I'm waiting for the first article about the kid that tries to divorce his parents cause they got him a Fire and not the iPad that he asked for
Haha.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Welcomes Kindle Fire Tablet and More Android Fragmentation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha.
That's pretty funny. Do you really think Steve Jobs would have been more concerned about the low end of the market then Tim Cook?
Yes. The Kindle Fire is an Android device, which stands to gain significant market share against the iPad due to its aggressive pricing. When Apple shareholders see the Kindle Fire sales numbers, it will affect Apple stock price.
Kindle Fire is a good tablet for those people who want to watch movies, tv shows, read books, read magazines, browse the web, and maybe play some Angry Birds.
You've just described the iPad.
The iPad does more. If someone bought an iPad just to do those things instead of the Kindle Fire, they'd be wasting their money.
MSFT:
Mkt cap 222.92B
Key stats and ratios
Q3 (Sep '11) 2011
Net profit margin 33.03% 33.10%
Operating margin 41.46% 38.83%
EBITD margin - 42.79%
Return on average assets 21.30% 23.77%
Return on average equity 39.52% 44.84%
Employees 90,000 -
Yeah, you're such a genius. Just because a stock doesn't perform doesn't mean a company isn't raking in cash. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world.
Exactly! You said it, so how is anyone going to argue it isn't going to compete? Everyone knows it WILL.
So by your own argument the iPad is 300 over priced. The fire is 300 bucks cheaper.
I believe a valid argument needs to be based on something real, not idle gossip from people who don't know anything much about what's going on. Apple will produce what they believe to be the right product and release it at what they believe to be the right time. It will sell, regardless of what gossip mongers and the rumor industry have given us to expect in advance.
Apple have almost always had low-priced competition with solid ecosystem. The Mac was sold at premium price against cheap knock-off PCs running Windows and a whole raft of junkware/freeware and it still sold - still sells that way even now. Surely it is not beyond the power of imagination to realise that Apple's track record, sales volume and profitability - given that in every category they are selling devices at premium prices against cheap competition - means they have some notion about what they are doing, and are in fact succeeding where you seem to believe they can't.
All the court case in Spain has proved - so far - is that Apple have not got a strong enough case to win, in that instance. If you believe that using the legal system to fight a legal case is an indication of arrogance, then it leaves very little basis for a rational discussion. What other venue is there? It costs Apple money to fight these cases, and if there is no merit in a suit they bring, no court will proceed with it. Apple might be prepared to bring frivolous suits to chill the competition, but swift dismissals would quickly end that and actually result in the competition gaining much better traction. Again, the Spanish court saw sufficient grounds last year to grant Apple's injunction, meaning there were grounds for the case.
But this is what I would say 80% of iPad owners DO use it for. Just how many people do you see use an iPad for work? And just how many use it for email, web browsing, music, videos, games?
When has Apple under Steve Jobs ever got into a pricing war with a competitor that sells an inferior product as a loss leader?
People don't invest for market share. They invest to make money. I'm not so sure that Apple investors will be too concerned over the amount of money that Amazon loses with each Kindle it sells.
Tim Cook would never call someone a gay retard. Just sayin..
Can we drop all the wink wink nonsense about how Tim Cook is gay. He's never been seen with a boyfriend, hasn't come out etc. There's an equal chance he's a straight man that just hasn't found a woman that would put up with the 14-16 hour days and 7 days a week that his job entails. Or maybe he does have one but she chooses not to parade around in public and be a target of the paps. We don't see him 24 hours a day or get a record of every email and phone call so it can go either way.
And what does it matter anyway, being gay or straight doesn't change how well you can do any job, much less his. So how about we show Tim a heck of a lot more respect for personal privacy than Steve was ever given. I think even Steve would want that.
Nope, yet again. The history of it is known, the marketplace well understood. I'm not concerned whether it fits your interpretation of what Tim Cook said, or even your interpretation of what I've said.
Perhaps it would be helpful to recall what was actually reported to have been said:
While the pricing at $199 looks disruptive for what seems to be the iPad’s most important rising challenge, the Amazon Fire – it is important to note that it could fuel further fragmentation in the tablet market—given it represents yet another platform. While compatible with Android, the Apps work with Amazon products. The more fragmentation, the better, says Apple, since that could drive more consumers to the stable Apple platform. We believe that Apple will get more aggressive on price with the iPad eventually but not compromise the product quality and experience.
Last edited:
No. You can't do that. You can't give me a quote of Wikipedia's opinion of what a tablet it, then tell me the Kindle Touch isn't a tablet, although it fits those same specifications. The definition said nothing about what it's "mostly used for" (which, by the way, you have no way of knowing what the Kindle Touch is mostly used for).
