Amazon gets BURNED, or iPad puts out Fire's fire

[Mac.World]

Since this bears on the topic of worldwide marketshare:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...na_21_of_buyers_considering_mac_purchase.html

 

[jsh1120]

I'll try one last time. I've repeatedly cited the following source dealing with market share of various operating systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

If you read that article you will find that the Apple OS's has grown from about 5% in 2005 to about 11% in August, 2011. That is about 1% per year. That is not a controversial fact. In fact, Mr. Cook acknowledged as much in his keynote when he said that it was only a few years ago that Apple's market share was in single digits.

The growth and share percentages you continue to cite are either based on change year over year in the number of Apple devices sold rather than percentage of units sold (an error already pointed out to you by others) or on a carefully qualified universe such as "retail sales in stores."

If you cannot understand these simple points, I cannot help you. I can only say that you should bear down in your university studies. I'm not going to teach you arithmetic.

 

[webmasterindia6]

(I decided iPad forum is most appropriate for this)

Bloomber news predicts huge sales for Kindle Fire, but the stunning part is Amazon will loose $10 for each Fire they sell. The report goes on saying Amazon will need to sell about $500 in media to make up the cost of a Fire. (WTH???)

In my simpleton mind (correct me if I am wrong), the report suggests Amazon will lose millions of $$$ if Fire is a runaway hit.
Of course with iPad, Apple makes a tidy $166 (give or take) for each base model iPad sold.
Score: iPad




Now, I think Amazon is using the Game console and Ink Jet printer model of sales: loose money on the player/maker, make money on the media/supplies which is great if one has total control of the media. As we all know, you can buy books on iPad and Android, as well as movies and other media.
I cannot see how the heck Amazon will have a compelling product advantage with Fire.
Score: iPad (and other Android devices) (unless Amazon stops selling to other devices).


Image (the-eBook-and-eReader-Market-in-Pictures
Amazon has a clear lead selling eBooks, but it just started selling music, and I am pretty sure no video (since Fire is first color Kindle).
But I just think Amazons older readers will steal the show here since most books are still black and white (rapidly changing)

Score eBooks: Old Kindle, especially the 3G versions (for a short time until more colorful books are plentiful)


Video content is pretty much in iPad's favor becuase of iTunes, but that wont stop people from d/l movie files from net into Android.
But how good is Fire at playing video? For sure, at 8GB of memory, cant store too many files in it.
Score: slightly iPad.


Hardware:
Fire out iPad the iPad?
It is so bare bones (not even 3G or Bluetooth) and reportedly simple to use, one wonders that after the newness factor is old people start to look for more?


Tell me if I am off base, but Fire looks like it will be a disaster for Amazon no matter what happens, both in that each Fire sold will cost Amazon plenty (per device sold), or by users who think Fire does not light their fire and don't get it, or worse, return it.
I think after the initial buying spree reviews will be middling and sales fall. Oh, I am sure Fire will have strong sales and do well, but not threaten iPad.

Wow Thanks For this sharing. I know about ipad but some your Information new to me. So thank You.

 

[GarytheiPhonema]

kindle fire might be even hotter than the iPad this season it sounds like. i guess it makes sense, we talked about it in church group and a number of us have iPads (we use them for bible study) and we STILL want the Kindle Fire. Anyone here going to buy both also?

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/10/kindle-fire-could-be-hotter-than-ipad-this-holiday-season-study-finds/

 

[jsh1120]

kindle fire might be even hotter than the iPad this season it sounds like. i guess it makes sense, we talked about it in church group and a number of us have iPads (we use them for bible study) and we STILL want the Kindle Fire. Anyone here going to buy both also?

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/10/kindle-fire-could-be-hotter-than-ipad-this-holiday-season-study-finds/

I suspect that these statistics are more likely a case of consumers thinking about their households than their individual use. Unless one is a dedicated gadget freak (or finds the size of the iPad to be problematic) I doubt many iPad owners will purchase the Fire for their own use.

On the other hand, there are many households where an additional tablet, especially at a bargain price, would be welcome. As many iPad owners have discovered, the iPad has a number of weaknesses as a shared "family" tablet. A secondary tablet, especially for households that already include an e-Reader along with the iPad, may be very tempting.

