You completely misunderstood my post.
----------
The answer to your question is written in the question. To state the obvious - in that case, I won't be programming for all ios devices. You obviously are not a developer at all.
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
----------
So your software only runs on some iPhones, iPads, and iPod touch's - but not others??? And you are here screaming fragmentation?
Yes no doubt. YOUR development skill and knowledge are, ahhhhh obvious.
I like Tim Cook and Co. quite a bit, but on this one they are reaching for straws.
The Kindle Fire is a tablet, that runs the Android kernel, but comparing to something like a Galaxy Tab running stock Android is a stretch.
The software has been so heavily modified that for all intents and purposes, it's Amazon's build of Android. They maintain it, they approve the applications that the device can run, and they are in control of the ecosystem.
They've taken an open source piece of software and made their own walled garden.
Everyone's arguing about fragmentation, and that's not where the battle between Amazon and Apple is going to be won or lost, it's in the ecosystem. The Kindle Fire is just an ecosystem delivery system, that now includes web, some apps, and videos.
I'd argue that the only company that's operating today that can compete with Apple in that area is Amazon. I think Amazon in some ways can do it better.
The real competition in tablets (media consumption devices) starts now.
The Kindle Fire is a tablet, that runs the Android kernel, but comparing to something like a Galaxy Tab running stock Android is a stretch.
The software has been so heavily modified that for all intents and purposes, it's Amazon's build of Android. They maintain it, they approve the applications that the device can run, and they are in control of the ecosystem.
They've taken an open source piece of software and made their own walled garden.
Everyone's arguing about fragmentation, and that's not where the battle between Amazon and Apple is going to be won or lost, it's in the ecosystem. The Kindle Fire is just an ecosystem delivery system, that now includes web, some apps, and videos.
I'd argue that the only company that's operating today that can compete with Apple in that area is Amazon. I think Amazon in some ways can do it better.
The real competition in tablets (media consumption devices) starts now.
To correct: Its not Amazon making e-books more expensive, but publishers. If it was all up to Amazon, you'd see others pricing them out. You dont.
Another thing that is obvious is that you cannot participate in a discussion in a civilized way.
Of course, there is fragmentation between iOs devices. Quite naturally, some applications take advantage of the technology present on more modern devices.
However, when we speak of devices running Android, the way I understand Tim Cook's words, there are quite a lot of them which are current and do not share the same features, and those devices are going to diverge as the time goes by.
Look from this perspective: how many iPad 1 devices are out there and how many iPad 2 devices? Why do I have to take care of, say 2 000 000 iPad 1's provided there are 6 000 000 iPad 2's which cover the minimum requirements for my software?
There's nothing "uncivilized" about my comments. From your past (and present comments) the only thing that is obvious is that you are NOT a developer. You're arguments are plain silly, and quite honestly Sir.. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
"He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a child, .. teach him"
Platforms, and thus ecosystems, being part of my main stream of research i can only say: No. Not at all. You are sadly mistaken.
----------
same goes for many things originating in the iOS system too, though.
----------
There's an app for that(?)
Showing disrespect to other members of the forum is not what I call 'civilized' way of communication. I wonder why I still take time to respond to your comments.
As a developer and a business person you can do whatever the heck you want. Just like when you design a website - you can decide if you want to make your site coded correctly for different browsers.
Who here said you have to take care of any demographic (phone/OS/features). No one. That being said - you make your app far more enticing by writing it so it CAN be used by all devices with some features simply not available. And if that doesn't work - then obviously you want to code it so you take advantage of the largest market you can.
PS - why are you listening to Tim Cook about Android or Android devices. Don't you think he might be a LITTLE biased?
Except, by then, Apple will see increased competition with W8 on the horizon (Q3 2012). Mac people may laugh all they want at MSFT, but according to back-to-back survetys many seem to still prefer a MSFT solution over an Apple solution - and on the enterprise side, well, afaik MSFT is still leading (strange as it may sound... just what i read though).
----------
Solid post.
I have one on pre-order to check it out. At $200 its not breaking the bank and I can also sleep at night since Amazon is losing money on the device.
Also I am looking for a slip-in-back-pocket device for when my iphone is too small and the ipad is too big.
Also I am looking for a slip-in-back-pocket device for when my iphone is too small and the ipad is too big.
Are we all still arguing about what category these devices are classified as?
If so, please allow me to interject. Whatever the techies set the categories as is irrelevant to the general consuming public. The masses will categorize these devices in the manner that makes the most sense.
The general public considers a device that has a color screen approximately 7" to 10", primarily touch-based input, runs apps, and connects to the internet as a tablet. Some really way-out there folks will call this category "iPad", as in the Samsung iPad, the Sony iPad, or the Amazon iPad.
The general public considers a device that has a black/white screen approximately 5" to 7", primarily used to read ebooks, maybe run apps and connect to the internet as an e-reader. Some really way-out folks will call this category "Kindle", as in the Sony Kindle and the Nook Kindle.
