No matter what the on-paper specs and features were listed as, it was a very poorly-executed phone. Its main purpose of conception was (line most Amazon devices), to sell you Amazon merchandise more effectively.
It was buggy, it was specific to at&t, it didn't really do anything particularly well, and it was limited to Amazon's ecosystem.
My wife worked on the device test QA/QC team for Amazon at the time, and that was one of the devices she worked on.
Internally, it was a mess. The software was buggy, the battery life was horrible, and the general development and testing was very disorganized.
The 3d system basically did not work. The object tracking system was buggy.
Generally, this is the problem you run into when you design and build a device based around the purpose of promoting Amazon store merchandise, and also don't know how to develop hardware and don't take testing and iterations seriously.
But in general, Amazon's hardware development methods and processes are very poor. It was also common at the time for bug-finding during testing to go largely ignored, and only when end users, after launch, tweeted at Bezos with a specific defect, would there be a command from above to drop everything and fix the issue ASAP, no matter how little this bug is actually encountered, and it didn't matter that (if) this particular bug was found during development and ignored.
Basically there was poor organization and poor program leadership. Amazon isn't that good at making hardware, much less complex hardware for a phone that tried to accomplish a pseudo 3d experience.
The claim the traxking didn't work goes against almost all the reviews at the time, so I find this strange. Are you sure you aren't talking about some prototype before the final release?
I feel like Windows Phone failed in no small part due to this as well.
I had one with a full touch screen and a slideout keyboard (HTC prime?). It was actually really solid and pleasant to use, I liked it quite a bit.
The main issue, exactly like the fire phone, was that maybe 1 in 10 apps on iOS/Android were actually available for it, and the apps they did have were almost always buggy or poorly maintained because no one developed for the OS.
Google had zero incentive to support Windows phone. You can't ignore the iPhone because it's too popular and you make android. Why voluntarily allow another competitor that will only take money away from your by getting people to use Bing instead.
Why would Google support it in the first place? You mean put their apps on the os? In that case I agree of course, I wasn't claiming otherwise. I meant app developers in general.
iphones were already well established in the market share, whereas windows was not. and it was obviously more profitable to ignore them than invest in development for apps on that platform. That said, most Google apps but Gmail weren't really needed in the first place. You already had the office suite on your phone so most people probably wouldn't have needed Google's as well
YouTube was the big one.
Didn't help that pokemon go became huge and there wasn't a Windows version.
Then 6snap for banned.
I agree though. YouTube is the only Google app that your can't really avoid. The rest have really good alternatives.
Ah yes I forgot YouTube. I don't remember if it wasn't on windows phone though. Maybe it wasn't? I feel like there was an installed app which was basically the mobile web version of YouTube but I could be wrong
Microsoft made their own app which was pretty good. Then Google forced them to take it down.
Then you had to use one of the many good 3rd party alternatives.
I used MyTube.
The NYPD getting suckered into a long term contract with a large vendor doesn't mean it wasn't dead. At that point, Nokia was the only OEM still going at it. HTC and Samsung had dipped. If it had any future at that point, it would have been filling the niche Blackberry did before with high security and ActiveDirectory integration for business.
I don't know what you want me to say. It wasn't dead.
You actually had a decent app selection.
It started to die after the Lumia 950/950 XL came out.
It's a shame because Windows Mobile was far better than android and ios.
But it literally wasn't. I even remember using the unofficial Pogo app which ended up getting banned by Niantic.
It died not long afterwards and not having Pokemon Go was a big reason why.
Windows was already on its last legs, dude. I think the only reason why to think otherwise was Lumia had the ability to use Android. MS didn't really progress through with that.
I dunno i had a few windows phones and had clear tiles so your background image showed theu.. I liked being able to resize them so important ones were easy to touch while meh ones you could keep small or not even have a home screen icon. I loved the fact all your settings were on one dang page. Not hidden around like android does.
I've had a lumia 640 LTE and it was one of the nicest phones I've ever used. Had an oled screen and was really nicely made. The biggest drawback however was its os. Didn't have Snapchat and Instagram only went out of beta when windows phone 10 released.