 

[poloponies]

kindle fire might be even hotter than the iPad this season it sounds like. i guess it makes sense, we talked about it in church group and a number of us have iPads (we use them for bible study) and we STILL want the Kindle Fire. Anyone here going to buy both also?

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/10/kindle-fire-could-be-hotter-than-ipad-this-holiday-season-study-finds/

"Hotter" is a relative term. Amazon expects to make 5 million units by year-end. If predictions hold true, Apple should sell something north of 11 million units in that same period. If Apple's Q1 results are appreciably below that then we'll see the impact of the Fire. For the time being, they're really not competing devices.

 

[jsh1120]

"Hotter" is a relative term. Amazon expects to make 5 million units by year-end. If predictions hold true, Apple should sell something north of 11 million units in that same period. If Apple's Q1 results are appreciably below that then we'll see the impact of the Fire. For the time being, they're really not competing devices.

I agree that the market segments are separate (though overlapping to some extent.) Along the same line, it's also important to keep in mind that sales are not a zero-sum game with set number of potential customers. The iPad didn't achieve its astronomical sales numbers by taking customers from the existing (tiny) market for tablets. It expanded the market itself. The same is likely to be true with the introduction of the Fire. Those who purchase a $200 tablet are not necessarily potential iPad customers. If the Fire didn't exist many consumers simply would not purchase a tablet.

By the same token, if Apple doesn't meet its Q4 sales target it doesn't necessarily mean that the Fire is the primary factor in dampening sales of the iPad. Rather, the unsettled worldwide economic conditions may be a more important factor.

 

[FloatingBones]

One thing to note here. I have been in the military for 21 years. In all that time we have moved from Sun microsystem computers to PC's like Dell and in just the last 2 years i have seen my first Mac's popping up. This is huge, because the infrastructure of the military is based on M$. Now all of a sudden iMac's, mac mini's and even ipads are invading that territory. Mac's are still in the minority, but it's very surprising to me to even see them next to the Dell's and HP's! We are also seeing Mac's and ipad's invading all facits of the US government. There is a shift in perception about Mac's.

That's exactly the kind of qualitative shift I'm talking about. It's hard to imagine the kind of perseverance it took to get those first Macs and iPads into military divisions, but the door has clearly been opened.

We've had a separate thread about the iPad in aviation. The iPad is an obvious choice for pilots to replace their printed navigation charts. Hilton Software's WingX Pro7 for iPad with its "Synthetic Vision" looks like an awesome product for navigation. OB to this thread: the Kindle Fire would seem to be a non-starter in this marketplace, because the apps are using the advanced sensors in the Apple product. I would guess that the Air Force will rapidly adapt to use the iPad in the cockpit.

I don't know if Mac's will ever make it to 25% market share worldwide, but if it does i would hazard to guess it will be long before 2025.

Apple is interested in growing market share, but it's clearly not their highest priority. For me, one of the most telling articles of the year is the comparison of profits between Apple and HP. The money quote from the article: Apple makes more money from the sale of one Mac than HP does from selling seven PCs. My favorite way of saying it: having the biggest market share in the PC market may well be the booby prize.

Apple has consistently grown its market share for every single quarter over the past 5 years. That is noteworthy behavior for any manufacturer in any marketplace. When you factor in the premium that Apple charges for their computers, this consistent quarter after quarter growth is truly remarkable. Anyone in the industry ignoring that trend does so at their own peril.

And according to Mr. Cook, Apple has done very well with their brick and mortar "retail stores." I have no reason to doubt that.

Based on the false claims you recently made about Tim Cook's public statements, I'm sure he would be relieved to know that you believe him on this one.

Did you read the front page story that Macrumors had back in August comparing retail operations for US retail chains: Apple Tops U.S. Retail Chains in Sales Per Square Foot. The study notes sales in all stores world-wide for these chains; the numbers are remarkable:

• There are only 5 chains that average more than $1000 per square foot.
  
• At $5626 per square foot, Apple is not only on top of the list, but they almost double the #2 retailer: Tiffany & Co.
  
• The #20 retailer on the list -- Guess Jeans -- sells less than 10% of what Apple does per square foot. Most retailers would kill to get to the productivity of the Guess Jeans retail operation.

Starting from nothing ten years ago, Apple his literally reinvented retailing. Any computer manufacturers who ignore this trend does so at their own peril.

