Which is exactly why the devices - different as they may be - are indeed competing in the market.
----------
Apparently then, a lot of people are wasting their money (ok, not quite - the KF isnt out yet... but you get the idea).
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
Which is exactly why the devices - different as they may be - are indeed competing in the market.
----------
Apparently then, a lot of people are wasting their money (ok, not quite - the KF isnt out yet... but you get the idea).
Yep.
Because doing those things faster on a larger screen with arguably better designed applications couldn't possibly be worth anything!
I'm not switching my argument. The reason why the Kindle touch is an eReader is because it has a better readability with their screens and their e-ink technology, also battery lasts way longer and because it's primarily used to read eBooks. It does have a touch screen. That's just an added bonus.
It's like having an iPad and calling it a GPS navigation device because it has a GPS in it. But overall it's called a tablet. See what I mean?
I think Amazon is betting on a bad business model. Selling the hardware at a loss and making it up with content and software isn't going to work as well on the Android side of things because those users tend to be more ideologically supportive of Free Libre Open Source software, hacking their phones to get stuff for free, and generally not paying as much for content or software. This is just my experience of the people I know, admittedly limited, but the iPhone/Android split seems to also divide people along the lines of more willing/less willing to pay for content and software.
It would be like making a hardware device intended for homebrew software makers, selling it at a loss, and expecting to be able to sell them commercially priced software to make up the deficit. I think Amazon is going to sell a lot of these Kindle Fires, but then find out that a large portion of the people who bought them say "Thanks for the subsidized hardware, Amazon! I'm going to have a lot of fun hacking it, but you're not getting another cent from me."
It would be like making a hardware device intended for homebrew software makers, selling it at a loss, and expecting to be able to sell them commercially priced software to make up the deficit. I think Amazon is going to sell a lot of these Kindle Fires, but then find out that a large portion of the people who bought them say "Thanks for the subsidized hardware, Amazon! I'm going to have a lot of fun hacking it, but you're not getting another cent from me."
Again, you were discussing whether or not it's a tablet. You switched to whether or not it's an e-reader. Being a e-reader does not mean it's not a tablet. It can be both. Just like an iPad can be considered a tablet or a GPS navigation device.
An item is what you're using it for. When I read on my iPad 2, it's an eReader, when I check the web, it's a web-surfing device.
Any product is generally defined as being more than the sum of its parts, and since a Kindle Touch can be used for more than just reading, it can't be called an eReader. Using the definition you gave, it's a tablet, as is the Fire.
Now I feel dirty since I got swept up in that stupid debate again. I'm done now.
----------
This.
Thanks, I agree on a lot of that. I just don't see anyone talking about how great it will be to do augmented reality or GPS directions on a Fire. Everyone I've seen is talking about portable email, web browsing, and media, which is also what all the people but one I know with an iPad use it for. And that's the problem with anecdotes.
It can't be both because the Kindle Touch is used primarily for reading. Tablets aren't used primarily for reading. Tablets, now a days, are used to consume media like Videos, movies, shows, Twitter, Netflix and other apps.
Well, in my mind I have been reading Mac Rumors long enough to know what they report. If you don't believe them, why are you even on this site?
No you put words in my mouth, quote me where you think I said what you stated then?
And yes, I think Microsoft would happily tell you they are rather more successful then Apple, they don't sell computers, they sell software, Apple sells both and it still has no where near the market share of MS. Do't try to fool us by twisting facts, Apple has lots of money, great, it's still NEVER going to be as successful as Microsoft in the computer market, Fact. It's quite funny to see you twist facts to try and disprove that. Remove all the sales Apple has gained from it's iToy's, just concentrate on Mac computers versus Windows, then see how they stack up. Don't try to use Apple's entire wealth in your argument against one market as it is flawed, Apple's entire wealth comes from multiple markets.
And Apple is the loser then, the court stated they had no case and they lost, they are a loser. If you don't think Apple is arrogant in the way it is trading competition, then you are being blinded by that distortion reality field.
And perhaps you could explain why Apples own lawyers stated:
This is going to be launched on the market with the velocity of a fire hose and it is going to just come in and take away iPad 2 sales so quickly that by the time we get to final hearing the full impact of the patent infringement will be to the detriment of Apple and to the benefit of Samsung.
They’ll then be Android people and the investment in the apps that they make to purchase on their Galaxy Tab will be something they can’t use on an Apple product.
Source:
http://9to5google.com/2011/09/29/apple-vs-samsung-its-the-ecosystem-stupid/
Intellectual property my arse! It's purely profit and market share, and, to that extent, Apple IS being arrogant and in the Spanish case can be seen even as using the law and courts trying to make false claims to stop competition.
Because doing those things faster on a larger screen with arguably better designed applications couldn't possibly be worth anything!
It's impossible to determine if people overbought, or if they actually wanted the iPad experience (display size, hardware features, AE-S). However, they didn't have a great choice.
If confronted with like pricing, the non-Apple products just aren't compelling for most folks (as sales figures show). You get this shiny new non-Apple tablet and there's not a single point of purchase for music, movies, TV shows ... it doesn't [easily] sync music play counts, handle podcast sub's, etc.
The KF (hoping for a compact version, so we'll have the KFC...) however solves that.