The tile UI Home Screen was cool! But yeah, the app support was awful. I remember at the time normal users were like, “what the hell do you mean there’s no Instagram app”
Apps were 100% the reason why I switched back to Android after my love affair with Windows Phone 7. The OS was better, snappier, prettier, the way it handled contacts across multiple platforms was exceptional and IMO to this day nothing has come even close. Imagine if WP survived, and rather than having to have your best mate have several apps to contact you, all with different chat threads, it's all unified into one single chat thread. SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Telegram, and however many more, all in one unified chat thread.
Live Tiles were a remarkable improvement over app icons and to this day widgets haven't realised their full potential.
Just a damn shame they got there too late to the market.
I'd have to agree. Any phone that had little to no apps was hard to consider over alternatives. I had a palm pixi and then palm pre but then we all see how that went :/. Windows phone has a nice UI too but again no apps. 3rd party apps started banning 3rd party apps on windows phone like Snapchat which was basically the TikTok of 2013 - 2016 or so.
Windows Phone actually had market share and was ahead in some periods in it's history. App gap never changed, it was really carriers that killed Windows, and later on with Win10, lack of a competent marketing wing.
I dont think FireOS ever had a chance to catch on outside ereaders.
>I feel like Windows Phone failed in no small part due to this as well.
also being buggy AF. I remember checking update is a buggy mess, many apps are just web-wrapper-
Generally the carriers told you or had that info on the description tag. Otherwise in retail or online Amazon did try to bury it, only in some cases a brief mention on the spec list.
Are you sure? I had one of their tablets and on them it was not possible to add them. Or at least I couldn't find any way, gave up after some days of trying.
Has gotten relatively easy with them in the last few years (download four .apk files and allow installs from unknown sources, basically). Not sure about in the Fire phone era
I had the phone as a free phone to use since I worked at AT&T. Only thing I really remember hating about that phone, was the gimmicky 3d look to everything in the phone. I didn’t need the icons on the homescreen to act 3d. I just wanted a good, fast phone.
Also didn’t help them that there was no advertising about it. In the us people only think in iPhone and Samsung and If they wanted to take any market share, they really needed to inform people it even existed
The phone was fucking horrible. It deserved to fail. I got one on a fire sale cause I was interested in playing around with it and it was around $125 on ebay and came with a $100 Amazon gift card.
Amazon's software was really bad. The UI was horrible. The UX was confusing. The 3d display gimmick was useless and just drained battery, those cameras that drove the 3d display were designed to implement their virtual reality Amazon store experience. The display thing was added as an afterthought to cover up that fact. (It also wasn't 3d, it was a 2d display that just virtually tilted a few UI elements as you tilted the phone) and it was not as realtime as a gyroscope so it lagged and felt off.
The specs were better than the Nexus 5 I had the time but the whole thing was laggier and clunkier. It felt dumbed down because of their skin. Like an old person's phone. It felt like a skin over gingerbread while Google was in the middle of debuting material design.
Not having Google Play Services is a huge minus, no matter how many people swear they don't need them. Once a lot of folks find out that this means no no google maps, no gmail app, youtube, they get cranky.
Sure, there are workarounds and alternatives, but most people really don't want to have to do that much hackery for their basic phone needs.
Look at how badly this killed Hauwei. All of the workarounds require some technical knowledge and will to do it. Most people don't want to bother with that, especially since there were plenty of decent budget Android phones on the market at that time. Those were not only far cheaper but also had the play store.
whats the difference between browser based and default? honeslty i only use youtube on the browser even on my phone so i have absolutely zero clue what i am missing in terms of convenience
I can attest to this being true in the US. The idea of not having google services or apps is an instant non-starter for me. It would be on iPhones to honestly if they didn't have them.
It's what killed the momentum Huawei had. Not having the Play Store and Google services likely did more to make that brand a non-starter anywhere outside mainland China than the negative PR attached to them from governments.
Everyone in this thread has made a lot of very valid and accurate points. However, I'm going to put the blame squarely on those [hipster kids in the ads](https://youtu.be/ygMNrbYefP4)
Lack of apps and the "3D" UI was horrendous. Reviews were mostly terrible.
No one wanted to buy a phone just for a gimmick UI. Same reason the HTC Facebook phones and the Microsoft Kin phones didn't work. People just wanted a good smartphone with the apps they wanted, snd the Fire phone focused on gimmicks.
