phone through Amazon?

Remember when Apple started the iPhone, they were aiming at one percent of the phone market. Maybe Amazon is aiming at one percent of the phone market as well. That should create a decent amount of money for them if they do it in a clever way. And I don't think they are planning on "Taking on Apple" at all. What they want to do is convince a few iPhone users, a few Samsung users, lots of RIM users, lots of Nokia users, to buy an Amazon phone instead.

NeXT MacRumors
Jul 6, 2012, 12:19 PM
YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM)

Awesome video! Thank you for sharing that :)

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 12:19 PM
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html



Since you mention POSIX. Not that that is the only reason.

Hum, did you read that quote ?

As to POSIX,
I'd be delighted to have it, but posix wants money for their papers, so
that's not currently an option.

Linux 0.01 did not support POSIX. Thus, Linux existed prior to any POSIX support. And again, Linux' POSIX implementation (not spin off) is not official and doesn't respect the spec 100%, nor could it pass the SUS.

Again I ask, what do you feel Linux spunoff from Unix ? What part of Unix did Linus use to start his project (again, one he wrote from scratch, using Minix for inspiration if not for code).

Answer the question, I already quoted and posted the USENET posts earlier. You can't use the same evidence I did to say the opposite of what it says.

jokerz126
Jul 6, 2012, 12:22 PM
as soon as Amazon buys Nokia and Rim...then it's "GAME ON"! :)

SpectatorHere
Jul 6, 2012, 12:27 PM
as soon as Amazon buys Nokia and Rim...then it's "GAME ON"! :)

God RIM... just mentioning that company is sad.

But, seriously, Amazon isn't about to buy any company, they'll just license the hardware. That's seriously what they did with the Fire...it's a BB Playbook. They just paid the people who built the playbook to change a couple things and plopped down their version of android on top. They'll do the same thing with a phone if they can make some money off of it. It won't be an iPhone killer or anything really except another cheap hardware platform to point people to their content.

I think it's real likely to happen as prices drop on all these quality Android phones. And don't tell me they're all crap, they've had to innovate and compete with the technology to try to keep up with Apple.

bryanescuela
Jul 6, 2012, 12:31 PM
You mean... "one that would compete head(iPhone)-to-toe(Amazon Phone)"

aced411
Jul 6, 2012, 12:38 PM
...... yay ....not

phr0ze
Jul 6, 2012, 12:38 PM
They are simply making an android phone with core features just like the Fire. The price will be incredible compared to other phones, again just like the Fire.

If won't attract me away as I'm a fanboi now. But I could see it attracting people who can't afford the iphone.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 12:43 PM
they've had to innovate and compete with the technology to try to keep up with Apple.

With the new Nexus and SSG3, one could say that they aren't trying to keep up anymore. The tables are quickly turning.

rmwebs
Jul 6, 2012, 12:52 PM
It has to be a viable alternative in order to be considered healthy competition
That remains to be seen

Without companies like Amazon trying there will NEVER be a viable alternative. I'd rather see Amazon release a low-popularity device than no device at all. There are lessons that can be learnt from anything that is released.

Lindenhurst
Jul 6, 2012, 12:57 PM
Just what we need, more android fragmentation.

Actually what it is is more choices! The fragmentation phrase is getting old.

Xtremehkr
Jul 6, 2012, 01:05 PM
This will be competition for Google, unless Amazon plans on using its own OS. I doubt Amazon will be competing in the high end zone that the iPhone dominates.

The FaceBook phone is coming out later this year as well, supposedly, I can't see what advantages a website specific phone could really offer other than as an accessory. Will the Facebook phone get its own version of the FB app that actually works decently?

If Microsoft releases an integrated Windows 8 phone on their own hardware it could be a pretty formidable challenger to the iPhone. If Microsoft decides to really put some effort into it.

I just hope the Amazon phone doesn't look as bad as the Amazon website does. A cluttered mess of information and junk.

BC2009
Jul 6, 2012, 01:05 PM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Exactly! I don't know what Bezos thinks he can bring to the smartphone market. In a matter of six months, the Nexus 7 has made his Kindle Fire obsolete by a wide margin. The reviews on the two products are like night and day. The cost of smartphones is irrelevant -- they are already free. The cost of data is what matters. Unless Bezos is planning to start his own cellular data provider and give away free data with an Amazon Prime subscription, I don't see what Amazon could probably do that would be interesting. Amazon should focus on apps to promote their stuff -- it seems like everybody is a "me too" when it comes to things Apple is doing.

