Apple Welcomes Kindle Fire Tablet and More Android Fragmentation

[garylapointe]

Comparing bananas to bicycles.

Folks! No one is saying the iPad and a kFire are the same thing. But most people won't buy both.

For example: No one will try and convince you that a Ford Escort is a high end SUV with leather heated seats, parking assist, built-in GPS with onStar/Sync and more storage.

But if I just need basic use out of my car and I can pay $19,900 instead of $49,900 it'll still get me where I need to go, just not in style. (Those numbers are significant, to make the analogy more clear: They $19,900 car is the only option in that line, the $49,900 SUV has many more expensive options available in other colors).

And we're not even talking about what's under the hood!

In this case, where most people (not us, the other people) need to go, would be reading books, the web, audio and video players and whatever other options (apps) that might come along.

At the demo they showed Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope and who knows what else. This is valid transportation for the masses people!

Get a facebook and twitter app and 90% of my relatives and family won't know the difference. The other 10% of my family, we own Macs and iPhones, we know...

Gary

 

[guch20]

No, because Kindle touch is used to read books. That's the difference from eReaders and Tablets. eReaders are used to read eBooks, while Tablets are used for a variety of things. Kindle Touch is just a eReader with a touch display.

No, you can also surf the web with the Kindle Touch, and check your email, which brings it right in line with your definition of a tablet.

 

[divinox]

Zero Apps currently on the Android Marketplace can be installed on the Kindle Fire. Zip. Zilch. Nada. All Apps for the Kindle Fire will be installed through the Amazon Appstore. And because Amazon maintains control over the Amazon Appstore, Amazon will be in a position to guarantee that everything submitted to the Amazon Appstore will be compatible with every device capable of tapping into the Amazon Appstore.

For the purposes of App distribution, the degree of "fragmentation" between Kindle Fire and all other Android-based devices, is on the same order of magnitude as the degree of "fragmentation" between Windows Phone 7 and hp webOS. It's a nonsensical correlation because the two ecosystems, by intentional design, don't overlap.

If a 3rd party developer wants to target their Apps to the Android ecosystem, then they will submit them to Google's Android marketplace.

Subsequently, if they also want to target their apps to the iOS ecosystem, then they will redevelop their apps to be compatible with iOS, and to satisfy Apple's editorial guidelines, and and submit them to Apple for approval.

Finally, if they also want to reach the Kindle Fire ecosystem, then they will have to ensure that they meet Amazon's editorial requirements, and submit them separately to the Amazon Appstore -- it just so happens that the process of porting the app from generic Android to Amazon Fire may be relatively painless due to largely identical toolchains and APIs.

This...

...and that (clever move, really).

 

[voonyx]

As already stated: No, not necessarily. Yes, Amazon's store may not have a track of you purchasing said content from store Y, but that is not equivalent with you necessarily having to rebuy said content from store A. It all depends on how Amazon decides to tackle the issue, and how forthcoming developers are in allowing transition of apps. Either way, before information is out, everything is speculation - simple as that.

Whats clear is that it very well might make economic sense to Amazon - not - to double charge customers for content they already paid for on their Android (or iOS) devices. Whether or not they can sway the developers into feeling the same way, well, thats a different story - no different from buying a license for use on a PC and then wanting to transition it to a Mac (an analogous situation, really).

Well...there already exists an Amazon App market and the Android market. And there is no cross-licensing between the two. Apps you buy in the Amazon market are not available for you in the Android market, and vice versa.

But yes, we don't know what kind of "market" Amazon is going to even have on the Kindle, so things can change. I would think this is more of a developer call like you said, then Amazon just giving away apps like that.

 

[garylapointe]

Kindle Touch does use eInk.

And yet, this thread is about the Fire.

Gary

 

[voonyx]

Can you provide any example of an app bought from store X, that Amazon charges for on the Kindle? (Of course not, the Kindle isnt out yet).

Why do you suppose it would be any different? Its not like Amazon is going to do a complete overhaul of their market for one product. The Amazon app market is hugely successful, and doesn't have cross-licensing. I think it's silly to think that suddenly Android app market apps are going to be freely downloadable on the Amazon app market.

