Apple Welcomes Kindle Fire Tablet and More Android Fragmentation

[divinox]

Ah yes, the last, desperate grasp of someone without an actual point to make: Wikipedia. Because the opinion of some shlub is somehow counted as fact and outweighs the opinion of some other shlub (me, in this case) and the tons of other people who see the Fire as less than a tablet.

But that's fine. If you want to continue counting the Fire as a tablet instead of a cool eReader, I'll say have fun using your extremely crippled tablet.

Ironically, thats the exact same thing PC-tablet people said - and still say - about the iPad. Why is your critique more relevant than theirs? Usefulness is dictated by actual use. Research shows that even "extremely crippled tablets" are, in fact, not very crippled at all in practice.

It may not do this, or that, or what-not, but what difference does that make if people - in general - dont use it, or expect to use it, that way to begin with?

(ironically, the KF is quite the poster boy of a post-pc device. At least if we take Jobs 2007 AllthingsD definition of the word).

 

[guch20]

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?

You posted a Wikipedia definition of what a tablet is. That was your argument, not mine. The Kindle Touch perfectly fits that definition. It doesn't matter what it's "mostly" used for, but even if it did, if I mostly used my Kindle Touch to surf the web, wouldn't that make it a tablet, even under your strained definition?

Hell, the definition of a flashlight, via Webster's, is:

"a small battery-operated portable electric light" which your phone would be when you're using it to illuminate your path.

See the problem with relying on definitions?

 

[something3153]

"Ice Cream Sandwich" (one of the most ridiculous names I've ever heard, even if its just its code name)

I am so sick of this. Pretty much all technology has development codenames. Personally, I think the most ridiculous is Kal-El, but most people aren't going to be aware of the codenames, and I'd hope most people that follow technology enough to know them are mature enough to not take it seriously. Do you think everyone in Lincoln, NE ranted about Vista being codenamed Longhorn? I mean yes, Vista is crap, but I'm just talking about the development name here. The only problem with ICS is it's too long. It's no more "ridiculous" than Snow Leopard or Ivy Bridge or Fermi. If you have an issue with Android, say so, don't make passive-aggressive comments about its name.

 

[D.T.]

Many people interested in that featureset, like me, have stayed out of the tablet market because of those assumptions that everyone needs everything.

I'd say that's pretty reasonable, especially with the Apple price point of ~$500 (I personally found it totally acceptable, but I already knew my usage model would capitalize on the features/functions/Apple-Eco).

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

That's pretty interesting speculation. If Fire owners start wanting a more "robust" tablet experience (for lack of better terms), instead of them leaving Amazon, they could simply having a more upscale solution (larger display, widgets~n~doodads).

I
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 kind of a side note: the Android OS revisions are moving through the alphabet, and using the letter as the first letter of a desert food: F(royo), G(ingerbread), H(oneycomb), I(ce Cream Sandwich), etc., forward (and back...)

 

[divinox]

If it's a tablet, why doesn't Amazon ever refer to it as such?

Their webpage for the Fire only lists quotes from others calling it a tablet. They only refer to it as "a Kindle for entertainment, web, games, reading, and more." And what is a Kindle? An eReader.

So it's a souped-up Kindle, not a true tablet.

And don't throw around those stupid, "can be edited by just about anyone" Wikipedia definitions, because according to that, a Nook Color or a Kindle Touch is also a true tablet.

----------



Obviously, but that's a very small number of apps.

Many many more use the accelerometer. Which the Fire doesn't have.

----------



Then so is the Kindle Touch and the Nook Color, because both fit that extremely broad definition.

If Volvo stopped calling their devices cars, would the devices cease to be cars? KF is, per popular definition, a tablet. Amazon might call it Kindle, doodle or Beer. Still is what it is.

 

[iEvolution]

I am so sick of this. Pretty much all technology has development codenames. Personally, I think the most ridiculous is Kal-El, but most people aren't going to be aware of the codenames, and I'd hope most people that follow technology enough to know them are mature enough to not take it seriously. Do you think everyone in Lincoln, NE ranted about Vista being codenamed Longhorn? I mean yes, Vista is crap, but I'm just talking about the development name here. The only problem with ICS is it's too long. It's no more "ridiculous" than Snow Leopard or Ivy Bridge or Fermi. If you have an issue with Android, say so, don't make passive-aggressive comments about its name.