MCP-511
Jul 6, 2012, 01:10 PM
Why don't they focus on what they originally did well, online sales. I like shopping amazon, the free shipping is nice, but the search results anymore yields far to many duplicate entries with different prices and quite a few say "not available". Someone needs to clean the mess up.

A portfolio of patents would just ultimately lead to more law suits. :p

lilo777
Jul 6, 2012, 01:19 PM
Bloomberg article should have been called " Amazon Planning to Take on Samsung in Smartphone Market". It's not clear why they chose to use Apple.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 01:22 PM
Bloomberg article should have been called " Amazon Planning to Take on Samsung in Smartphone Market". It's not clear why they chose to use Apple.

Bad headline. 1st paragraph is more accurate

"Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) is developing a smartphone that would vie with Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s iPhone and handheld devices that run Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android operating system, two people with knowledge of the matter said."

Meaning - they are going to develop a phone that will be a new competitor to iOS and Android phones.

In other words- they aren't trying to supplant either. They are just coming out with a phone that will be another option. Interesting that Bloomberg's article didn't mention Windows...

Xtremehkr
Jul 6, 2012, 01:23 PM
Bloomberg article should have been called " Amazon Planning to Take on Samsung in Smartphone Market". It's not clear why they chose to use Apple.

I think leadership is better defined by share of profits in the market, by which Apple completely dominates Samsung. From a corporate perspective it's little consolation to sell the highest number of units when Apple is taking over 70% of the profit in the segment.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 01:25 PM
in the high end zone that the iPhone dominates.


Lol.

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2012, 01:31 PM
Awesome video! Thank you for sharing that :)

Professor Schwartz makes some good points. I also like choice but sometimes I do find myself paralyzed by the options. I've had "Analysis Paralysis" more than a few times bringing things to a halt.

----------

Bloomberg article should have been called " Amazon Planning to Take on Samsung in Smartphone Market". It's not clear why they chose to use Apple.

Because that's where the mindshare is

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 01:36 PM
Because that's where the mindshare is

I'm not sure "NEWS" stories should take mindshare into account over accuracy.

Xtremehkr
Jul 6, 2012, 01:37 PM
Lol.

Though it holds only around 9 percent of the global mobile phone market, Apple raked in 75 percent of all profits across the industry last quarter, according to Asymco analyst Horace Dediu.

75% of industry profits would make it a dominant high end phone.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57371790-37/iphone-soaks-up-75-percent-of-all-mobile-phone-profits/

http://iphoneroot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/asymco_q411_iphone_share.jpg

Graphically. Would you rather be in Samsung's position as a market leader in the number of units sold, or Apple's position as the dominant profit maker?

Medic311
Jul 6, 2012, 01:37 PM
how much for 1 rib?

Sasparilla
Jul 6, 2012, 01:39 PM
Well since most of the Phone market, here in the U.S. at least, does not buy their phones outright - they get them via a 2 year contract for no money or some money for the coveted handsets - its hard to see how Amazon is going to do anything here since they don't have a mobile phone network and will have to work with the carriers (who aren't going to allow Amazon to give users a loosing rate since it would affect them long term). They could sell some on pre-paid by selling them for nothing.

But it begs the question, who would want an Amazon branded phone?

Amazon makes okay cheap readers and a tablet (which is not selling well). Who wants to be visually advertising to the world that you've got the on-line "Walmart" branded phone as you go about your life (when you can get a non Amazon branded phone for free, contract, or very little, no contract, just as easily), for some people that won't matter, but for a big chunk of the market it sure would.

Seems poised to be a looser. JMHO

hchung
Jul 6, 2012, 01:41 PM
I did say it used the same code base, it just can't be called Android. No matter what the code base for it says. Like killjoy, might I suggest actually reading my posts ?

Some people really are obtuse it seems and just can't grasp simple concepts. Amazon will never call it Android, they will never write "Android tablet" anywhere in market material, they won't even write "runs the Android OS code base".

For all intents and purposes, it's not an Android device. It doesn't fragment Android at all. And Google can't sue them, they are the ones licensing the code base under an open source license.

Just like IceWeasel isn't Firefox, even though it uses the same source code as Firefox. It's IceWeasel. They even explain how you're not running "Firefox" :

http://www.geticeweasel.org/useragent/

I could be reading this wrong, but according to this (http://www.android.com/developers/branding.html), it could actually be called "Kindle X, an Android tablet" because "Android" is being used as a modifier? You're right that it can't simply be called "Android."

I'm under the impression that Amazon wouldn't want it to be associated with Android because they want to establish their own brand ecosystem rather than attach themselves to Google.

lilo777
Jul 6, 2012, 01:43 PM
Because that's where the mindshare is

Are you suggesting that people who own Samsung phones think more about Apple devices than Samsung ones?

