> In other words the big question was: "will Amazon ditch their only reason to sell hardware?"
Obviously Amazon is a content company, but something tells me that they're probably not selling a lot of content to owners of Fire phones, given the pitiful sales figures.
Keep in mind, the history of technology is rife with examples of companies that reduced or eliminated vendor lock in in order to increase adoption; it's not unreasonable to suggest that Amazon might sell more content if they sold more phones, even if those phones were more open.
And you're also completely bypassing my point about prices and margins. Even if you think the closed model is worth the costs for Amazon, clearly they'll sell more content if they sell more phones, and clearly they'll sell more phones if they're cheaper. And they're famous as a company willing to take the long view and sacrifice short term profits for long term growth and market share. Given that, wouldn't it make sense to sell the phones at cost, rather than at Apple or Samsung level margins? Worse, while the Fire ecosystem is closed, it's closed in the wrong direction.
The price point of the phone implies a strategy of "we'll make money on the phone, which people will buy because of our amazing content and user experience". But their user experience is mediocre, and their content is available everywhere. Apple can do that with iPhones, because you have to buy an iPhone to get iOS, a phone with iTunes, and most iPhone apps. But the kindle app runs just fine on my OnePlus One, as do all the other Android apps I might want to install on a Fire, if I had one. You seem to be arguing for a strategy of "we'll make money on our content, which people will buy because they already have our phones". I agree, it's a very promising strategy! But I wonder why Amazon hasn't tried it. :)
Obviously Amazon is a content company, but something tells me that they're probably not selling a lot of content to owners of Fire phones, given the pitiful sales figures.
Keep in mind, the history of technology is rife with examples of companies that reduced or eliminated vendor lock in in order to increase adoption; it's not unreasonable to suggest that Amazon might sell more content if they sold more phones, even if those phones were more open.
And you're also completely bypassing my point about prices and margins. Even if you think the closed model is worth the costs for Amazon, clearly they'll sell more content if they sell more phones, and clearly they'll sell more phones if they're cheaper. And they're famous as a company willing to take the long view and sacrifice short term profits for long term growth and market share. Given that, wouldn't it make sense to sell the phones at cost, rather than at Apple or Samsung level margins? Worse, while the Fire ecosystem is closed, it's closed in the wrong direction.
The price point of the phone implies a strategy of "we'll make money on the phone, which people will buy because of our amazing content and user experience". But their user experience is mediocre, and their content is available everywhere. Apple can do that with iPhones, because you have to buy an iPhone to get iOS, a phone with iTunes, and most iPhone apps. But the kindle app runs just fine on my OnePlus One, as do all the other Android apps I might want to install on a Fire, if I had one. You seem to be arguing for a strategy of "we'll make money on our content, which people will buy because they already have our phones". I agree, it's a very promising strategy! But I wonder why Amazon hasn't tried it. :)