The Apple store near my home is always crowded. But brick and mortar store statistics are hardly a bell weather of market penetration, especially in technology.

The biggest bell weather I saw this year was when HP announced that they were going to sell off their PC business as PC sales stagnate (August 18) and then announced a reversal of course a bit over two months later (October 27). This has to be one of the most colossal business blunders in a long time. HP's stock was selling for around $35 at the start of August; they're now selling for around $26.50 -- a loss of almost a quarter of the value of the company. After that financial hemorrhage, Apple's cash on hand exceeds 150% of HP's market cap. Yikes!

Can you imagine the joy of the HP institutional PC salesmen when they went to work on August 19th -- learning that their company was going to dump their division? Can you imagine their further joy when they learned on October 27 that their company made a 180 on their public announcement? Do you think that institutional purchasers of HP computers have a lot of confidence in their supplier at this point? I especially loved the comment that John Gruber made about the deal:

You know what HP should do? They should acquire Netflix. Then a week later back away and say “Never mind.” Then a month later go ahead and buy Netflix. Those two are made for each other.

Sometimes, you just gotta laugh.

In the case of Apple, it held about the same percentage of the market 25 years ago as it does now. But that was before it went into a long term, serious decline, leading almost to its extinction as a viable brand before Steve Jobs returned to the helm. [...]

Everything is exactly the same -- unless it's different.

You have used this sound-bite a couple of times in this discussion: innuendo that the Apple of today is somehow comparable to Apple in 1985. You've repeated the innuendo, but failed to give any substance -- any reasoning or fact-based arguments -- to make the case.

Make your case! Can you please explain to us why you think Apple today is remotely comparable to the company from 26 years ago.

 

[jsh1120]

You have used this sound-bite a couple of times in this discussion: innuendo that the Apple of today is somehow comparable to Apple in 1985. You've repeated the innuendo, but failed to give any substance -- any reasoning or fact-based arguments -- to make the case.

Make your case! Can you please explain to us why you think Apple today is remotely comparable to the company from 26 years ago.

Didn't say or imply that Apple is the same company it was 25 years ago. Just pointing out that the same level of fanboy based optimism afflicted the Apple community before you were born. (I'm assuming.) And today Apple sits almost exactly where it sat in terms of market share then. Significant year over year growth in terms of sales and slow penetration of total market share, i.e. 1% per year since 2005.

 

[PracticalMac]

Make your case! Can you please explain to us why you think Apple today is remotely comparable to the company from 26 years ago.

The only thing that is the same is the silhouette of the logo.

...and the address.

Jobs loves to reinvent everything (and would change the address if he could!)

 

[FloatingBones]

Didn't say or imply that Apple is the same company it was 25 years ago.

It sounded like innuendo that the company was in similar circumstances -- and headed for a similar kind of fall.

Just pointing out that the same level of fanboy based optimism afflicted the Apple community before you were born. (I'm assuming.)

Therefore ... what? Are you predicting something that might happen because you think the circumstances are somehow "similar"?

I also assume the "fanboy based optimism" is not referring to our discussion here, because any use of labels like "fanboy" is completely inappropriate for a MacRumors discussion.

And

And? Really? You have failed to make a case that we have "the same level" of optimism about Apple today that Apple enthusiasts had in 1985. Simply making the conjecture doesn't make it true.

today Apple sits almost exactly where it sat in terms of market share then.

A statistician noticing that two numbers were the same would call that a coincidence -- unless, of course, you could demonstrate some correlation between the numbers. At this point, you haven't even cited any numbers -- let alone demonstrated any correlation between the numbers. In short, it all looks like an unsubstantiated conjecture.

Significant year over year growth in terms of sales and slow penetration of total market share, i.e. 1% per year since 2005.

Ditto for these claims. Numbers and sources, please.

Apple is a radically different company than it was in 1985. Here are a couple of things that come to mind:

1985:

• The Lisa was a failed product.
• The original Mac was a failed product.
• Revenues from Apple's original product -- the Apple II -- was dying. There was nothing to replace that revenue stream.

2011:

• Apple has a stable of mature products all of which are all producing revenues and growth.
• Apple is in the top 3 companies of the world in its market capitalization.
• Apple has the most successful retail operation (based on $$$ per square foot of store space) in the history of civilization.
• Apple has a stable and mature management team.

I don't really see much to compare the two companies at all. I think your statement is essentially all innuendo.