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 01:44 PM
75% of industry profits would make it a dominant high end phone.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57371790-37/iphone-soaks-up-75-percent-of-all-mobile-phone-profits/

Image (http://iphoneroot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/asymco_q411_iphone_share.jpg)

Graphically. Would you rather be in Samsung's position as a market leader in the number of units sold, or Apple's position as the dominant profit maker?

Shortsighted. Why? Because do you have any idea how much event 10% of the market represents in $$?

Samsung is doing just fine. They might not have Apple's profits - but they are making money.

And in the tech world - you're only as good as your latest product(s). Fate can turn on a dime. 10 years ago would you have thought Apple would dominate let alone even be IN the phone market? What would your prediction have been for RIM 10 years ago? Nokia? Get the idea? The past and even the present doesn't dictate the future.

rendevouspoo
Jul 6, 2012, 01:44 PM
Amazon makes okay cheap readers and a tablet. Who wants to be visually publicly advertising you've got the on-line "Walmart" branded phone to the world as you go about your life (when you can get a non Amazon branded phone for free or very little just as easily), for some people that won't matter, but for a big chunk of the market it sure would.


Firstly, are you saying that their products are 'cheap' as in price or 'cheap' as in quality? If it's the latter, you are wrong. They have wonderful products for the price. Secondly, why are you equating Amazon to Walmart? Two totally different business with polar opposite business ethics. Amazon has arguably the best customer service out of all the tech businesses. Lastly, why the hell should anyone give a damn about what other people think of YOUR phone? Who gives a damn if you're branded a certain way because of what electronic you're using. You're post completely confirms the stereotype surrounding Apple products. Most people on this site are very rational about it, but then there are people like you. Apple CAN be beat.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 01:47 PM
Well since most of the Phone market, here in the U.S. at least, does not buy their phones outright - they get them via a 2 year contract for no money or some money for the coveted handsets - its hard to see how Amazon is going to do anything here since they don't have a mobile phone network and will have to work with the carriers (who aren't going to allow Amazon to give users a loosing rate since it would affect them long term). They could sell some on pre-paid by selling them for nothing.

But it begs the question, who would want an Amazon branded phone?

Amazon makes okay cheap readers and a tablet (which is not selling well). Who wants to be visually advertising to the world that you've got the on-line "Walmart" branded phone as you go about your life (when you can get a non Amazon branded phone for free, contract, or very little, no contract, just as easily), for some people that won't matter, but for a big chunk of the market it sure would.

Seems poised to be a looser. JMHO

Because not everyone thinks of Amazon as the "walmart" of branded phones. Because Amazon has a pretty good ecosystem already and lots of people LIVE on Amazon. There are a lot of reasons an Amazon phone could be successful regardless if *I* personally wouldn't buy one. Which - at this stage - I couldn't even tell you. You know. Because it doesn't exist yet.

A year ago you'd never convince me I'd own an Android phone either.

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 01:51 PM
I could be reading this wrong, but according to this (http://www.android.com/developers/branding.html), it could actually be called "Kindle X, an Android tablet" because "Android" is being used as a modifier? You're right that it can't simply be called "Android."

Those guidelines are not for people using the Android code base, they are for people writing Android applications.

Sasparilla
Jul 6, 2012, 02:20 PM
Firstly, are you saying that their products are 'cheap' as in price or 'cheap' as in quality? If it's the latter, you are wrong. They have wonderful products for the price. Secondly, why are you equating Amazon to Walmart? Two totally different business with polar opposite business ethics. Amazon has arguably the best customer service out of all the tech businesses. Lastly, why the hell should anyone give a damn about what other people think of YOUR phone? Who gives a damn if you're branded a certain way because of what electronic you're using. You're post completely confirms the stereotype surrounding Apple products. Most people on this site are very rational about it, but then there are people like you. Apple CAN be beat.

Well, well my gosh...then there are people "like me" and my opinion eh? How dare I think and post, right?

Dude, loosen up...its just a Mac forum and we're talking about a theoretical Amazon product that may or may not be real.

I've had several Kindle's and like them, but they are cheap (price) and are built cheap (the back of my current one can easily flex under finger pressure), but reliable (for me so far).

Just like I said, for some people (like yourself perhaps) Amazon branding wouldn't matter, but for a big chunk of the market, I think it would....and there isn't a problem here for Amazon to solve (like the $200 tablet market that didn't exist before) of no inexpensive phones out there....just look at all the prepaid phones you can get for just initial air time costs or a little more....the market has tons of them. For contract phones you can get even more for just the contract.