With that said, here's how most people see these devices.
iPad - tablet
Kindle Fire - tablet
Samsung Tab - tablet
Nook Color - tablet
Kindle - e-reader
Nook - e-reader
Kindle touch - e-reader
If you don't believe me, take a few pictures (no ad copy or text, just straight pictures of the devices with the screen on) of these devices and go around and ask 20 random people in the street whether the device you're showing them is a tablet or e-reader and I think you'll find that your results will match what I've listed above. I'd also venture about 10% of the people asked would call every "tablet" an iPad and every "e-reader" a Kindle.
ft
If so, please allow me to interject. Whatever the techies set the categories as is irrelevant to the general consuming public. The masses will categorize these devices in the manner that makes the most sense.
The general public considers a device that has a color screen approximately 7" to 10", primarily touch-based input, runs apps, and connects to the internet as a tablet. Some really way-out there folks will call this category "iPad", as in the Samsung iPad, the Sony iPad, or the Amazon iPad.
The general public considers a device that has a black/white screen approximately 5" to 7", primarily used to read ebooks, maybe run apps and connect to the internet as an e-reader. Some really way-out folks will call this category "Kindle", as in the Sony Kindle and the Nook Kindle.
With that said, here's how most people see these devices.
iPad - tablet
Kindle Fire - tablet
Samsung Tab - tablet
Nook Color - tablet
Kindle - e-reader
Nook - e-reader
Kindle touch - e-reader
If you don't believe me, take a few pictures (no ad copy or text, just straight pictures of the devices with the screen on) of these devices and go around and ask 20 random people in the street whether the device you're showing them is a tablet or e-reader and I think you'll find that your results will match what I've listed above. I'd also venture about 10% of the people asked would call every "tablet" an iPad and every "e-reader" a Kindle.
ft
I like the idea of the Fire a lot more than the other Android tablets. Without having actually held it obviously, it seems like it will be a more thought out approach to the Android tablet than the Samsungs or Motorola have been. Coupled with the price, it should be a huge seller.
Yes, I'm aware they won't be the same. That's why I said we have no idea what kind of "market" they're going to have. My point is they have a model that works (for their Android apps) so what reason would they have to change it, or convince/force developers?
By "overhaul" I meant policy. Again, for the android apps that are compatible with the Fire, why would they overhaul the system as it is now. You cannot download apps for free at the Amazon market that you purchased on Google's Android market. There's no affiliation between the two. It's a wholly separate market. Google doesn't get a cut of Amazon, Amazon doesn't get a cut of Google. There's no reason to think that because the Fire comes out that Amazon is going to try to allow users to get their Android market apps for free if they are compatible with the Kindle. The system they have in place now is ridiculously successful, there's no way they're going to change it.
And yes, I understand that apps are not going to be the lion share of the profit. That's irrelevant though.
You are mostly correct, but you're forgetting the sleeping 800 lbs gorilla in the room. Google.
There is no reason that Google cannot create their own ecosystem that would dwarf Apple's in all areas (except for music).
Google already rents videos (and has youtube). Google already has google TV. Google already has an app market. Google already sells books. Google already has their own (limited) telephone service. Google already does cloud services. Google already has their own operating system (not something that they borrowed and modified). The only thing that Google doesn't do is hardware design.... but that is about to change with their recent acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
I've used Android since day one. Fragmentation has only been an issue for me in terms of *when* I want to be able to use some new version of the services that Google/Android offers me. Luckily, the prevalence of cheap, used phones & tablets, and the availability of 3rd party ROMs and sideloading means that it is usually possible to find a way to get the latest stuff even if my service provider/manufacturer has not released the official update for my device.
Amazon's play with tablets is meant to head Apple/Google/Microsoft at the pass. As things currently, one must use either Safari, Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox to get to Amazon's site.
Now with their new tablet, they get first crack at someone using the device to make a sale. I think that they will sell well this Christmas. I got a 7" tablet to use as an e-reader earlier this year (Galaxy Tab 7"). I can't put the thing down! I've read like 2 dozen books on it already
Why? They are currently not selling any devices relying on Android apps. Thus, their stake is only in selling Apps just like selling content in general.
Now, with the KF they are all of a sudden selling a consumption device too. Given the "problem" here raised, what used to be "selling content" turns into a strategic issue (Simplified: do we allow for migration to reduce adoption barriers, or do we launch despite of adoption barriers).
What i dont get is why people make such a big deal out of this. The Kindle (Fire) platform is not the Android platform, any more than it is the iOS platform. I dont expect Windows apps to be re-downloadable on my Mac (if they were, and were available, migrating would be a lot easier though - if it interested me, that is). Why is this any different?
For the rest, see above.
Addendum: Note, i am not saying that they will do this or that. I am just pointing out the fact that they dont have to do this, or have to do that. Personally, i think KF will sell on its own (Amazon will not take measures to allow re-downloading of content bought elsewhere). Second, i think that the KF will appeal to a market that is not heavily invested in the Android (or iOS) ecosystem anyway, reducing the implications of mentioned issue. But, thats just me. Amazon might feel differently, and see App migration as crucial to the KF's success. Point is, we just dont know.
p.s. while i am at it. while reading the following, i thought of you. excerpt taken from Ch. 6 of Lusch & Vargo's (Eds.) book Service-Dominant Logic (chapter written by George Day.)
