The Galaxy S5 is a $600 device. The HTC One is a $600 device. The LG G3 is a $600 device. The iPhone is a $600 device.
I'm not seeing the price differential.
However, the notion that this competes with either Android or the iPhone is utter nonsense, and we saw exactly the same noise with the Kindle Fire. People seem to have some need to try to assuage their corporate leanings that it's "someone else's problem".
Only it's a smartphone. People buy smartphones, not brands, even if they have brand associations. This device, just like every device, is in the mix for people who are considering a smartphone and who don't attach their ego to a company.
So you would say this competes with nothing though?
You claimed that it was targeted at the iPhone based upon price, when many of the top selling Android devices are the same price as the iPhone.
So you would say this competes with nothing though?
I disagreed with any binary analysis of what it competes with. It doesn't compete with "either", it competes with both. People buy smartphones to provide information and value, and any possible smartphone is a potential candidate.
People that aren't interested in the high end features of smart phones as they are now - people who might even choose a flip phone - but will spend money shopping for traditional items.
Some studies say iOS users (as a whole) are more willing to spend money through their phone than other demographics, but are they willing to spend on what Amazon is selling? This seems to refer mostly to musics, apps.
Cover the internet/messaging basics, offer quick & easy support, make traditional shopping easy - plus add price comparisons and you may tap a large non-tech segment.
If, however, I was an Android user, I would consider buying the Fire Phone as a replacement device, along with similar phones like the Samsung Galaxy.
You can sum up Google and Apple's market positioning in a tweet if you wanted. (Apple: premium phones, premium prices. Google: give away the software, monetize the search.) Amazon's positioning here is more vague, or perhaps nuanced.
There's also a degree of app quality that iOS still has over Android - I'm an Android user: 'Secret', for example, only just came out, and it's very unstable.
This is a mid-range smartphone at a premium price.
"Build quality" is such a meaningless term in common usage of smartphones, and speaks to personal subjective aesthetics, not some utility of purpose.
And this is all particularly interesting given that there's a good chance a significant part of the new iPhones will be made with plastic. But I'm sure it'll be a "better" plastic.
...so build quality is hard to quantify, and in most practical cases is subjective.
- Rubber breaks down faster than metal
- Rubber stains more than the metals you'd use in a phone
- Rubber can be torn, metal can't
So yes, objectively.
If you drop your phone a lot, rubber might help, but you'd need more than what the Fire phone provides.
No, it isn't objectively. You are subjectively choosing the criteria that makes one purportedly better than the other, yet they have zero applicability to the use or operation of a smartphone.
Grip matters very much with a smartphone. Rubber breaking down? Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? Is this actually a problem? Torn or stained? Again, is this actually a problem in the context of a smartphone? I would say no, it isn't at all.
A soft, comfortable, lightweight device that you don't have to immediately shroud in a protective case is, by actual use-based criteria, arguably the better "build quality". Build quality is suitability to purpose, not aesthetics or cult of material.
You have different criteria than robustness - understood, grip is important to you. Grip has its own objective measurements.
Christ.