If Amazon brings some out, by all means let them have at it, it just doesn't look like there's a market or a problem there for Amazon to solve (much less compelling than the Fire)....hence my opinion i.e. destined to be a loser. But we'll see.

----------

Because not everyone thinks of Amazon as the "walmart" of branded phones. Because Amazon has a pretty good ecosystem already and lots of people LIVE on Amazon. There are a lot of reasons an Amazon phone could be successful regardless if *I* personally wouldn't buy one. Which - at this stage - I couldn't even tell you. You know. Because it doesn't exist yet.

A year ago you'd never convince me I'd own an Android phone either.


You could be totally right, but at this point since Amazon doesn't have their own wireless network & they can't subsidize user phone plans at a loss and they will just be another phone vendor and there's already lots of free smart phones on contract and a good amount of "free" (just initial air time costs) prepaid phones...I just can't see the market for them to create. JMHO though. We get to wait and see, if the rumor is real.

Xtremehkr
Jul 6, 2012, 02:20 PM
Shortsighted. Why? Because do you have any idea how much event 10% of the market represents in $$?

Samsung is doing just fine. They might not have Apple's profits - but they are making money.

Since Apple has 9% of the market and 75% of the smart phone market profit then 25% of the profit in that market is divided amongst the other 81% of the phones sold in that market.

I'd say Samsung in probably making a very slim profit margin, it's also more costly to be making so many phones. It just requires a bigger operation that doesn't always work more efficiently.

The point was that shipping the highest number of units is a poor metric for who the market leader is. Profit share is a better indicator of how desirable a phone is to consumers.

samcraig
Jul 6, 2012, 02:26 PM
Since Apple has 9% of the market and 75% of the smart phone market profit then 25% of the profit in that market is divided amongst the other 81% of the phones sold in that market.

I'd say Samsung in probably making a very slim profit margin, it's also more costly to be making so many phones. It just requires a bigger operation that doesn't always work more efficiently.

The point was that shipping the highest number of units is a poor metric for who the market leader is. Profit share is a better indicator of how desirable a phone is to consumers.

I don't disagree. But I'll add that marketshare is important too. Because of conversion. Meaning - if (throwing out a random number here) if Samsung has 50% of that 81% - and people love their phones - they can do a lot to adjust their profit margin (i.e. less phones released, more profit margin). We could argue which is a harder thing to attain - profit margin or marketshare - but I don't think either one of is is qualified (enough).

My point - vague as it it - is that both are important in the overall picture.

Xtremehkr
Jul 6, 2012, 02:32 PM
I don't disagree. But I'll add that marketshare is important too. Because of conversion. Meaning - if (throwing out a random number here) if Samsung has 50% of that 81% - and people love their phones - they can do a lot to adjust their profit margin (i.e. less phones released, more profit margin). We could argue which is a harder thing to attain - profit margin or marketshare - but I don't think either one of is is qualified (enough).

My point - vague as it it - is that both are important in the overall picture.

It certainly helps Samsung as a large scale manufacturer who make lots of components for other companies.

user418
Jul 6, 2012, 02:50 PM
Lots of interesting discussions/tirades/questions/drivel on this new revelation. Personally, whether late to the party or not, succeed or fail, I welcome the advent of newcomers. Quite often unseemly things happen when one company, political party, race, etc. dominates.....

moldy912
Jul 6, 2012, 02:58 PM
All this will be is a Fire phone. It will have little to no local storage and will use Amazon's cloud service to store music, books, etc. This is not appealing to me at all, because it takes a fixed cost and makes it subscription based (upfront memory cost vs. yearly cloud storage cost).

Glideslope
Jul 6, 2012, 03:00 PM
One word: Competition, my dear friends, competition.

Always a good thing.:apple:

...and will do nothing except drive the growth of iOS. I'll bet Eric is not a happy camper today. :apple:

Sasparilla
Jul 6, 2012, 03:19 PM
All this will be is a Fire phone. It will have little to no local storage and will use Amazon's cloud service to store music, books, etc. This is not appealing to me at all, because it takes a fixed cost and makes it subscription based (upfront memory cost vs. yearly cloud storage cost).

I think you've got it nailed (if its real). I suppose to keep people in their system for buying audio / video / books (on a phone) and possibly sell more stuff on Amazon to the buyers (was thinking we'd heard the Fire buyers bought more stuff on Amazon...) it might be worth it to Amazon somehow to try this (sure seems expensive if it flubs)...

That leads one down the path that a Fire TV would really make sense for Amazon as well (portal to buying stuff but importantly lock the future streaming revenue to Amazon)....

faroZ06
Jul 6, 2012, 03:39 PM
Google is going to be ****.