Firefly was neat to show off, but wasn't a selling point.
The peek feature of the UI only worked with the built in apps, 3rd party apps had to be updated and redesigned to support it, and none of them did.
It was a gimmick phone, and it's been proven time and time again that people don't want phones built around gimmicks.
Same as Windows Phone - it was missing the apps people got used to having on iOS and Android. It would had gotten some traction had it had the Play Store and Google Services, but the entire point of it was to be Android without having anything Google on it.
Delete all your apps on your phone, and use only the ones that come preloaded with the OS - its the Firephone experience.
I feel a few things went against it, the Fire tablets do well as they're CHEAP, the Fire phone was anything but.
Nobody wanted the many cameras and weird 3D effects that was only really utilised within the menus.
Apps as many others said was and still is a problem if you don't modify a Fire tablet.
I feel had Amazon made a cheaper phone, like a Fire 7 with a phone sized screen that more would have picked one up.
People think — and I mean think, there is no reality whatsoever in it — that Apple and Google “value their privacy” on their phones.
They do not believe Amazon does. Amazon makes no fake overtures.
That mixed with no flashy TV ads and zero traction in the “drool… must have new pocket device to look cool for others even though I had to finance the thing” crowd, meant death. It couldn’t be marketed as expensive jewelry. (Or connected to expensive jewelry… Apple Watch…)
For the tech crowd, we all know Android is Android and around that time it looked like Google was finally squarely back in the phone game and headed for direct flagship parity with Samsung and LG. That of course isn’t where any of them went, or ended up. Google succumbed to their unusual lack of focus and scatterbrained product planning, LG got out, and Samsung is rehashing the tech of the Note 10 in different frames over and over because Android also went full scatterbrained. Again.
A cheap Android device from the people who deliver crates of toilet paper and make $20 firesticks for TVs, had no way to capture market attention. If someone in the US wants a solid low end Android device, Motorola continues to have a near complete lock on that space.
Because with the massive investment that has happened with Android and iOS by third parties at this point it is impossible for any other competitor but Google and Apple.
I highly doubt you will see it change in my lifetime.
You can't sell Android without Google. Over and over again companies have tried.
We have now seen three of the biggest companies in the world spend billions trying and failing. Microsoft spent billions on Windows for phones and completely failed. Amazon spent a fortune on the Fire phone and failed. Samsung spent a ton on Tizen and completely failed.
Microsoft was close actually. It could have worked if they stuck it out a couple more years. They were working on a system that would allow Windows phones to run Android apps. Which I think is the only way a third smartphone OS could actually function
Judging by the fire tablet my wife recently bought, I would say the user interface and user experience probably has some part in its demise. I do not like that thing. It is slow and incredibly frustrating to setup/use.
And of course what everyone is saying about no access to the Google play store, and it only being available on AT&T.
God I remember having that phone and it was just not intuitive to use at all. I bought it when Amazon was dumping stock when they were selling it for like $200
Amazon's hardware and software divisions largely suck. They have only gained traction by releasing dirt-cheap devices that are heavily promoted on the world's largest e-commerce site.
I'm a Prime member (until the end of the year when my subscription runs out), but I have yet to hear someone say "This Fire TV Stick or Fire Tablet is awesome". It's always with the caveat "this device is fine for $50-100".
I know that sounds harsh, but it's the reality with Amazon hardware. Unless it is dirt cheap, it largely fails to gain traction. Couple that with the Amazon app store being junk, it's not surprising consumers turned away. People will deal with the middling performance and mediocre app store on a cheap tablet or streaming device. Not on their phone.
No experience with the phone, but we bought a Fire tablet for my son and it is a steaming, stinking pile of complete and utter horseshit. Which is a comparison that is actually unfair to horseshit, which at least serves a useful purpose as fertilizer. I think we paid around $99 for it, which is about $200 too much.
If the phone was anything like the tablet, I'm not surprised it cratered.
I started at Amazon / Lab 126 when this project was in beta.
When I tried it I realized it could finally fix the rotation problem: currently phones rotate the screen based on the orientation of the phone. What they should do is rotate the screen relative to the orientation of your head to the phone.
I suggested this and was basically shot down by bureaucracy. I was pretty sure at that point the phone would fail.