What did you skip out all the other stuff I typed about android, none which were insulting to the Android OS.

Of all the stuff I typed that is what you came up with? Talk about missing the whole point.

 

[something3153]

See the problem with relying on definitions?

The problem is, without definitions, we get people like you defining everything in whatever way strengthens their argument with no concern for fact or sense.

 

[santaliqueur]

Lest we all forget the Kindle Fire is half the size of the iPad. Half.

 

[subsonix]

Despite it being based on Android, the ecosystem is totally Amazon's and is fully controlled by them. So there will be no fragmentation. Tim Cook is wrong.

The fact that Amazon is it's own ecosystem despite being android is what is meant by fragmentation. That is, cross compatibility on android as a whole, it's not one unified platform.

 

[divinox]

Apple doesn't refer the iPad as a tablet either.

Kindle Touch is an e-Reader. You mainly read books on it. That's what an e-Reader is. Nook Color is a Tablet since it has apps.

----------



It's $200, not $300. I won't buy it since I don't have a need for a tablet. But that doesn't mean other people won't buy it.

EDIT: PPI on the Fire is 169.

Nope. As it seems, Jobs were a big fan of Weiser. Weiser defined the "ipad-sized devices" as Pads back in the days. Tabs, as he called them, were much smaller (cf. iphone).

<3 PARC!
<3 Weiser!

 

[thenerdal]

You posted a Wikipedia definition of what a tablet is. That was your argument, not mine. The Kindle Touch perfectly fits that definition. It doesn't matter what it's "mostly" used for, but even if it did, if I mostly used my Kindle Touch to surf the web, wouldn't that make it a tablet, even under your strained definition?

Hell, the definition of a flashlight, via Webster's, is:

"a small battery-operated portable electric light" which your phone would be when you're using it to illuminate your path.

See the problem with relying on definitions?

The EReader Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book_reader

"An e-book reader is similar in form to a tablet computer. A tablet computer typically has a faster screen capable of higher refresh rates which makes them more suitable for interaction. The main advantages of e-book readers are better readability of their screens especially in bright sunlight and longer battery life. This is achieved by using electronic paper technology to display content to readers."

^^

That's why it's not a Tablet.

 

[BaldiMac]

indeed!
hey so where do i download ios5 for iphone1 and iphone 3g? do tell.

Because comparing an 1.5 year old phone to 3 and 4 year phones makes perfect sense in this context.

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).

That's ridiculous. Pie in the sky speculation about an imaginary solution does not contradict the obvious problem.

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).

No, but we have the obvious example of Amazon and Android Markets as they exist now. As opposed to your baseless speculation.

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.

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?

Read your definition again. Nothing about primary use.

 

[divinox]

It does matter. Also the older tablets were called Tablet PC's. The current ones are called Computer tablets. Tablet PC's had keyboards.

Actually no. A sub-set of Tablet PC's had keyboards (e.g. Hybrids/Convertibles). Other subsets (e.g. Slates) did not.

 

[thenerdal]

Read your definition again. Nothing about primary use.

"An e-book reader, also called an e-book device or e-reader, is a portable electronic device that is designed primarily for the purpose of reading digital books and periodicals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book_reader

 

[voonyx]

That's ridiculous. Pie in the sky speculation about an imaginary solution does not contradict the obvious problem.


No, but we have the obvious example of Amazon and Android Markets as they exist now. As opposed to your baseless speculation.

Exactly.

 

[charlituna]

When has Apple under Steve Jobs ever got into a pricing war with a competitor that sells an inferior product as a loss leader?

Never. And they aren't now. Apple isn't going to price down the iPad to compete with this product. As Tim and Peter basically said, they aren't worried about the Kindle Fire hurting iPad sales

 

[za9ra22]

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).

Companies decide which market they are targeting - the typical purchaser of goods or services to whom they aim and market the product. That some individuals from outside that target buy the product even so is inevitable, but no company in the mass market will modify the product to meet that kind of overlap unless it becomes clear a significant volume of sales is being lost. In that way you're right, consumers ultimately control the market by voting with their wallets and purses, but the likes of Apple (and Amazon of course) study the market and have a good grasp on who's wallets and purses open for what reason.

