Amazon Wireless Effort Getting Static From The Forrest For The Trees

Written by Evan Schuman
December 14th, 2007

When Amazon unveiled its wireless Kindle device this month, expectations were high. Could the company that tamed the Web get its hand around wireless?

Many of the initial media and analyst reviews of the device were less than favorable, pointing out things like an inability to flip through pages and the buttons obscuring some viewing areas. But in two very significant ways, Kindle is falling victim to the focus on specifics obscuring big-picture reality syndrome.

All of the legitimate weaknesses of Kindle distracts from the reality that this oversized PDA (it’s about the size of a paperbook) is an order of magnitude better a wireless device than anything out today, with its large screen, memory and interface advantages. The device is sold out nationally and there’s a reason for that.

Think about some of the initial Apple iPhone reviews, with the emphasis on lack of support for Java and Flash and the slowness of its network. But those true failings were irrelevant to those who said the screen’s capabilities and clarity.

Maybe it’s a wireless thing. People have been so excited about the potential of wireless and so utterly disappointed in the weak wireless products shipping today that there’s pent-up demand for anything that even looks like it’s close to the original promise. A man dying of thirst tends to not turn down a cold bottle of Evian because he wanted Aquafina.

The second criticism of Kindle has been those that dismiss electronic book readers. But it’s not a fair attack of Kindle because it’s been positioned as a reader, not a book reader. Set up to read blogs, sites, newspapers and other files, this not-quite-pocket-sized device has rather substantial potential.

Some have criticized Amazon for some non-standard development, but Dave Sikora, the CEO of wireless firm Digby, argues that at today’s level of wireless development, giving in to the pressure to build applications on popular open platforms is a mistake. Customization so that the files and images look the right way may not make it ultra-easy for document sharing, but it’s the only way to deliver an acceptable experience, he said.

"Just about every positive experience you have on a PDA is running on a native app and that’s just the way it is," Sikora said.

If wireless is going to get jumpstarted to the next level, it’s going to take proprietary different approaches—like we’ve seen from both Apple and Amazon—to make it happen. I may rally for open platforms and interoperability—for years, I served as the Managing Editor/News for a pub called Open Systems Today—but there are times when compatibility doesn’t make sense when it impedes progress. If this helps the wireless future, I think we can stomach a little proprietary from time to time.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.