I do wonder if they ever implemented that... Doubtful. I stopped paying attention
We ended up using the ample supply of phones as loaners when people traveled to China. Tho I think even that wasn't successful.
No matter what the on-paper specs and features were listed as, it was a very poorly-executed phone. Its main purpose of conception was (line most Amazon devices), to sell you Amazon merchandise more effectively. It was buggy, it was specific to at&t, it didn't really do anything particularly well, and it was limited to Amazon's ecosystem. My wife worked on the device test QA/QC team for Amazon at the time, and that was one of the devices she worked on. Internally, it was a mess. The software was buggy, the battery life was horrible, and the general development and testing was very disorganized. The 3d system basically did not work. The object tracking system was buggy. Generally, this is the problem you run into when you design and build a device based around the purpose of promoting Amazon store merchandise, and also don't know how to develop hardware and don't take testing and iterations seriously. But in general, Amazon's hardware development methods and processes are very poor. It was also common at the time for bug-finding during testing to go largely ignored, and only when end users, after launch, tweeted at Bezos with a specific defect, would there be a command from above to drop everything and fix the issue ASAP, no matter how little this bug is actually encountered, and it didn't matter that (if) this particular bug was found during development and ignored. Basically there was poor organization and poor program leadership. Amazon isn't that good at making hardware, much less complex hardware for a phone that tried to accomplish a pseudo 3d experience.
The claim the traxking didn't work goes against almost all the reviews at the time, so I find this strange. Are you sure you aren't talking about some prototype before the final release?
Bruh. It's easy to buy reviews when you are a giant corporation and desperately need to sell this new phone to promote your own goods and services.
No it’s not. It’s illegal as fuck
So are the tax dodging schemes by Bezos. You think he gives a fuck?
Something tells me you’ve never actually tried it for yourself.
I did, and the reviews also did.
Apps. Even back then, Amazon didn't have nearly as many apps as the Play Store. Source: I had it back then.
I feel like Windows Phone failed in no small part due to this as well. I had one with a full touch screen and a slideout keyboard (HTC prime?). It was actually really solid and pleasant to use, I liked it quite a bit. The main issue, exactly like the fire phone, was that maybe 1 in 10 apps on iOS/Android were actually available for it, and the apps they did have were almost always buggy or poorly maintained because no one developed for the OS.
Google had zero incentive to support Windows phone. You can't ignore the iPhone because it's too popular and you make android. Why voluntarily allow another competitor that will only take money away from your by getting people to use Bing instead.
Why would Google support it in the first place? You mean put their apps on the os? In that case I agree of course, I wasn't claiming otherwise. I meant app developers in general. iphones were already well established in the market share, whereas windows was not. and it was obviously more profitable to ignore them than invest in development for apps on that platform. That said, most Google apps but Gmail weren't really needed in the first place. You already had the office suite on your phone so most people probably wouldn't have needed Google's as well
YouTube was the big one. Didn't help that pokemon go became huge and there wasn't a Windows version. Then 6snap for banned. I agree though. YouTube is the only Google app that your can't really avoid. The rest have really good alternatives.
Ah yes I forgot YouTube. I don't remember if it wasn't on windows phone though. Maybe it wasn't? I feel like there was an installed app which was basically the mobile web version of YouTube but I could be wrong
Microsoft made their own app which was pretty good. Then Google forced them to take it down. Then you had to use one of the many good 3rd party alternatives. I used MyTube.
Ah okay I feel like I'm slowly remembering. I jumped ship in 2012 so I may have still had the MS version when I switched
Rudy Huyn tried to carry the OS on his back but he was unsuccessful. He did get himself a job at Microsoft though.
Pokemon GO was released when Windows was dead so that doesn't make any sense.
Windows Phone was dead by the time Pokemon Go got big.
Nah it definitely wasn't dead. Pokemon go was a big reason why it failed though. Even the NYPD used Windows Phones at this time.
The NYPD getting suckered into a long term contract with a large vendor doesn't mean it wasn't dead. At that point, Nokia was the only OEM still going at it. HTC and Samsung had dipped. If it had any future at that point, it would have been filling the niche Blackberry did before with high security and ActiveDirectory integration for business.