I'll try one last time. I've repeatedly cited the following source dealing with market share of various operating systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share[SNIP]

I'll try, once again, to help you understand what works and doesn't work as a source.

The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's a poor choice for a source for a fact-based discussion here. Articles within the wikipedia are fluid; articles could change their content from the point that you look up your facts to the time that readers access them. Quality of the articles can be variable and volatile.

Wikipedia is rarely if ever cited as a source by the MacRumors staff. The Wikipedia article on identifying reliable sources itself notes that The Wikipedia is a poor choice for citations. My relatives in high school tell me that citing a Wikipedia article as a source will give them a failing grade on the paper.

While the Wikipedia shouldn't be directly cited, Wikipedia articles may provide references to good sources that are completely appropriate to use for citation.

JSH: do you have no comment at all about HP's announcement to drop all of their PC manufacturing, their reversal of that announcement, and the financial hemorrhage they have taken since August 1? Do you not view this whole gaffe as a bell weather event of 2011?

Do you really think that the established "IBM PC" manufacturers are in good shape at this point? Did you go read the Apple makes more money from the sale of one Mac than HP does from selling seven PCs article?

By the same token, if Apple doesn't meet its Q4 sales target it doesn't necessarily mean that the Fire is the primary factor in dampening sales of the iPad. Rather, the unsettled worldwide economic conditions may be a more important factor.

The correct word is damping.

Since we've already been in unsettled worldwide economic conditions for several years and Apple has been a financial juggernaut for those same years, wouldn't conditions have to become even more unsettled to have that be a legitimate excuse?

 

[jsh1120]

I'm done with you, son. And by the way, the correct word is "dampening" which means to lessen. "Damping" means to reduce amplitude. But I'll give you this. Your youthful arrogance is amusing.

P.S. The quality of a source is judged by its content, not whether it happens to be published in Wikipedia. When you get more experience you'll recognize that.

 

[kdarling]

That's exactly the kind of qualitative shift I'm talking about. It's hard to imagine the kind of perseverance it took to get those first Macs and iPads into military divisions, but the door has clearly been opened.

The real shift is that entities (military and enterprise) that used to demand toughened computers and tablets for the past decade, are now more willing to buy cheaper consumer devices. Mostly due to the economy; partly because of a younger group of managers.

Hilton Software's WingX Pro7 for iPad with its "Synthetic Vision" looks like an awesome product for navigation. OB to this thread: the Kindle Fire would seem to be a non-starter in this marketplace, because the apps are using the advanced sensors in the Apple product.

Nope, they're not using iPad sensors. Attitude apps like that require far more reliable input. E.g. that "Synthetic Vision" ad notes that it works only if you add on a $800 - $1000 AHRS-G mini wireless attitude module.

I would guess that the Air Force will rapidly adapt to use the iPad in the cockpit.

Yep, but then the USAF has been using tablets for almost a decade.

 

[Evan_11]

On one hand, the Kindle Fire is Amazon and Jeff Bezos's "screw you" to Apple and Steve Jobs for pushing the agency model through for e-books. But really I think that they aggressively priced it so they can lock people into Amazon Prime accounts. At $79, there's a lot of value: free two day shipping, video streaming, cloud account. Eventually Amazon will have to charge sales tax in all states (it's going to happen, no way around) so having all those Prime members will stave off potential sale losses.

The Kindle Fire will sell very well because people want a color e-reader that they can use to surf the internet for cheap. The crazy $99 HP tablet closeout proved this. Losing $10 per unit means very little to Amazon at this point. I think it will also put a dent into iPad sales. As much as I like my iPad 2, I would of probably second guessed purchasing it if the Kindle Fire would of been available at the same time.

 

[Mac.World]

On one hand, the Kindle Fire is Amazon and Jeff Bezos's "screw you" to Apple and Steve Jobs for pushing the agency model through for e-books. But really I think that they aggressively priced it so they can lock people into Amazon Prime accounts. At $79, there's a lot of value: free two day shipping, video streaming, cloud account. Eventually Amazon will have to charge sales tax in all states (it's going to happen, no way around) so having all those Prime members will stave off potential sale losses.

