Eh I doubt that the issue is brick and mortar representation.
The worlds best selling smartphone family, Android, has next to no dedicated stores outside of a handful of Samsung and Sony experiences.
It seems to me that the trick to getting more sales at network stores like AT&T is simply paying off AT&T to get it's representatives to push your product. Many buyers go in and ask for recommendations or allow network staff to drive them towards a product. In my experience, the rep will usually push people towards a Samsung flagship. When I visited my local official AT&T last summer, they were pushing A LOT of Samsung gear and didn't have much of anything to say about the latest LG G3 or HTC M8 refresh. They pushed the Samsung Gear watch but didn't have much to say about any other brand.
Amazon would probably boost the sales of their devices much more strongly with some kind of sweetheart promotional deal with a network than they would trying to operate non-network smartphone stores. Who's going to go to an Amazon store to buy an Amazon phone? You go to your network store to look around at what's available.
I could see the smartphones-in-store approach working if they get customers flying through the doors for other reasons (same day pick up, Amazon lockers, Prime-ready electronics show room, etc), and kept them in store long enough to look at phones.
Why do I need to acknowledge that? That's not a knowable thing.
In fact, I'd argue that they're the most profitable company IN SPITE of B&M stores.
My evidence is clear: ALL OTHER BUSINESSES on the "most profitable list" do not have B&M stores. Proof is in the pudding, the list of most profitable companies is a list of no store companies, and Apple is an outlier not a rule.
LG only sells it's latest HBS900 headset at AT&T stores and when I visited, their only model was tied down to the table - no way for me to pick it up much less wear it before I was supposed to buy it.