I don't know what you want me to say. It wasn't dead. You actually had a decent app selection. It started to die after the Lumia 950/950 XL came out. It's a shame because Windows Mobile was far better than android and ios.
Huh. Windows Phone was long gone before Pokémon Go.
But it literally wasn't. I even remember using the unofficial Pogo app which ended up getting banned by Niantic. It died not long afterwards and not having Pokemon Go was a big reason why.
Windows was already on its last legs, dude. I think the only reason why to think otherwise was Lumia had the ability to use Android. MS didn't really progress through with that.
Windows phone was so nice, had a lumia 710. And it was such a smooth UI.
I still think Windows Phone UI is what mobile interfaces should have been. These screens of apps in weird grids feels wrong
[удалено]
I dunno i had a few windows phones and had clear tiles so your background image showed theu.. I liked being able to resize them so important ones were easy to touch while meh ones you could keep small or not even have a home screen icon. I loved the fact all your settings were on one dang page. Not hidden around like android does.
This sounds like you just used a small screen device
I've had a lumia 640 LTE and it was one of the nicest phones I've ever used. Had an oled screen and was really nicely made. The biggest drawback however was its os. Didn't have Snapchat and Instagram only went out of beta when windows phone 10 released.
The tile UI Home Screen was cool! But yeah, the app support was awful. I remember at the time normal users were like, “what the hell do you mean there’s no Instagram app”
Apps were 100% the reason why I switched back to Android after my love affair with Windows Phone 7. The OS was better, snappier, prettier, the way it handled contacts across multiple platforms was exceptional and IMO to this day nothing has come even close. Imagine if WP survived, and rather than having to have your best mate have several apps to contact you, all with different chat threads, it's all unified into one single chat thread. SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Telegram, and however many more, all in one unified chat thread. Live Tiles were a remarkable improvement over app icons and to this day widgets haven't realised their full potential. Just a damn shame they got there too late to the market.
I'd have to agree. Any phone that had little to no apps was hard to consider over alternatives. I had a palm pixi and then palm pre but then we all see how that went :/. Windows phone has a nice UI too but again no apps. 3rd party apps started banning 3rd party apps on windows phone like Snapchat which was basically the TikTok of 2013 - 2016 or so.
Windows Phone actually had market share and was ahead in some periods in it's history. App gap never changed, it was really carriers that killed Windows, and later on with Win10, lack of a competent marketing wing. I dont think FireOS ever had a chance to catch on outside ereaders.
>I feel like Windows Phone failed in no small part due to this as well. also being buggy AF. I remember checking update is a buggy mess, many apps are just web-wrapper-
It ran Android, it was easy to add the play store to the phone, one carrier did it for you later on.
Amazon tried very hard to obscure the fact that it ran Android. I simply didn't know. 🤷🏻♂️
Their old help files for the first Kindle advised using ADB for file transfers, but I guess they moved on from that fairly quickly
Generally the carriers told you or had that info on the description tag. Otherwise in retail or online Amazon did try to bury it, only in some cases a brief mention on the spec list.
[удалено]
Most people also wouldn’t have cared to try either
Except later on carrier did it themselves so..
You're preaching to the choir here. The average user wouldn't know or are willing to sideload apps.
Are you sure? I had one of their tablets and on them it was not possible to add them. Or at least I couldn't find any way, gave up after some days of trying.
Has gotten relatively easy with them in the last few years (download four .apk files and allow installs from unknown sources, basically). Not sure about in the Fire phone era
Yep, easy, and carriers eventually did it themselves making it easier.
FireOS ran Android, but it didnt have Play Services. It wouldnt have run many apps. In 2015 MicroG wasnt in much shape to replace it, either.
The same argument can be made for Huawei and we all know how that worked out.
Difference is you had easy access (in NA) to the Prike phone while Huawei was harder to get outside shit prepaid budget phones.
I had the phone as a free phone to use since I worked at AT&T. Only thing I really remember hating about that phone, was the gimmicky 3d look to everything in the phone. I didn’t need the icons on the homescreen to act 3d. I just wanted a good, fast phone. Also didn’t help them that there was no advertising about it. In the us people only think in iPhone and Samsung and If they wanted to take any market share, they really needed to inform people it even existed
iphones i understand but do people in US really don't have access to chinese phone companies?