The Kindle Fire will sell very well because people want a color e-reader that they can use to surf the internet for cheap. The crazy $99 HP tablet closeout proved this. Losing $10 per unit means very little to Amazon at this point. I think it will also put a dent into iPad sales. As much as I like my iPad 2, I would of probably second guessed purchasing it if the Kindle Fire would of been available at the same time.

According to analysts, they're losing $50 per Fire, not $10. And i can believe this, since Amazon just stole the design specs off RIM and the Playbook cost $273 in components. Taking ofF the gyroscope, cameras, mic, and bluetooth probably shaved $30, but you have to include r&d, advertizing, os setup and so on into initial costs. Amazon has already stated they expect to lose 200-300 million this quarter. I anticipate them losing more in the long run, especially if the attempt to move into the 10” screen territory.

 

[Evan_11]

According to analysts, they're losing $50 per Fire, not $10. And i can believe this, since Amazon just stole the design specs off RIM and the Playbook cost $273 in components.

$50 is an estimate from one analyst. I'm seeing $209.63 being the total cost to manufacture from multiple other sources. Regardless, you're missing the big picture because you are still caught up in Steve's RDF (despite him being no longer with us. Perhaps he has supernatural powers...): How often do you buy stuff from Amazon? I would guess a lot. I know I do. What do you use your iPad mainly for? I mostly use mine to surf the net, read PDF and ebooks and watch videos. The Fire can do all of these things except on a smaller screen for $300 less than the iPad 2. Granted, there are some very cool Apps that I have fun with on the iPad that may never see the light of day on the Fire. But nothing that is worth $300. Listen, I'm not saying that the Kindle Fire is better than the iPad 2. Far from it. But if you compare $199 to $499 then it looks like a helluva' good deal especially when you can get so much through Amazon Prime.

 

[Mac.World]

$50 is an estimate from one analyst. I'm seeing $209.63 being the total cost to manufacture from multiple other sources. Regardless, you're missing the big picture because you are still caught up in Steve's RDF (despite him being no longer with us. Perhaps he has supernatural powers...): How often do you buy stuff from Amazon? I would guess a lot. I know I do. What do you use your iPad mainly for? I mostly use mine to surf the net, read PDF and ebooks and watch videos. The Fire can do all of these things except on a smaller screen for $300 less than the iPad 2. Granted, there are some very cool Apps that I have fun with on the iPad that may never see the light of day on the Fire. But nothing that is worth $300. Listen, I'm not saying that the Kindle Fire is better than the iPad 2. Far from it. But if you compare $199 to $499 then it looks like a helluva' good deal especially when you can get so much through Amazon Prime.

It's funny that people assume other people buy stuff on Amazon. In all my life, i have bought 3 things from Amazon. Three! My wife uses it more, but not enough to spend $79 a year just for 2 day shipping perks. I simply don't use Amazon like some people and those are the people that the Fire are perfect for. Using the Fire as an ereader/catalog, with the ablity to surf the web.

I use my ipad for much more than just surfing the web. I enjoy reading my magazines on it and sorry but trying to read a magazine or full web pages on a 7" screen is a joke and an eye strain. I utilize special apps like My Medical, which need a ten inch screen for doctors to see XRay's, MRI and CT scans.
I enjoy streaming my ipad video directly to my 50" TV as well, or playing games like Real Racing 2 on a big screen TV. I like having the ability of seemlessly rotating my screen from portrait to landscape mode. I like having bluetooth connectivity. I enjoy being able to dictate tweets and emails with apps like Vlingo. I especially like having a 10" screen and being able to store more than 2 hd movies on my ipad for those long road trips and plane rides, not to mention being able to store a few hundred apps on my ipad as well. I like not being restricted to wifi to simply be able to use my device. The Fire can do none of these things and a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the Fire. Just wait. The interweb is going to be flooded with people complaining about silly little things like why their Fire won't rotate from portrait to landscape mode like the ipad does. It's going to be comical.


You asked what i mainly use my ipad for. Well, what i use my ipad for the Fire could never do. It's a pathetic excuse for a tablet, but a great segway catalog/ereader for those that use and purchase through Amazon a lot. Don't kid yourself and others and pretend this can do what a full fledged tablet can. It's simply not the case.