So you have to admit one of two things:
Either the Wikipedia definition is far too broad and can't be used as proof because it would include the Kindle Touch. And if you throw out that definition, the Kindle Fire can't be defined as a true tablet, and its classification is a matter of opinion.
or
The Kindle Touch is a tablet, along with anything else that fits into that extremely broad definition.
The fact of the matter is, it's all opinion. Even Wikipedia.
But me calling the Fire a souped-up eReader is not meant as a slap against it. It's meant as a compliment.
In my opinion, you can view it as a very impressive, very capable eReader, or as a crippled tablet that lacks lots of apps and basic functions like Bluetooth, optional 3G/4G, multi-touch that goes beyond two fingers, a gyroscope, and an accelerometer.
Here you go, PC Mag shouldn't be wrong now: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=tablet+computer&i=52520,00.asp#fbid=W_TqcZUBPph
From that link:
"Definition of: tablet computer
A general-purpose computer contained in a single panel. Its distinguishing characteristic is the use of a touch screen as the input device. Modern tablets are operated by fingers, whereas earlier tablets required a stylus."
That's what the Kindle Fire is.
The reason the Kindle Touch is not a tablet is because it uses E-ink screen meaning it's mainly used for reading books. It can be considered a tablet since it has a browser, but it's mainly an E-reader.
I view it as a basic tablet for viewing shows, movies, reading magazines, maybe some books, browsing the web, and using some apps. It's a basic tablet.
So it's definitely not but it might be? Like I said a million times here, it's all a matter of opinion.
And like I said, I prefer to think of the Fire as an amazing eReader with some amazing features rather than a sh***y tablet that's missing a bunch of apps and features that I can find on an iPad.
It's not a tablet, but it can be considered to be one. Like the iPad is not a big iPod touch, but it can be considered one. Know what I'm saying?
It's not an amazing eReader because it doesn't have an E-ink display. Reading from a screen like that would cause eye strain and glare. Making it a bad eReader.
According to the Wikipedia definition you gave, the iPad would firmly fall into the tablet category, not the PMP category of an iPod Touch. An iPod Touch does not fall under that definition, while a Kindle Touch and a Kindle Fire does.
But let's forget all that since it's going nowhere. If you're saying it's not an eReader, are you also saying it's a cheap, crappy tablet?
Because seriously, it's missing a lot of features and apps that other tablets have. And not just the iPad, but other Android tablets that have access to the hundreds of thousands of Android Marketplace apps (quality of apps notwithstanding), have cameras, have Bluetooth capabilities, and mics, and accelerometers, etc.
But by the time many of the people realize that, it'll be too late to return it and they'll hang onto it for a bit, while not buying an iPad...
Gary
No such thing. Apple charges what the market can bear. For that "extra" $300 you're getting a device that offers VALUE, a superior user experience, and an ecosystem that is highly developed and is currently without peer (and looks to remain that way for quite while.)
You're not just buying an Apple product. You're buying into the Apple ecosystem.
And spreading the word of how disappointed they are at how crappy it is because they had ignorant high expectations, so any sales beyond pre-orders and possibly the first few months will shrink to nothing and any possible next-gen Fire will bomb.
No, I'm saying it's a good tablet that people can afford. Amazon has more than 6,000 apps on their site. Pretty sure that's enough for most people. It is missing features like GPS, Accelerometer, mic, camera. True, but for the people who don't need that and just want to watch TV shows, movies, browse the web, use apps for a low price, then it's good.
The first iPad missed a lot of those, and you can still buy an iPad without 3G/4G and GPS. For some reason. the Apple fans on this site have a tendency to inflate the requirements to be part of a category to exactly what Apple offers, even if that's different from the previous month. "Smartphone" is another definition that's been inflated to a ridiculous degree here.
The market majority will decide what it is and what it isn't. Personal definitions don't matter, nor do the intentions of the manufacturer.
HP marketed their first Windows-based Slate at a "business" crowd and was rather explicit about it (or rather, their fans were), and what ended up happening was the inevitable: consumers compared it to the iPad.
In that case, they saw how hard it sucked, and decided to move on. So the HP Slate died.
Every single hand-held square-shaped tablet-looking device over, say, 6 inches, that functions via touch (or worse, stylus) and allows users to access some form of rich media will be compared to the iPad. At first blush, the Kindle looks like another tablet. That's all the criteria the average consumer needs in order to start the comparisons.
And if you want to do email, web browsing, and Angry Birds, you don't need the Apple ecosystem and you're overpaying for the features you do want.