So now, it's a vastly improved experience, combined with a much lower price and even some solid brand equity with Amazon.
I'd say there are going to be people who might have stretched their budgets a bit to get into the best tablet experience, who are "lite" users, and who, when offered a decent experience+price, will buy the KF vs. an iPad. No doubt, there's some overlapping target demographics. I also believe there are buyers who are going to be underwhelmed by the KF, seeing it as a cheaper iPad "alternative", but finding out it's deficient in some capacity (I've sold some folks on the iPad because of some specific apps, that aren't currently in the Amazon market, or on Android at all I don't believe).
I'm actually a big fan of Apple _and_ Amazon, so I hope they both continue to do well
And then you get the even more ridiculous arguments that ignore the actual meaning of words completely.
There are multiple definitions to most words. I don't really consider something a "computer" when it only runs approved code. My Xbox isn't a computer, in that sense, either. Same for the fire. They're limited portals. Useful and fun, sure, but not a computer in the sense most people would expect.
----------
I wish you would.
I came into your argument late so forgive me if I'm missing some key parts, but what does it matter where the wealth comes from when you're comparing the wealth of two companies?
Yes, Microsoft is primarily a software company, but they have been known to make major pushes into hardware too, with various degrees of success (Xbox 360, Zune, Kin, Kindle). So they have made money from both hardware and software, as well as from services (Zune Marketplace, Xbox Live, and whatever they call their Windows Phone app market).
So to compare their success and fortune from all products and services combined against the larger fortune of Apple seems fair, since Microsoft pushed into so many areas beyond just software.
Exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous to say that something is not a computer when it meets most commonly accepted definitions of a computer.
What you consider a computer and what a computer actually is are evidently two different things. Using your own personal definition in a public forum without clarifying how you are using the word leads to degenerating semantic arguments.
No, because if the Kindle Touch were a tablet, it would be in the same market as the iPad, Galaxy Tab, Xoom, etc. And that's ridiculous.
Although, tablets are touch screen computers. I was referring to tablets these days. Which can replace a laptop or netbook.
Yes you are late, I was using market share and success of Windows and Mac COMPUTERS for my argument, to which Apple isn't a patch on Microsoft. The person replying was using Apple's entire wealth from all of it's products against Windows instead which is why I posted my reply.
Aren't you the one who presented the definition of "tablet" from Wikipedia and treated it as gospel? And that definition of a tablet matches up exactly with a Kindle Touch. You can't argue that your own given definition is crap now. How something is primarily used has no bearing on what it actually is.
The fact that I use my 1st gen Kindle to prop up a table leg means it is both an eReader and a nifty furniture fixer-upper.
----------
Ah, okay. Yeah, market share for both clearly shows Microsoft with a commanding and probably insurmountable lead. That's how it's been for decades.
It seems a rather pointless argument though. If you were to ask the heads of both companies if they'd rather lead one segment and be rich like Microsoft, or lead many and be insanely rich like Apple, I think they'd all choose the latter.
And why exactly are people trying to defy what a tablet actually is? It's a bit daft isn't it?
If you really want to stretch it out, what are you going to class a Windows 8 tablet using a Core i5 CPU then? Able to run Windows software? It sure as hell is a lot more then an iPad. So what does that make the iPad?
And as for the Kindle Fire, it has an operating system, you can install programmes, it has a processor, system memory.
They are ALL computers, the line is very muddy to conclude otherwise to be honest. The only thing they do differently is productivity I think?
But if you are going to make definitions, then you are going to have to clearly state exactly what defies a computer? And you are going to argue that for ever I think..
If you really want to stretch it out, what are you going to class a Windows 8 tablet using a Core i5 CPU then? Able to run Windows software? It sure as hell is a lot more then an iPad. So what does that make the iPad?
And as for the Kindle Fire, it has an operating system, you can install programmes, it has a processor, system memory.
They are ALL computers, the line is very muddy to conclude otherwise to be honest. The only thing they do differently is productivity I think?
But if you are going to make definitions, then you are going to have to clearly state exactly what defies a computer? And you are going to argue that for ever I think..
Why blame Apple for Foxconn?
Really comparing Oranges to Apples here. Amazon's warehouses are worked by Amazon employees, unless you know a story I don't you are complaining about Foxconn (and others) issues in the Chinese plants, those arent Apple employees. And since Amazon sells more Foxconn made products then Apple, all those issues are even more true for Amazon if we are going to be silly and blame a company for what one of their manufacturers does or does not do with their employees. Just wondering do you whine about this at HP, Dell and Microsoft sites as well?
Really comparing Oranges to Apples here. Amazon's warehouses are worked by Amazon employees, unless you know a story I don't you are complaining about Foxconn (and others) issues in the Chinese plants, those arent Apple employees. And since Amazon sells more Foxconn made products then Apple, all those issues are even more true for Amazon if we are going to be silly and blame a company for what one of their manufacturers does or does not do with their employees. Just wondering do you whine about this at HP, Dell and Microsoft sites as well?
Let's agree that it's not a PC.
Let's not. The Kindle Fire and the iPad both meet most common definitions of the term "personal computer".
It was a valid point at the time in my mind for which I now cannot remember at all haha.