 

[samcraig]

That would be great if 3G/4G was the only feature missing versus more feature-complete tablets. It isn't.

The first iPad didn't have cameras, but that's really the only feature it was "missing" compared to the iPad 2.

I forgot - you have Amazon's Kindle Fire roadmap and know exactly what they will and won't include next time around. I apologize.

 

[garylapointe]

Amazon is ready and thinking...

And don't think Amazon doesn't have a 3g model mostly ready to go.

The same goes for one with a camera, more memory options, bluetooth, etc...

Maybe even a larger DX version?

It's all just a tiny step out from where they're at.

Gary

 

[guch20]

I didn't "forget" any of that; I'm not interested. I had an iPhone and downloaded a few dozen apps I never used more than twice. I never used the microphone for anything more than using it as a phone. I'm constantly bathed in wifi and use ~30mb of data per month. Never use bluetooth. The accelerometer and gyroscope I've only ever used for a couple games, occasionally. I don't have any use for a camera on it - the phone is more portable and wieldy for low-quality pics, and I have real cameras when I'm willing to carry something larger than that.

Got anything else I "forgot"? So far you're listing a lot of things I don't need in a tablet.

You may not need it in a tablet, but I'm sure there are a lot of customers who do, and a lot of customers who are expecting certain functions in their tablet that just aren't there in a Kindle Fire. In fact, I've read from a large number of people on various message boards who are saying they expect the same functionality out of this as they do an iPad, and for $300 less...

That's the problem with setting it up as an iPad competitor when it clearly isn't. It's a Nook Color competitor.

----------

I forgot - you have Amazon's Kindle Fire roadmap and know exactly what they will and won't include next time around. I apologize.

If they release one with all of the same features at the same size and build quality of an iPad 2 (or 3, depending on when it's released), their major advantage (price point) will be out the window.

 

[thenerdal]

No, you can also surf the web with the Kindle Touch, and check your email, which brings it right in line with your definition of a tablet.

Yes, but It's mainly used to read eBooks. My phone has a screen that shines light, I can use it as a flashlight in an emergency, but it's mainly used as a phone. See?

 

[samcraig]

You may not need it in a tablet, but I'm sure there are a lot of customers who do, and a lot of customers who are expecting certain functions in their tablet that just aren't there in a Kindle Fire. In fact, I've read from a large number of people on various message boards who are saying they expect the same functionality out of this as they do an iPad, and for $300 less...

That's the problem with setting it up as an iPad competitor when it clearly isn't. It's a Nook Color competitor.

I'm sure there a lot of customers that don't.

I've read from a large number of people on various message boards who expect less functionality because they know how to read a product description.

See how that works.

 

[thenerdal]

And yet, this thread is about the Fire.

Gary

You were replying to me about the Kindle Touch.

 

[divinox]

And you know for sure that very few people would return it (or at least be very disappointed)?

How many people are buying this expecting either:

A) a full "Android" tablet, when the Fire can't use the Android Marketplace,

B) a true iPad-level tablet, which the Fire isn't because it doesn't do a vast majority of the things an iPad can, or

C) a "go anywhere" eReader, which the Fire isn't due to the same screen glare many eReader users complain about on the iPad?

Judging by the number of uninformed posts about the Fire you can see on any messageboard, I'd say a lot of the (oftentimes less informed) general public may be disappointed when they get a Fire.

Those with realistic expectation should be satisfied though.

Of course i dont know for sure, i dont have a crystal ball allowing me to see in to the future. Would i bet money on it, surely.

a) Very few. 9/10 potential customers for this device (perhaps even more) doesnt know or even care. Heck, 9/10 wont even know the difference. They want Apps, and they will have apps. That is the only thing that matters.

b) Quite few, given how people seem to use their ipads (the few of them that actually have one). Main use is consuming media and browsing the web. Perhaps checking mail once in a while. Ok, some casual gaming too. Guess what, the kindle will do that. What "true ipad level" are you talking about here? Heck, its quite easy to argue that the ipad actually performs too well given its use; its too capable, in a sense.

c) How many people buys and returns their ipad for this reason? or any tablet really? doubt it is a serious problem, and if it is - well - it strikes everyone equally.