 

[jsh1120]

$50 is an estimate from one analyst. I'm seeing $209.63 being the total cost to manufacture from multiple other sources. Regardless, you're missing the big picture because you are still caught up in Steve's RDF (despite him being no longer with us. Perhaps he has supernatural powers...): How often do you buy stuff from Amazon? I would guess a lot. I know I do. What do you use your iPad mainly for? I mostly use mine to surf the net, read PDF and ebooks and watch videos. The Fire can do all of these things except on a smaller screen for $300 less than the iPad 2. Granted, there are some very cool Apps that I have fun with on the iPad that may never see the light of day on the Fire. But nothing that is worth $300. Listen, I'm not saying that the Kindle Fire is better than the iPad 2. Far from it. But if you compare $199 to $499 then it looks like a helluva' good deal especially when you can get so much through Amazon Prime.

Indeed, the estimate that Amazon is losing money on each iPad sold is a perfect example of the web as echo chamber. For example...

"...But UBM TechInsights, another specialist in the field, on Wednesday produced a $150 cost estimate that indicates the hardware turns a profit on its own. That figure doesn’t include fees associated with manufacturing, which the firm estimates might take the total to slightly above $160.

“We are pretty confident that they are making a little bit of money,” said Jeffrey Brown, an analyst with the firm..."

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/09/30/two-views-on-the-cost-of-amazons-kindle-fire/

In reality, of course, no one outside Amazon knows whether the firm is making money on each Fire sold. One thing, however, is certain. Jeff Bezos didn't build Amazon by being dumb.

 

[Mac.World]

Indeed, the estimate that Amazon is losing money on each iPad sold is a perfect example of the web as echo chamber. For example...

Oops. Although you are probably right. #

 

[PracticalMac]

Yr Blues post a list a reviews by top tech sites.

They all pretty much panned its performance, gripped about lacking features, and lamented over failed expectations, however many of them said for the price ($199) it was a great machine, which is kind of odd because you can get Android tables for less.

If it was not made by Amazon, it would not get much attention.


Oh, and Fire will only make iPad burn brighter.

 

[jsh1120]

Yr Blues post a list a reviews by top tech sites.

They all pretty much panned its performance, gripped about lacking features, and lamented over failed expectations, however many of them said for the price ($199) it was a great machine, which is kind of odd because you can get Android tables for less.

If it was not made by Amazon, it would not get much attention.


Oh, and Fire will only make iPad burn brighter.

Best to read the reviews rather than rely on the characterization above. Yes, each review has gripes about one thing or another. Rather oddly, though, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on a single weakness except perhaps that a 7" tablet is inherently limited in terms of its display.

But the overall reactions are positive, even from Wired, which never saw an Apple product it didn't drool over.

For example, from Wired...

And, yes, the Fire is pretty good bargain for anyone who’s only comfortable with cautious toe-dipping in our presently murky (and expensive) tablet waters. At $200, the Fire crosses an impulse-buy threshold — albeit a steep one — that Apple’s $500 entry-level iPad 2 can’t even approach....

All these enticing features are topped off by a free one-month subscription to Amazon Prime, the company’s premium membership service. Prime provides free two-day shipping on all physical deliveries, free access to some 13,000 streaming videos, and free access to Amazon’s Kindle Owners Lending Library. This library lets you borrow e-books from a selection of more than 5,000 titles, including 100-plus current and former New York Times bestsellers — one e-book at a time, and one borrow per month, but with no pesky due dates.

From Engadget

The Kindle Fire is quite an achievement at $200. It's a perfectly usable tablet that feels good in the hand and has a respectably good looking display up front. Yes, power users will find themselves a little frustrated with what they can and can't do on the thing without access to the Android Market but, in these carefree days of cloud-based apps ruling the world, increasingly all you need is a good browser. That the Fire has.

From Gizmodo

If you like what Amazon Prime has going on in the kitchen, the Fire is a terrific seat. It's not as powerful or capable as an iPad, but it's also a sliver of the price—and that $200 will let you jack into the Prime catalog (and the rest of your media collection) easily and comfortably. Simply, the Fire is a wonderful IRL compliment to Amazon's digital abundance. It's a terrific, compact little friend, and—is this even saying anything?—the best Android tablet to date.

From C-Net

The Kindle Fire is a 7-inch tablet that links seamlessly with Amazon's impressive collection of digital music, video, magazine, and book services in one easy-to-use package. It boasts a great Web browser, and its curated Android app store includes most of the big must-have apps (such as Netflix, Pandora, and Hulu). The Fire has an ultra-affordable price tag, and the screen quality is exceptional for the price...