Dominant logics and disruptive technologites apparently evolve in the same way. There is a convergence of a stream of contributing technologies, methods, concepts, and theories that crystalize to form something new. This is not an abrupt emergence because the underlying elements change gradually. Instead there is usually a "tipping point" that signals and validates a seemingly radical shift [c.f. iphone, my comm.] Thus, the key elements of wireless communication technologies were largerly in place four decades before the "cellular revolution" took place (Adner and Levinthal 1999). [this being a mere example, the text itself deals with dominant logics, not technology]
Last edited:
I think this is a very strong point. However, it's contingent on how the Kindle Fire user sees the device. Just because Amazon doesn't market the Fire as an Android device, doesn't mean people won't know that it is.
I think it's a moot point anyways since a KF owner that also has an Android phone will end up buying their apps from the Amazon appstore. This way, both of their devices will have access to that app.
The real issue that I see for Google is whether the Fire gains enough of a foothold in the market to disrupt the Android app space. If the Fire gains the marjority share of Android tablet users, then developers may not feel compelled to develop for or support Honeycomb or ICS.
I think the Fire will sell unlike any Android tablet before it. I think this has Google worried, but the ball is in their court. Let's see what Google's next move is. Get your popcorn ready!
Here is the real problem with Android Fragmentation,
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/android-repairs-costly/
"Cheap Android Phones Could Cost Telcos Billions in Repairs"
.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/android-repairs-costly/
"Cheap Android Phones Could Cost Telcos Billions in Repairs"
.
Then there is no difference between android and ios, so I wonder what was the problem?
That report has the oddest conclusion:
Huh?
If they simply claimed that less expensive phones can have more hardware failures, that would be understandable by anyone.
But trying to relate hardware quality to OS versions is really stretching things.
What they really seem to intend to claim, is that Android is selling so well, with so many devices, that testing is more difficult for telco's:
So, how may consumers are using the Amazon Music Store exclusively? I can import my all my music from Amazon to my iTunes easily. I have the kindle app. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime (not on the iPad but I haven't missed that option on my iOS devices). So.... What experience is the fire giving me that I can't get elsewhere with many many more options? What is important is that in this market is that a stand alone device as an island isn't going to cut it. Consumers are assuming that there information is easily accessed. If the fire is to succeed then it has to do more than Movies, Books, and limited music. Other wise it will be relegated to a novelty niche electronic dust collector. I hope it does well. I also think that the next phase of the fire will go that direction, if it can keep the fire burning
Last edited:
While the problem is very real, the use of fragmentation in that article is... forced, to say the least.
----------
I found that quite odd too. Are they actually implying that these hardware failures are software driven, or what? I really dont get it.
First: You may think the world is flat for all i care. Changes very little in the end.
Second: No, i have yet to do any real research on iOS in particular. I have read research by others touching on it though. Whats your point?
Third: What strategy? The platform strategy? Yes. Apple is indeed successful. That is not to say however, that one needs to release a phone to be successful - which was your original point.
Fourth: The Fire is not trying to be an iPad, nor do Amazon need to release a phone to compete with Apple. Yes, there is more than single devices to consider - but that goes both ends. The Amazon ecosystem is more than the Fire too - way more, in fact.
Fifth: As i see it, the best part of picking Android is a) stable, free, codebase. b) existing developer community to leverage for its own gain.
Sixth: A multi-sided market, for obvious reasons, need actors on every "side". However, given the price, the ecosystem already in place, the ease of leveraging on a thriving developer community etc. that will - most likely - not be much of a problem. Further, most of the apps it will support (that are thought of today) will be ready at launch - in essence, giving them a flying start (and further aiding consumer adoption, by adding to the value proposition).
Seventh: Google, and in turn Amazon, have already created this. Android already have a thriving developer community, and most of these will probably see Fire as a great opportunity to increase their revenue streams. With the Fire being built on the same core, cross-platform development efforts will be severly reduced too, benefiting all parties involved (Google, Amazon, Developers, Users).
Ergo: I doubt they need any luck at all. To paraphrase Vinnie Jones from a fantastic swedish commercial: Luck [will have] nothing to do with it.
Only time will tell, but my impression thus far is that Amazon pretty much nailed it. Hats off.
----------
So, how may consumers are using the Amazon Music Store exclusively? I can import my all my music from Amazon to my iTunes easily. I have the kindle app. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime (not on the iPad but I haven't missed that option on my iOS devices). So.... What experience is the fire giving me that I can't get elsewhere with many many more options? What is important is that in this market is that a stand alone device as an island isn't going to cut it. Consumers are assuming that there information is easily accessed. If the fire is to succeed then it has to do more than Movies, Books, and limited music. Other wise it will be relegated to a novelty niche electronic dust collector. I hope it does well. I also think that the next phase of the fire will go that direction, if it can keep the fire burning
What is it that you expect not to find on your Fire, that you see as crucial to have easy access too? (i.e. not having to use the web).