---

people commenting on boards like this are not "the general public".

 

[samcraig]

----------

[/COLOR]

If they release one with all of the same features at the same size and build quality of an iPad 2 (or 3, depending on when it's released), their major advantage (price point) will be out the window.

Now ask yourself if that will matter THEN. If people buy into the ecosystem - enjoyed their v1 devices - they might just stick with the same ecosystem and get a v2 device even if it's more expensive - ESPECIALLY if it does more.

 

[za9ra22]

Ok, so you come on a rumours website, and then state they have no idea what they are talking about? I do believe that these 'idle gossipers' or 'analysts' actually earn a living from reporting on 'gossip mongers' :roll eyes:
And I also believe they have been pretty accurate with the 'gossip' on more then one occasion, so I shall use the story's for arguments thanks.

You clearly haven't been watching MacRumors for long - the track record for accurate predictions is pretty low, at least until very close to the actual product launch. You can opt to believe what you read and base your perceptions on that of course, but it doesn't help in the process of building a cogent argument.

"and are in fact succeeding where you seem to believe they can't."

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Because that's what you said. You have stated that the only way Apple can win is to sue the competition out of business, which is palpably not true, either now or historically.

How can you possibly state Apple is not successful with the iPad?

I didn't.

But on the flip side:
And some advice, using the PC sales market to prove a point isn't very good, worldwide Apple's share is so tiny I believe it's single figures. It really doesn't shout 'success' for Apple at all, in fact it shouts 'got slaughtered by the competition'?
Apple has only been successful with it's computers due to the massive mark up they have, it makes big profits on the sales. But they are in no way a success i market share terms.

If 'success' is not measured by significantly rising market share, high customer satisfaction levels, repeat customers, high profit margins, a $375billion capitalization (as of close of buiness today), and lots of money in the bank, then how can it be measured? Market share? Dell has market share, how do they compare to Apple's position?

Apple lost it's case, it also lost it's case of criminal charges that it tired to bring, in fact, reading the story's people have been quite shocked at Apple's 'arrogance' to try and file such baseless charges. The patent Apple lost against is also apparently the one it is using against Samsung, it is now expected Apple's case in Spain against Samsung has been weekend due to this ruling. Apple is being arrogant, it is not protecting it's 'intellectual property' it is trying to block competition to protect it's market share and sales, not it's patents and devices.

'People'. Um, yes. As I stated previously, if you think that using the legal system to resolve legal issues is arrogant and presumably fundamentally wrong, then there's no rational basis to discuss this. You can use the opinions of pundits that have an interest in the case, but legal cases create winners and losers, and the opinions on both sides of the fence are pretty worthless since they are vested in the case or the outcome. The only opinion that counts is that of the court.

You can of course view Apple's behaviour as arrogance, and their motive based on nothing but an attempt to stifle competition, but both these conclusions are illogical for reasons I already gave, and fly in the face of the evidence.

 

[APlotdevice]

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.

A lot? The only thing the first iPad is missing is a camera and gyroscope. It has a microphone, bluetooth, accelerometer, complete access to its respective app store, and a 3G option which also comes with GPS.

These aren't just things that Apple offers, but rather they are standard on most major tablets these days.

 

[something3153]

You may not need it in a tablet, but I'm sure there are a lot of customers who do, and a lot of customers who are expecting certain functions in their tablet that just aren't there in a Kindle Fire. In fact, I've read from a large number of people on various message boards who are saying they expect the same functionality out of this as they do an iPad, and for $300 less...

That's the problem with setting it up as an iPad competitor when it clearly isn't. It's a Nook Color competitor.

I'm not quite sure where you're reading this, because I haven't encountered it. Customers who do need that stack of features are free to pay for them and buy an iPad, but it's crazy to believe everyone does. Many people interested in that featureset, like me, have stayed out of the tablet market because of those assumptions that everyone needs everything.

You'd have a much greater chance of selling me an iPhone with that argument line, by the way, and there's a chance I'll get another. I only need one powerful mobile device, though - the other is just a gap-filler. I'd only be interested in a powerful, expensive tablet if I had a dumbphone, but then I wouldn't have the device with the toys around most of the time, so that's not the direction I'd go.