What's supposed to fit in the "****"?

----------

All this will be is a Fire phone. It will have little to no local storage and will use Amazon's cloud service to store music, books, etc. This is not appealing to me at all, because it takes a fixed cost and makes it subscription based (upfront memory cost vs. yearly cloud storage cost).

Exactly. The cloud may be the "future", but it won't work for big files. Bandwidth cannot be upgraded as much or as frequently as flash memory can at the moment.

something3153
Jul 6, 2012, 03:39 PM
Awesome video! Thank you for sharing that :)

Really? I found it to be unconvincing and poorly-supported. And that's my polite evaluation. You're welcome to move to a communist country if you think life is better without choices.

faroZ06
Jul 6, 2012, 03:41 PM
Are you suggesting that people who own Samsung phones think more about Apple devices than Samsung ones?

That may actually be true, and some iPhone users probably think more about Samsung phones than Apple ones. You don't have to think much about a phone you already have.

saturn88
Jul 6, 2012, 03:42 PM
Amazon may succeed if they release low cost 5.5" eReader/microtablet/phone hybrid similar to Samsung Note.

- A single eReader/microtablet/phone device makes practical sense
- The competition there is small. Note available only on ATT

faroZ06
Jul 6, 2012, 03:43 PM
Incorrect.
Not being able to use a trademark descriptor does not change what it is.
It is still Android.
It's using the level 10 SDK and API stack. (Gingerbread).
That makes it an Android device.

Google can only bar them from using trademarks, not the name of the open source code it was built upon.

Read the build.prop file.



OMG... it says it's Android.... Google should sue! :rolleyes:

You know, "Droid" is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm. It even says so on the bottom of Droid ads if you look carefully. I'm assuming they licensed it. I don't know if this also goes for "Android" or not.

saturn88
Jul 6, 2012, 03:58 PM
I'd like to see the source that says they are losing money from the Fire. Even if they are, they are more than making up for it in the selling of their e-books. They run the world of e-books.

No. Amazon is not loosing money from the Fire. It's a myth. These days it cost less then $100 to make a tablet. Best Buy sells plenty of those:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=2360467191232290557&id=pcat17080&type=page&lcn=Computers+%26+Tablets&sc=abComputerSP&st=processingtime%3A%3E1900-01-01&usc=abcat0500000&cp=1&sp=%2Bcurrentprice+skuid&nrp=15&qp=q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0500000%23%230%23%2374f~~cpcmcat2090 00050006%23%230%23%23tg~~nf865%7C%7C416e64726f6964&add_to_pkg=false&pagetype=listing&gf=y

Amazon makes pretty penny on the Fire. And Apple is milking a consumer big time.

Chris in IL
Jul 6, 2012, 04:10 PM
By far the biggest opportunity for a new phone maker is to do something to make the monthly payment to the carriers more affordable. For most people the new Verizon plans are worse than the old ones, for example, and with data caps combined with 4G a lot of people can't use their smartphones like they'd like to (streaming a lot of Netflix, Rdio, etc.).

Could amazon come up with some way to fix that problem by offering a subsidized phone with unlimited 4G and smaller monthly bills? That is the only way they can set themselves apart because how much different is another Android based device similar to the Kindle Fire really going to be compared to what's out there now?

I really doubt they have a way to make the monthly payment more affordable while getting around data caps so I don't see this as a huge success. The carriers are the limiting factor by far, and that should be the focus for whoever wants to release a game changing device. And I don't think even amazon has that ability. Apple doesn't, so I can't imagine amazon doing an end-around the system. But if they did, by offering a competent 4G device that revolves around the amazon ecosystem, that's cheaper to purchase, offers unlimited high speed data, and a lower monthly cost, they would not only compete they would become the second best selling handset, kind of like the Kindle Fire compared to the iPad.

AR999
Jul 6, 2012, 04:14 PM
Not something I would be remotely interested in, but I'm sure there would be some who would find it compelling

Typical macrumors user...

You don't even know what it is yet.

Chris in IL
Jul 6, 2012, 04:16 PM
What's supposed to fit in the "****"?

----------



Exactly. The cloud may be the "future", but it won't work for big files. Bandwidth cannot be upgraded as much or as frequently as flash memory can at the moment.

I agree totally. The whole "cloud" storage idea is not compatible with current data caps. Until that is addressed it is not realistic to rely on cloud storage. It's okay for a wifi device used at home I guess, but to really rely on cloud storage we need 4G and unlimited data. Without that it's just silly to pretend that it can take the place of expanded flash memory.

