If the Fire Phone returns, I’m praying Amazon fixes its app store problem first


Amazon Fire Phone Jeff Bezos

Bloomberg / Getty Images

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Amazon is reportedly developing a new Fire Phone.
  • The previous model had several issues, including an inferior app store experience.
  • Under new supervision (and with more experience), Amazon can do better this time.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t have “new Amazon smartphone” on my 2026 bingo card. As it turns out, according to Reuters, the retailer may be developing a new smartphone, internally known as “Transformer.” 

Those familiar with the industry will instantly draw parallels to Amazon’s previous smartphone effort, the Fire Phone from 2014. Appropriately, that phone ended up as part of a fire sale about a year later.

Now, in 2026, with no fewer than five phone brands in the US — Apple, Samsung, Google, Motorola, and OnePlus — Amazon faces a lot of competition. In fairness, it also has two fewer platforms to compete against. In 2014, Windows Phone and BlackBerry were still very much part of the smartphone conversation; these days, not so much.

The AppStore problem

But there’s one mistake Amazon made in its first effort that will absolutely torpedo its chances at succeeding — the Amazon AppStore and specifically the decision to forego Google Play services. Google is simply too valuable in too many lives to not support the platform. Oh, and the Amazon AppStore is terrible.

Also: What’s right (and wrong) with the Amazon Fire Phone

It has admittedly been a few years since I last inventoried the Amazon AppStore, but when I last checked, the Amazon AppStore was a wasteland of half-supported or unsupported apps, with two notable exceptions. Finance, home control, and communication apps were either absent or had not received updates for years prior.

The only apps in the Amazon AppStore that remained up to date were productivity apps (largely powered by Microsoft) and streaming apps. Those two categories work very well on the cheap, underpowered hardware that Amazon usually launches, and that’s fine. A coffee-table tablet is a nice thing to have lying around.

A spark of hope

Amazon Fire Phone

Liam Tung/ZDNET

But a phone is another animal entirely. If a tablet is a device to entertain, a phone is a device for everything else. One of the key reasons Windows Phone failed was its lack of an app ecosystem. The Senior Vice President of Devices and Services,  Panos Panay, is very familiar with that saga, so I’m hopeful that he will make the same arguments to the powers that be at Amazon. 

Honestly, if there is anyone who I think can pull off an Amazon phone revival, it’s probably Panay, who understands design and product development better than most, and to be perfectly honest, he’s my absolute favorite product presenter.

Also: Amazon Fire Phone review: Not a great smartphone

Of course, all of this is early days. This phone is being worked on internally, and even Reuters reports that it could get the axe long before it sees the light of day. Personally, I’m intrigued by the idea, but I sincerely hope that Amazon doesn’t make this the shopping phone it tried to build in 2014. 

If Amazon just wants to make a nice, well-built smartphone, with a skin that pushes Amazon content to the fore, I’m fine with that. But leaving Google behind is a mistake that Amazon cannot afford to make again. Fool me once, and all that.

So, if this phone is to have a chance at success, it needs to embrace Google services so it can be a phone that everyone can use. Amazon has the brand power to make a phone like this work, even up against juggernauts like Apple and Samsung, but it needs to approach this correctly, lest it end up in yet another Fire phone fire sale.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


A new class-action lawsuit, filed on Monday by three teenage girls and their guardians, alleges that Elon Musk’s xAI created and distributed child sexual abuse material featuring their faces and likenesses with its Grok AI tech.

“Their lives have been shattered by the devastating loss of privacy, dignity, and personal safety that the production and dissemination of this CSAM have caused,” the filing says. “xAI’s financial gain through the increased use of its image- and video-making product came at their expense and well-being.”

From December to early January, Grok allowed many AI and X social media users to create AI-generated nonconsensual intimate images, sometimes known as deepfake porn. Reports estimate that Grok users made 4.4 million “undressed” or “nudified” images, 41% of the total number of images created, over a period of nine days. 

X, xAI and its safety and child safety divisions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The wave of “undressed” images stirred outrage around the world. The European Commission quickly launched an investigation, while Malaysia and Indonesia banned X within their borders. Some US government representatives called on Apple and Google to remove the app from their app stores for violating their policies, but no federal investigation into X or xAI has been opened. A similar, separate class-action lawsuit was filed (PDF) by a South Carolina woman in late January.

The dehumanizing trend highlighted just how capable modern AI image tools are at creating content that seems realistic. The new complaint compares Grok’s self-proclaimed “spicy AI” generation to the “dark arts” with its ease of subjecting children to “any pose, however sick, however fetishized, however unlawful.”

“To the viewer, the resulting video appears entirely real. For the child, her identifying features will now forever be attached to a video depicting her own child sexual abuse,” the complaint reads.

AI Atlas

The complaint says xAI is at fault because it did not employ industry-standard guardrails that would prevent abusers from making this content. It says xAI licensed use of its tech to third-party companies abroad, which sold subscriptions that led abusers to make child sexual abuse images featuring the faces and likenesses of the victims. The requests ran through xAI’s servers, which makes the company liable, the complaint argues.

The lawsuit was filed by three Jane Does, pseudonyms given to the teens to protect their identities. Jane Doe 1 was first alerted to the fact that abusive, AI-generated sexual material of her was circulating on the web by an anonymous Instagram message in early December. The filing says she was told about a Discord server by the anonymous Instagram user, where the material was shared. That led Jane Doe 1 and her family, and eventually law enforcement, to find and arrest one perpetrator.

Ongoing investigations led the families of Jane Does 2 and 3 to learn their children’s images had been transformed with xAI tech into abusive material.





Source link