But as much as I like this tablet, the Kindle Fire isn't getting our best rating or an Editors' Choice. There's no doubt that I would choose an iPad 2 over a Kindle Fire in a heartbeat. In fact, I'd take an original iPad over a Kindle Fire.

But I don't live in a fantasy world where people are offering me free iPads. I live in a world where even $199 sounds like a lot of money. In that world, I applaud Amazon for making the best tablet value on the market.

From TheVerge

Still, there's no question that the Fire is a really terrific tablet for its price. The amount of content you have access to — and the ease of getting to that content — is notable to say the least. The device is decently designed, and the software — while lacking some polish — is still excellent compared to pretty much anything in this range (and that includes the Nook Color). It's a well thought out tablet that can only get better as the company refines the software. It's not perfect, but it's a great start, and at $200, that may be all Amazon needs this holiday shopping season.

From LaptopMag

The Kindle Fire isn't an iPad killer, but it is a killer deal. At $199, it's really hard to beat the package Amazon has put together. Assuming you're willing to carry a smaller 7-inch device, it combines an easy-to-use interface and one-tap access to loads of content in a well-built design. While you do need to sacrifice some features, such as dedicated volume controls and a camera, the Fire has single-handedly made pretty much every other tablet under $400 irrelevant.

 

[matt90036]

one thing is for sure, if apple ignores 7inch tablet market then sooner or later Amaon will dominate that sector IF they play it right. by playing it right I mean making 7inch tablet experience smooth, with no bugs and adding the essential camera and 3G as optional. 7inch tablets are the sweet spot between an iPad and iPhone. IPad is way too big for me to carry around and iPhone is way too small to surf the net. KF, fits nicely in between but it does require addition of 3G to make it fully mobile.
as of now, for MY ONLY needs KF is a huge failure. For people who never used iPads and kids it will be a well fit device.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

So I guess Microsoft lost to Sony? They lost money on every 'Xbox360' sold up until late 2008. After that point the hardware prices came down enough to make them some money.

Point being for the first three years Microsoft made their money from the media purchased for the console. Same story with Amazon and their new tablet.

 

[FloatingBones]

"...loose money..." Same misspelling even.

I don't mind someone having a spelling/usage error. What is educational is how someone deals with it. PracticalMac laughed about his error and moved on. OTOH, you lectured us with incorrect information:

By the same token, if Apple doesn't meet its Q4 sales target it doesn't necessarily mean that the Fire is the primary factor in dampening sales of the iPad. Rather, the unsettled worldwide economic conditions may be a more important factor.

The correct word is damping

And by the way, the correct word is "dampening" which means to lessen. "Damping" means to reduce amplitude. But I'll give you this. Your youthful arrogance is amusing.

P.S. The quality of a source is judged by its content, not whether it happens to be published in Wikipedia. When you get more experience you'll recognize that.

JSH: did you bother to chase the link and look up my source for the usage error? It's from Common Errors in English Usage: The Book (2nd Edition, November, 2008). The author is Paul Brians, Emeritus Professor of English at Washington State University. Dampening always has to do with wetting something -- if only metaphorically. Damping has to do with the lessening of the amplitude of vibrations in oscillating systems.

The professor's online guide is outstanding; his mnemonic for lose/loose is cute.

It would be interesting to see how many returns Amazon gets on the Fire; I'm guessing we will see no such numbers.

 

[jsh1120]

JSH: did you bother to chase the link and look up my source for the usage error? It's from Common Errors in English Usage: The Book (2nd Edition, November, 2008). The author is Paul Brians, Emeritus Professor of English at Washington State University. Dampening always has to do with wetting something -- if only metaphorically. Damping has to do with the lessening of the amplitude of vibrations in oscillating systems.

The professor's online guide is outstanding; his mnemonic for lose/loose is cute.

For Heaven's sake:

Dampening: To deaden, restrain, or depress: "trade moves . . . aimed at dampening protectionist pressures in Congress" (Christian Science Monitor).

to check or diminish the activity or vigor of : deaden <the heat dampened our spirits>

dampening: present participle of damp·en (Verb)
Verb:

Make less strong or intense: "nothing could dampen her enthusiasm".

To "damp" sales would imply that they oscillate. Learn to read a dictionary.