PinkyMacGodess
Jul 6, 2012, 04:27 PM
And so the arrogant fall... :rolleyes:

rjohnstone
Jul 6, 2012, 04:33 PM
I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere in those notes where they refer to Amazon's Kindle Fire as an Android devices. I see reference to other devices that run Android.

Again, that's something they have to adhere to in order to respect the OHA's rules on the use of the Android Trademark, since they are not an official Android device, even though the run the same code base.

why is that so hard to accept ? BTW, the Amazon App Store is not exclusive to Kindle Fire. They do sell applications for both the Kindle Fire and other Android devices. The store was there before there was a Kindle Fire.

I can't understand what is so hard to understand here. Android is a trademark, first and foremost. See my Firefox - IceWeasel example.

Now who's being obtuse.

Android is the name of the OS... period.
The Kindle runs on the Android OS and was built using the level 10 SDK.
This makes it Android.
It runs native Android applications without emulation. That makes it Android.

The OHA's rules say if you don't include Google's crap, you cannot use the Android name in marketing. That doesn't change the fact that it's an Android device.

Getting into semantics over the OS name is beyond idiotic.

The Appstore reference was to simply point out that only Android compatible apps are listed/sold in that store.
Hence the name Amazon Appstore for Android.
A store front to which the Kindle Fire is locked too.

It's not called the Amazon Appstore for Android and Kindle Fire. Why? Because it would be redundant.

faroZ06
Jul 6, 2012, 04:45 PM
Typical macrumors user...

You don't even know what it is yet.

No, he knows a few things about it. I've already decided not to buy it because:

1) I don't need a tablet.
2) I want a device that works well with my PC, and Amazon does not have a PC, let alone one that I actually use.
3) I never buy "version 1" stuff. I feel bad for people who bought the iPad 1.

----------

I agree totally. The whole "cloud" storage idea is not compatible with current data caps. Until that is addressed it is not realistic to rely on cloud storage. It's okay for a wifi device used at home I guess, but to really rely on cloud storage we need 4G and unlimited data. Without that it's just silly to pretend that it can take the place of expanded flash memory.

Even the Chrome laptop seems to have failed. You can't use it AT ALL without an internet connection, which people don't always have. Someone at my school had one because he somehow got to beta test it, and he tried to petition the school to have school-wide wifi. The poor guy could only use it in one room.

I'd take a one-time flash memory cost over a monthly 3G/4G plan for sure.

Sedrick
Jul 6, 2012, 04:50 PM
Maybe they'll actually be the first to introduce a fantastic new unibody design with a gorgeous 4+" screen with an appropriately sized battery and an SD memory slot so you can actually put your stuff on it. (I'm looking at you, HTC)

Buildbright
Jul 6, 2012, 05:07 PM
This looks like the biggest joke in cellphones today. I want an ebay phone or better yet a newegg phone.

Chris in IL
Jul 6, 2012, 05:33 PM
One possible solution would be for amazon to subsidize the cost of using amazon services over 4G in the same way that it was rumored Netflix and others might start doing. For example, all of your streaming from amazon's cloud of songs and video that you own, as well as amazon's streaming video service would not count against your data cap because amazon is paying for it. They could possibly come up with other services like an amazon version of Spotify that also would be paid for by amazon. Maybe a GPS/mapping service. Maybe when using their browser it wouldn't count against your total data, etc. That would be one way to lock folks into the amazon ecosystem while they're still stuck with the carriers' crappy monthly plans. That would be a huge benefit to have unlimited bandwidth when using amazon's services and would truly set them apart. Combine that with a less expensive phone that you could afford to buy outright without a contract (though you'd still have to use the usual carriers which are expensive though) then they could set themselves apart and be successful.

Can they make that money back by having people buy more music, books and movies? That is the big question.

twoodcc
Jul 6, 2012, 06:28 PM
if they can produce a good product for cheap, why not go for it? but i doubt they can

StyxMaker
Jul 6, 2012, 06:30 PM
OK, I'm calling it now. The new device will be called:


Kindle Ember


Or possibly

Kindle Spark.

I totally should work in marketing.



Other possibilities which will be rejected: Kindle Smokepuff, Kindle Bic Lighter

What's wrong with Kindle Phone?

Amazing Iceman
Jul 6, 2012, 09:11 PM
It doesn't hurt to dream...
Let them dream...

----------

What's wrong with Kindle Phone?

How about Kindle Mingle? :D

KnightWRX
Jul 6, 2012, 09:52 PM
The OHA's rules say if you don't include Google's crap, you cannot use the Android name in marketing.