 

[garylapointe]

I forgot - you have Amazon's Kindle Fire roadmap and know exactly what they will and won't include next time around. I apologize.

I'm sorry, this thread was supposed to be about facts? And not speculation? This is the internet...

I think the progression of these (non)tablets will be follow some logical progression. Like cellphones, the next one has more features or higher quality features (3g, storage, microphones, bluetooth, cameras); probably something close to that order. It's certainly the path many phones has taken.

IF this thing is wildly successful, it wouldn't be a shock to see it expand more into the tablet market. As more and more people make apps for it, the more it'll grow.

At some point with a 64GB Kindle Fire media player reaching iPad stature (and prices?), but missing some features, that they'll add the few things that make up the difference for a higher end model?

Gary

 

[iEvolution]

Its not going to cause any more fragmentation than the market has now. In fact if Kindle Fire takes off it could potentially stabilize the fragmentation of Android through popularity of the specific build.

Even then, Google is already looking to stabilize the Android market with "Ice Cream Sandwich" (one of the most ridiculous names I've ever heard, even if its just its code name).

Just a simple poke at the Kindle Fire by Apple, if that is all they can point out bad about the Kindle Fire then I really don't think Amazon has anything to worry about, in fact Apple should be worried.

Can't wait really, competition breeds advancements. Apple will respond price-wise and feature-wise.

A good example of what NO competition does to Apple is the iPod line.

 

[divinox]

What is Tim Cook suppose to say "I'm really not concerned about it," and come off arrogant. The reality is the iPad and Fire are distant cousins, with different lives and rarely cross paths. They are not competing devices, at least at this point. The functionality of the Fire is quite limited compared to the iPad.

Indeed. However, so is average joes actual use of the iPad - thus, the "overlap in practice" is magnitutes larger than the "overlap in theory". In other words, the iPad is, in a way, too functional - based on how its generally used.

 

[voonyx]

Its not going to cause any more fragmentation than the market has now. In fact if Kindle Fire takes off it could potentially stabilize the fragmentation of Android through popularity of the specific build.

Even then, Google is already looking to stabilize the Android market with "Ice Cream Sandwich" (one of the most ridiculous names I've ever heard, even if its just its code name).

ICS isn't going to end fragmentation. It's just another OS that OEMs won't update to for months, if they ever do....I mean, there are still 4G phones that came out this summer that were running Froyo...

 

[garylapointe]

Why isn't the iPhone considered a (tiny) tablet.

If the iPhone and iPad run the same apps and has the same processor and same software (yes, some software is written for specific models).

Explain other than size, why isn't the iPhone a mini-tablet?

The iPhone even has a better camera with a higher-density display. They're virtually the same device.

Make me a 7-inch iPad but add a phone to it OR make me a 7-inch iPhone and there isn't much difference. If you made a 10-inch iPhone would it be a tablet?

A FaTablet?

Gary

 

[samcraig]

If the iPhone and iPad run the same apps and has the same processor and same software (yes, some software is written for specific models).

Explain other than size, why isn't the iPhone a mini-tablet?

The iPhone even has a better camera with a higher-density display. They're virtually the same device.

Make me a 7-inch iPad but add a phone to it OR make me a 7-inch iPhone and there isn't much difference. If you made a 10-inch iPhone would it be a tablet?

A FaTablet?

Gary

the iPod touch could be called a mini tablet. A very mini tablet

But as soon as it makes calls on the network - the market calls it a phone - not a tablet. At least now.

 

[divinox]

Nope. It's a market in which Apple doesn't compete.

It is not companies who decide in which markets they compete, but consumers. If any purchase of a KF results in one less potential purchase of an iPad then they are indeed competing in the market. Personally, having a KF would take out most, if not all, incentives for me in having an iPad on the side (or rather, the value prop. wouldnt be anywhere near the asking price of the device).

 

[garylapointe]

You were replying to me about the Kindle Touch.

Really? Sorry. My bad

I can't even find the original now....

Gary