A Look at Amazon's Fire Smart Phone


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amazon’s Fire Phone innovates with its four-camera configuration. It innovates with its object-identifying Firefly feature. And it innovates with its Mayday feature that provides face-to-tracked-face assistance on the go.

But one way in which it doesn’t innovate may be the way that most people were hoping it would: price. Available for $199 on a two-year AT&T contract or $649 unlocked, the Fire Phone is similar to other premium phones such as the iPhone 5S and Samsung Galaxy S5.

The Fire Phone’s failure to disrupt has led many to question whether it is keeping the Amazon flame. Indeed, the cellular options available to Fire Phone buyers are less creative than the limited free data option Amazon offered with AT&T at the release of the Kindle Fire HD.

When Amazon entered the tablet market with the $199 Kindle Fire, it set off a price war. Jeff Bezos noted that the company produces “premium products at a non-premium price.” But while Amazon has shown some willingness to follow others down the ladder as tablet pricing has collapsed, offering the Kindle Fire HD for $139, still a far cry from the sub-$100 tablets littering the pages of Walmart.com.

But, perhaps burned by that competitive tablet, things changed when the company introduced the Kindle Fire HDX, with its leading-edge processor and display technology. At a starting price of $229 for the 7-inch version, it is significantly less than the $299 iPad Mini, but so is nearly every other tablet below 8 inches.

A better comparison would be with the Google Nexus 7, also priced at $229. Amazon’s next category expansion — Fire TV, also loaded with powerful internals — came in at $99, the same price as Apple TV and the highest-end Roku player.

It’s not unusual for brands to climb the prestige ladder as their sales grow. HTC, for example, was once a company that developed phones and PDAs for other companies. In the 1980s, Samsung’s electronics were dismissed as cheap junk. Now, both are focused mostly on high-end gadgets.

But what Amazon is doing is more like a cross-country expedition than one up a mountain. As Jeff Bezos pointed out early in the Fire Phone presentation, its brand has strong recognition among consumers for customer satisfaction across several metrics.

And according to the YouGov brand index, which measures “brand health” across a variety of measures, Amazon was the #1 brand in 2013, with the Kindle sub-brand coming in 10th behind Cheerios. (Alas, the Fire Phone, like Fire TV, drops the “Kindle” delineation.) Amazon doesn’t need to raise the prestige of this brand, it just has to extend the influence of it.

There’s another factor at play. The Fire Phone has its share of features designed to keep you at a buying level Amazon finds palatable. However, much more of what consumers do on phones — tasks such as taking photos, sending e-mail and messages, mapping and, yes, even having voice conversations — are more difficult to monetize.  If, as Jeff Bezos said, Amazon monetizes when consumers use their devices (since they inevitably drive purchases on Amazon), there’s simply less of the usage pie that Amazon is getting, at least compared to AT&T.

The Fire Phone may not strike fear into the heart of Apple and Samsung for the time being, but it’s clearly not intended to. It’s about providing an option to Amazon’s loyal customers in a product category where its ecosystem advantages are too diluted to disrupt at this point.

VIA VB

Gordon Ramsay to End ‘Kitchen Nightmares’ Series in U.S. and U.K.

::weeps::

The next batch of U.K. episodes of “Kitchen Nightmares” will be the last for Gordon Ramsay, who announced the end of  the British and Yank editions of the show on his website Monday.

“I’ve had a phenomenal 10 years making 123 episodes, 12 seasons, shot across 2 continents, watched by tens of millions of people and sold to over 150 countries. It’s been a blast but it’s time to call it a day,” Ramsay wrote in a post on his personal website.

The cooking reality show premiered in the U.K. in 2004 and the U.S. rendition bowed on Fox in 2007, featuring Ramsay’s visits to struggling restaurants. The chef would spend one week using his expertise trying to help the owners rehabilitate the business.

The format allowed Ramsay to show off his restauranteur bona fides as well as his attempts at family and couples counseling. Last year, the show hit its peak of pop culture buzz with an episode revolving around an Scottsdale, Ariz. eatery, Amy’s Baking Company, run by an over-the-top couple who produced plenty of Internet-friendly viral vid moments.

Ramsay credited “Kitchen Nightmares” for being “the show that really propelled my TV career.” The show has been a Friday night staple for Fox, with the most recent U.S. episodes airing in April and May. Fox has one more “Revisit” episode of “Kitchen Nightmares” in the can.