Finally, glad we agree. It's not an Android tablet, it's a Kindle Fire.

saturn88
Jul 6, 2012, 10:08 PM
Amazon will call it aPhone

LosAltosHills
Jul 6, 2012, 11:21 PM
"A smartphone would give Amazon a wider range of low-priced hardware devices..."

The Kindle Fire didn't exactly take on the iPad....



Not the same market.

well one can argue that the reason apple is going to make a 7 inch tablet is because of the Fire.

ericinboston
Jul 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
As an Apple customer of more than a few months you should be aware that competition is NOT what does anything at Apple. They don't do as or when the other boys do. On timetables, features etc.
Is that even Englsh?! Sheez. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

WindWaker
Jul 7, 2012, 12:21 AM
well one can argue that the reason apple is going to make a 7 inch tablet is because of the Fire.

Sure, but they are competing in a new sub-market. By entering said-market, Apple now has the ability to sell even more tablets.

It's similar to desktops vs laptops, or Pro vs Air.

Puevlo
Jul 7, 2012, 12:49 AM
Apple are already reeling from the Kindle Fire nerfing iPad sales. How are Apple going to survive this phone?

bigpics
Jul 7, 2012, 02:23 AM
What will its major selling points be? That will be the big question.

Lots of people on the forums are underrating Amazon IMHO.

The major selling points:

1. The Amazon ecosystem.

2. Amazon.

3. The ecosystem.

Amazon has a considerable number of advantages over Google and Microsoft - its whole roots lie in purveying media and goods. The Google "Play" store is a joke by any comparison, e.g.

Their own device software operation doesn't compare to Apple's (but Amazon's own retail web, partner store, credit card and fulfillment operations are a huge and amazing monster chunk of software in their own right - which has to be at least as complicated and sophisticated (and well-executed) as any OS, so yes they know software).

And they don't have the world's hottest (or any) brick and mortar locations, but in other ways they surpass Cupertino in the "store" field - one example: You can even buy an iPad or Mac from Amazon, but you can't buy a Fire from Apple (or a PC or galoshes or toothpaste or.... ..millions of other things).

And in another way they have a cost advantage over Apple and (via!) Google. Google's committed to doing all their core OS development for them for free. And Amazon's free to "cut them off at the app store" with their fork of Android to grab the sales.

Not to mention they're building up a good number of years of device design and subcontracting now - you have to consider them more than a hopeless newbie as an electronics manufacturer now. They're no Apple by any means, but at low enough prices they don't have to be to carve out a niche with all their retail content and popularity. I'm a regular merch customer for one.

And cloud? Amazon's been running huge server farms much longer than Apple. They also host many other companies on their backbone. One of the big web backup companies I was considering for sure. Take out Amazon and see what happens to the internet. Whereas, take out facebook and lots of people would have to start doing things in the realer world, but otherwise, meh.

So I consider them the fourth contender behind Apple, Google and MS. And a dark horse that could make a good run with a nimble jockey and a few breaks.

(As for #2 and 3, Google's got a big early lead on MS, but MS has some institutional strengths GOOG doesn't - and both are prone to bone-headed costly moves. And either could be taken out - by the other, by AAPL or by... ...someone else.)

It's not gonna be facebook phones or Firefox phones or Blackberries (tho' running Win phone or Android with a keyboard could be a hail Mary). Or Open Web OS. Or Samsung. And Apple's got the lead in their own hands mindshare and profit-wise in some markets, and the lead period in others (esp. tablets).

But Amazon might have enough of the pieces, smarts and staying power to become a major player.

PS: Another reason why a 7.85" iPad makes sense for AAPL. It's very much in their strategic interest not to let Android or Amazon get too viable a niche that will feed other tablet developer communities - because that software will inevitably migrate up into the market for 10" tablets and start to take bits at least of market share from the market Apple now rules.

Whatever, don't be so quick to write off Jeff Bezos and Co.

EbookReader
Jul 7, 2012, 03:32 AM
Predictions:

Price: $199 retail for the prepaid market. (T-Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Boost, Straighttalk, Cricket, MetroPCS etc...)

Margin: very very low (maybe $2 profit per phone sold). Amazon is in this market to promote its digital ecosystem (digital music, ebook, digital movies, apps etc...) and sell physical products through Amazon Store. It will come out ahead even if it just break-even on the hardware.


The name: Amazon Kphone


The smartphone market until now: MAKE (HUGE) PROFITS ON HARDWARE (Apple and Samsung are two examples)
Amazon: BREAK EVEN ON HARDWARE


Can FoxConn create a decent "hardware" on $170-180? With other costs added, it will retail for $199 (a break-even phone).

slapple
Jul 7, 2012, 03:38 AM
Name: Amphone

EbookReader
Jul 7, 2012, 03:44 AM
Name: Amphone

kPhone sounds better than Amphone IMO.