Companies also know there's a need to ensure their product is differentiated from the competition in some advantageous way. Amazon clearly are doing this by leveraging their own ecosystem and selling the device at a low price. Good for them, it's a great business model. Apple do it too however, and have proven rather good at it by building their 'whole widget' product and appealing to the luxury market.

I suspect that in some part, as Apple do lose some sales to Amazon, they'll also be ware that many of these were consumers who were not going to buy an iPad anyway, and that they will also pick up some sales from people who are attracted to the tablet market by the Kindle Fire but realise they want better features only available (for now) on the iPad.

 

[divinox]

In both cases, Apple didn't have much of a choice in filing those suits because Trademark/dress laws demand that you actively defend against all possible infringement or lose your mark (most famous example is aspirin).

And on the whole demand the product be seized by customs and criminal charges that could just be how the game is played in Spain and Apple had to play by those rules.

American law != European law. Just saying.

 

[charlituna]

"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.

No it isn't. There is nothing general purpose or computer about the Fire anymore than the iPad. They aren't even close to computers.

 

[BaldiMac]

"An e-book reader, also called an e-book device or e-reader, is a portable electronic device that is designed primarily for the purpose of reading digital books and periodicals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book_reader

It helps if you don't keep switching your argument with every post. You were discussing the definition of a tablet.

thenerdal: "A Tablet is basically a computer with a touch screen, no keyboard and you use your fingers to navigate it. That's it."

The fact that a Kindle Touch is an e-reader doesn't preclude if from being a tablet.

 

[divinox]

Maybe if Bezos sold the Kidle fire or a little extra, he could do away with the sweatshop conditions in his warehouses.

Apparently not, if we are to take Apple as a case. 80bn in the bank, still treating workers like ****. Capitalism at its prime!

 

[guch20]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Sigh...

We're chasing our tails here on definitions and features and all that crap, so I'm not going to read any more responses to those old points.

Especially since I think most of us were in agreement about this thing, and we only disagreed on semantics.

My only point was that, to the informed consumer who knows the Fire's limitations, it's an excellent device. It surfs the web, you can check email, and you can watch movies or listen to music.

The problem, as I see it, comes from the uninformed consumer (of which there are many--look around the web) who will expect the Kindle Fire to do things it can't, which is made worse when they hear the numerous comparisons to the iPad or references to it as an "iPad killer."

The lack of apps and of functions that apps use, lined up with the lack of cameras and the fact that all content can only be added to the device via Wifi (as far as I've been able to find out, the USB slot is only used for charging), which can be extremely slow, depending on file size and connection, may lead to a lot of disappointed buyers who were simply being foolish by expecting too much.

Again, I'm not slamming the Kindle Fire. It looks like it'll be great at doing what it does. I'm just trying to caution anyone who is expecting this thing to be what it's not.

 

[thenerdal]

No it isn't. There is nothing general purpose or computer about the Fire anymore than the iPad. They aren't even close to computers.

So no one watches videos, uses apps and browses the web? That's the general purpose of tablets now a days.

 

[divinox]

And it won't. Because the audience for the Fire is not the same as the iPad and it will pull sales from the folks that haven't bought a tablet yet cause they didn't think they needed it. They just need to read their books, maybe listen to some music etc. Just what the Fire will do for them.

Of course folks will claim that the Fire has cannibalized sales cause they will look at crazy sales figures in a couple of weeks against 'weak' iPad sales forgetting that folks always stop buying Apple's current line up 2-3 months before the next one is supposed to be out cause they want to save their money to get the latest and greatest. So for those in the iPad audience it will be SOP not to buy an iPad for that holiday gift but a gift card they can use in Jan-Mar when the next iPad comes out. and it would be that game regardless of the presence of the Fire.

Which, in fact, seems to be how most people use their iPad... and still, somehow, it will not pull sales. Strange.

 

[BaldiMac]

No it isn't. There is nothing general purpose or computer about the Fire anymore than the iPad. They aren't even close to computers.

And then you get the even more ridiculous arguments that ignore the actual meaning of words completely.