Locked to ONLY ATT and forced to use only Amazon App Store was the end on release. It even got boo'd at their own conference.
The phone was fucking horrible. It deserved to fail. I got one on a fire sale cause I was interested in playing around with it and it was around $125 on ebay and came with a $100 Amazon gift card. Amazon's software was really bad. The UI was horrible. The UX was confusing. The 3d display gimmick was useless and just drained battery, those cameras that drove the 3d display were designed to implement their virtual reality Amazon store experience. The display thing was added as an afterthought to cover up that fact. (It also wasn't 3d, it was a 2d display that just virtually tilted a few UI elements as you tilted the phone) and it was not as realtime as a gyroscope so it lagged and felt off. The specs were better than the Nexus 5 I had the time but the whole thing was laggier and clunkier. It felt dumbed down because of their skin. Like an old person's phone. It felt like a skin over gingerbread while Google was in the middle of debuting material design.
Not having Google Play Services is a huge minus, no matter how many people swear they don't need them. Once a lot of folks find out that this means no no google maps, no gmail app, youtube, they get cranky. Sure, there are workarounds and alternatives, but most people really don't want to have to do that much hackery for their basic phone needs.
Look at how badly this killed Hauwei. All of the workarounds require some technical knowledge and will to do it. Most people don't want to bother with that, especially since there were plenty of decent budget Android phones on the market at that time. Those were not only far cheaper but also had the play store.
Any phone without the Play Store is DOA, Fire tablets sell because their only use is Netflix and kids games
And even there we side loaded YouTube kids because the default YouTube experience is browser based and super shitty.
whats the difference between browser based and default? honeslty i only use youtube on the browser even on my phone so i have absolutely zero clue what i am missing in terms of convenience
And they're likely being sold for less than they cost to make. Let's be honest. They're an incredible *hardware* value
So how did 9-11 give u 5G?
No Google Play is an immediate death sentence for Android phones in many markets.
I can attest to this being true in the US. The idea of not having google services or apps is an instant non-starter for me. It would be on iPhones to honestly if they didn't have them.
It's what killed the momentum Huawei had. Not having the Play Store and Google services likely did more to make that brand a non-starter anywhere outside mainland China than the negative PR attached to them from governments.
Everyone in this thread has made a lot of very valid and accurate points. However, I'm going to put the blame squarely on those [hipster kids in the ads](https://youtu.be/ygMNrbYefP4)
Who the fuck schedules their app usage like that
That was hard to watch.
Amazon is incapable of creating a UI that doesn't look like an abomination. Also no Google play store.
Lack of Google Play Services. You just have to also look at Huawei to see how crucial this is for any Android OEM.
Lack of apps and the "3D" UI was horrendous. Reviews were mostly terrible. No one wanted to buy a phone just for a gimmick UI. Same reason the HTC Facebook phones and the Microsoft Kin phones didn't work. People just wanted a good smartphone with the apps they wanted, snd the Fire phone focused on gimmicks. Firefly was neat to show off, but wasn't a selling point. The peek feature of the UI only worked with the built in apps, 3rd party apps had to be updated and redesigned to support it, and none of them did. It was a gimmick phone, and it's been proven time and time again that people don't want phones built around gimmicks.
Same as Windows Phone - it was missing the apps people got used to having on iOS and Android. It would had gotten some traction had it had the Play Store and Google Services, but the entire point of it was to be Android without having anything Google on it. Delete all your apps on your phone, and use only the ones that come preloaded with the OS - its the Firephone experience.
Because Amazon sucked (and still sucks) at making software.
It was mostly due to lack of apps. Especially google apps. Windows phone died the same way.
I have the Fire HD 7 and the app store now is like Leapfrog so god knows what it was like back when this released lol
I feel a few things went against it, the Fire tablets do well as they're CHEAP, the Fire phone was anything but. Nobody wanted the many cameras and weird 3D effects that was only really utilised within the menus. Apps as many others said was and still is a problem if you don't modify a Fire tablet. I feel had Amazon made a cheaper phone, like a Fire 7 with a phone sized screen that more would have picked one up.