Another prediction: Amazon teams up with T-Mobile. No contract smartphone

$60 a month for

UNLIMITED MUSIC DOWNLOADS (similar to Cricket's Muve Music)
UNLIMITED SHIPPING on items purchased from Amazon
UNLIMITED TALK, TEXT
2.5GB of DATA

$199 kphone that can be purchased on Amazon (Amazon can market this product on its front page), T-Mobile stores and mass retailers that carry T-Mobile prepaid like Wal-greens, Best Buy etc...

Monthly Payment: deduct monthly from Amazon account (Amazon giftcard for those without debit/credit card).

Amazon became a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) of T-Mobile. It already got the payment system set up. Amazon also has GREAT customer service, something that a lot of prepaid carriers lack.


It's a win for T-Mobile to have Amazon as a MVNO.







Would you pay $60 a month on a no-contract smartphone with unlimited shipping from Amazon, unlimited music downloads, unlimited talk, unlimited text and 2.5GB of data?

On a decent $199 (break-even) Android smartphone?

A lot won't but I bet some will.


--------If the Nexus7 can be created for $199, I don't see why a decent smartphone can't be created at the same price.

NorEaster
Jul 7, 2012, 09:13 AM
Well since most of the Phone market, here in the U.S. at least, does not buy their phones outright - they get them via a 2 year contract for no money or some money for the coveted handsets - its hard to see how Amazon is going to do anything here since they don't have a mobile phone network and will have to work with the carriers (who aren't going to allow Amazon to give users a loosing rate since it would affect them long term). They could sell some on pre-paid by selling them for nothing.

But it begs the question, who would want an Amazon branded phone?

Amazon makes okay cheap readers and a tablet (which is not selling well). Who wants to be visually advertising to the world that you've got the on-line "Walmart" branded phone as you go about your life (when you can get a non Amazon branded phone for free, contract, or very little, no contract, just as easily), for some people that won't matter, but for a big chunk of the market it sure would.

Seems poised to be a looser. JMHO

Yup... and people wonder why Apple users get stereotyped as superficial jerks who buy Apple products just so others can see them using their iDevices.

@Sasparilla - thanks for holding up the stereotype. Can you take your fanboy-ism elsewhere so the rest of us Apple users don't get branded this way?

mac*jedi*g
Jul 7, 2012, 11:59 AM
Coin it:

'Zonphone (TM pending) :p:p

DaffyDuck
Jul 7, 2012, 12:43 PM
The selling point will be the Amazon ecosystem. This is what Apple and Google have that RIM is really missing.

What will its major selling points be? That will be the big question.

Analog Kid
Jul 7, 2012, 12:56 PM
When I bought AMZN I thought I was buying into an online retailer, not a Sony wannabe. They're all caught up in CEO vanity projects. Bezos wants to imagine himself as cool as Jobs and the Google boys, and he's going to shipwreck his company on his ego.

gsugolfer
Jul 7, 2012, 01:21 PM
Amazon could acquire RIM with spare change.
Why...who would want that mess....

RIM needs a complete make over to survive.

They've already entertained the idea and walked away.

Boston007
Jul 8, 2012, 08:31 AM
Amazon should stick to two things on the consumer side: eBooks and selling other people's stuff.

Too bad Apple had to meddle their hands in the ebooks area, now the ebook prices are sometimes higher than the PRINT versions. What a joke.

JerzeyLegend
Jul 8, 2012, 04:04 PM
This is going to be an interesting race.

Apple iPad Mini
Microsoft Surface
Amazon Kindle
Nexus 7

I'm sort of a MS fan-boy (the geeky good kind, not the competition hating kind), and I think that the Surface (if priced right) will change the tablet market. Win8 works great as both a mobile OS and full on desktop OS.

Apple has something with a smaller iPad, but I think it's time for apple to perhaps change the OS aesthetically. However Apple already has its feet far deep in the app market, and no one can compete with that. Apple should perhaps stop being so pricey and it would sell more.

I don't really like the Kindle, and what I did use of it seemed pretty lame. The idea behind it is great. However, the rumor mill is currently whispering of an ad supported version of the phone/tablet.

The Nexus 7 is great, but is lacking a few things that would have elevated it above the Kindle and other tablets in its market. Perhaps, they will learn from this one and do so on the next.


So another tablet will be great competition. If they could stop suing each other for 2 minutes, they could all learn from each other, and do competition the right way. Win customers by offering a product more awesome than the next guys, and not brute force.


Just my two cents.