But Fox still has plenty of Ramsay on its air, between the competition series “Hell’s Kitchen,” airing now, “Hotel Hell” (bowing July 21) and the “MasterChef” and “MasterChef Junior” franchises.

At present, Ramsay is filming four final episodes of the U.K. “Kitchen Nightmares” for Channel 4.

On his website, Ramsay offered a list of “fun facts” about the show’s decade-long run:

  • 123 restaurants in 99 cities within 2 countries were visited
  • If you watched all episodes back-to-back it would run for 6,868 minutes
  • Episodes sold into 150 territories globally
  • The ‘Kitchen Nightmares’ format was produced locally for 30 territories around the world
  • Swear count – 10,197
  • The show brought in $37.3 million in ad revenue during the 2012-13 season – more than any other Friday Fox original series that season
  • The show was the most viewed TV show across networks during the Friday time slot
  • Tears – 0.4 gallons
  • Meltdowns – 27
  • Walkouts – 1
  • Mice – 1
  • Meows – 6
  • First ever episode was watched by 5.7 million people
  • 2 ulcers and 2.3 litres of Pepto Bismol
  • 234 Zantacs consumed

Via Variety

YouTube will block videos from artists who don't sign up for its paid streaming service

Jack White and Adele could be blocked in some countries

As YouTube prepares to roll out an ad-free streaming music service, it will block videos from indie artists who don't sign up for the new offering, as originally reported by Financial Times. YouTube has signed deals with the major labels, and is explicitly threatening to block artists from using the entire YouTube platform — free or paid — if they do not agree to the terms of the new streaming service.

The FT quotes Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations, confirming that the service plans to block videos from any artists or labels who have not signed on to its new paid service, "to ensure that all content on the platform is governed by its new contractual terms."

The Guardian points out that this would affect a number of big-name artists, potentially eliminating names like Jack White, Adele, and Arctic Monkeys from YouTube. A YouTube spokesman told The Verge, "Our goal is to continue making YouTube an amazing music experience, both as a global platform for fans and artists to connect, and as a revenue source for the music industry. We’re adding subscription-based features for music on YouTube with this in mind — to bring our music partners new revenue streams in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars YouTube already generates for them each year. We are excited that hundreds of major and independent labels are already partnering with us."

A source familiar with the situation has confirmed to The Verge that most of the details in the FT story were accurate. YouTube does not want to launch a paid service and then be forced to show some videos in ad-supported mode, or offer users the ability to take videos offline, but not be able to offer that for big names like Adele or Jack White. It is going to begin blocking artists whose labels have not signed on to its new licensing terms in the countries where those deals apply starting within just a few days, although the paid service is not expected to roll out that soon.

theverge

Starbucks is a little less evil today

It pays to be an educated employee at Starbucks, literally.

The company announced a new program to help its baristas earn an online college degree.

"Thank you so much Howard, it's a pleasure."

Starbucks employee Tammie Lopez personally thanked CEO Howard Shultz for the opportunity to attend college for free.

Howard Schultz/Starbucks CEO says, "This is not about PR. This is about the future of the company, what's doing right for our people."

Schultz was in New York to announce  that starting this fall, Starbucks will help employees get an online bachelor's degree at a steep discount.

And they don't have to stay with the company after they finish.

Starbucks is  partnering with Arizona State University.

Eligible workers can choose from more than 40 undergraduate online programs.

Freshman and sophomores could receive partial scholarships and full tuition reimbursement as juniors and seniors.

How important is a college degree these days, to you? Tammie: To me, very important.

Lopez has been working part–time a Starbucks while going to school for more than a year.

She plans to apply for the new program to study business.

Tammie Lopez/Starbucks Employee says, "I never thought I would be getting assistance and help that Starbucks has provided. It just never crossed my mind. And I think that's why it so mind blowing."

Dozens of corporations with hourly employees offer some kind of tuition assistance or discount – but the  Starbucks plan is one of the most generous.

Howard Schultz/Starbucks CEO says, "We can't build a great company and we can't build a great enduring country if we constantly leave people behind."

Schultz says if Starbucks were a 20 chapter book —  the company would only be at chapter 4 or 5. Only workers at Starbucks 8,200 company–operated stores are eligible and they have to work an average 20 hours per week.

VIA KEYC.com