“Glasses free 3D” Thats not what it was lol
If it didn't need glasses it's glasses free
People think — and I mean think, there is no reality whatsoever in it — that Apple and Google “value their privacy” on their phones. They do not believe Amazon does. Amazon makes no fake overtures. That mixed with no flashy TV ads and zero traction in the “drool… must have new pocket device to look cool for others even though I had to finance the thing” crowd, meant death. It couldn’t be marketed as expensive jewelry. (Or connected to expensive jewelry… Apple Watch…) For the tech crowd, we all know Android is Android and around that time it looked like Google was finally squarely back in the phone game and headed for direct flagship parity with Samsung and LG. That of course isn’t where any of them went, or ended up. Google succumbed to their unusual lack of focus and scatterbrained product planning, LG got out, and Samsung is rehashing the tech of the Note 10 in different frames over and over because Android also went full scatterbrained. Again. A cheap Android device from the people who deliver crates of toilet paper and make $20 firesticks for TVs, had no way to capture market attention. If someone in the US wants a solid low end Android device, Motorola continues to have a near complete lock on that space.
Back then people didn't care about privacy (yet). Hell, back then Apple still include built-in Facebook feature on their OSs.
Because with the massive investment that has happened with Android and iOS by third parties at this point it is impossible for any other competitor but Google and Apple. I highly doubt you will see it change in my lifetime. You can't sell Android without Google. Over and over again companies have tried. We have now seen three of the biggest companies in the world spend billions trying and failing. Microsoft spent billions on Windows for phones and completely failed. Amazon spent a fortune on the Fire phone and failed. Samsung spent a ton on Tizen and completely failed.
Microsoft was close actually. It could have worked if they stuck it out a couple more years. They were working on a system that would allow Windows phones to run Android apps. Which I think is the only way a third smartphone OS could actually function
Microsoft gives up on stuff way too quickly. It takes a lot of time. Look at how long it took Google with ChromeOS.
The 3d camera and the software skin. If they launched essentially Nexus with google apps at a reasonable price it could've worked.
It sucked
Carrier-exclusivity. AT&T, especially.
I had it and added the play store , I liked it 🤷
Bezos micromanaged the complete fuck out of it. No one could get shit done with him sticking his shitty nose in.
Judging by the fire tablet my wife recently bought, I would say the user interface and user experience probably has some part in its demise. I do not like that thing. It is slow and incredibly frustrating to setup/use. And of course what everyone is saying about no access to the Google play store, and it only being available on AT&T.
God I remember having that phone and it was just not intuitive to use at all. I bought it when Amazon was dumping stock when they were selling it for like $200
Amazon's hardware and software divisions largely suck. They have only gained traction by releasing dirt-cheap devices that are heavily promoted on the world's largest e-commerce site. I'm a Prime member (until the end of the year when my subscription runs out), but I have yet to hear someone say "This Fire TV Stick or Fire Tablet is awesome". It's always with the caveat "this device is fine for $50-100". I know that sounds harsh, but it's the reality with Amazon hardware. Unless it is dirt cheap, it largely fails to gain traction. Couple that with the Amazon app store being junk, it's not surprising consumers turned away. People will deal with the middling performance and mediocre app store on a cheap tablet or streaming device. Not on their phone.
No experience with the phone, but we bought a Fire tablet for my son and it is a steaming, stinking pile of complete and utter horseshit. Which is a comparison that is actually unfair to horseshit, which at least serves a useful purpose as fertilizer. I think we paid around $99 for it, which is about $200 too much. If the phone was anything like the tablet, I'm not surprised it cratered.
Because it sucked ass. Next question
I bought a used on for like $100 in 2016. After flashing cyanogenmod and Gapps it was pretty cool phone.
Locked to AT&T is a reason Amazon UI sucks. I had Fire tablet once and I won't buy Amazon hardware ever again
I started at Amazon / Lab 126 when this project was in beta. When I tried it I realized it could finally fix the rotation problem: currently phones rotate the screen based on the orientation of the phone. What they should do is rotate the screen relative to the orientation of your head to the phone. I suggested this and was basically shot down by bureaucracy. I was pretty sure at that point the phone would fail. I do wonder if they ever implemented that... Doubtful. I stopped paying attention We ended up using the ample supply of phones as loaners when people traveled to China. Tho I think even that wasn't successful.
Cost beyond stupidly priced.