Not necessarily. Thats up to a) Amazon b) App owner. As long as we have no real info on this, everything is just speculation.
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
Not necessarily. Thats up to a) Amazon b) App owner. As long as we have no real info on this, everything is just speculation.
That's a nonsensical point. They all run on Android and are labeled as Android devices and their apps require the device to run on a particular version of Android. The skin a device maker throws on it doesn't change the fact that it's Android.
Yes, it's up to the device maker to update Android to work on their device, but that doesn't change the fact that many, if not most, Android devices are completely incompatible with the latest version of Android. Which limits developers on what devices and versions they can support with their apps. Which is the definition of fragmentation.
That's ignoring the fact that all these devices sit in the same market segment, diluting the sales of each other device because there are so many of them in competition. This has been explained already, and what fragmentation is all about. It's nothing to do with Android as such, just that the majority of devices in this segment happen to run Android in one form or another.
The Kindle doesn't connect to the Android Marketplace. So if you bought an app on the Marketplace, you have to buy it again from Amazon on the Fire.
Even if at some point Amazon decides to somehow let users download any Android Marketplace app, they'd still be limited to apps that support Android 2.3, and even further limited to those apps that don't require a camera, GPS, a microphone, 3+ fingered multitouch, a gyroscope, or an accelerometer.
Can you provide any example of paid apps that are available for free on the Amazon Market as a result of being paid for on the Android Market?
Hey - what if she doesn't want to spend 499+ but instead feels fine spending 199 and having access to all the content she loves regardless.
Why do some people feel compelled to judge others based on their own use cases. If the iPad makes sense for you - get an iPad. Not everyone needs everything nor wants everything that the iPad can do AND wants to spend 499+ on it when they want a nice eReader and consume media.
I don't want to generalize - but it appears that some people simple don't get what the Kindle Fire is and it's purpose because you're too wrapped up in making a comparison to Apple and it's product line.
To be clear - the Kindle Fire is not an iPad. It's quite obvious when you stop trying to prove Apple's iPad is better, Apple as a company is better, Apple has better this or that. It's irrelevant.
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.
Last edited:
Who cares where you download the apps from? From Amazon's website: "Kindle Fire features instant access to the Amazon Appstore for Android and thousands of apps, all of them Amazon-tested on Kindle Fire for the best experience possible."
Indeed.... except that with entirely different form factors, I suspect these devices will appeal to rather different markets. One is easily portable, the other readily pocketable. And while I wouldn't want to make a habit of reading books on an iPod Touch, I wouldn't expect to do Face Time or video recording on a Kindle Fire.
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.
Last edited:
Who cares? The people who already purchased those exact same apps from a different store.
Those are two different products. One is a PMP, one is a Tablet. If you want a Tablet, get the Kindle Fire. If you want a Portable Media Player, get the iPod Touch.
Tell that to the many people reading that this is an Android tablet who think they can use the Android Marketplace apps they've already paid for.
Look online. There are a lot of people who are in that boat.
I see your point. However these apps would have to be optimized for the Kindle Fire (no mic, no camera, screensize) hence the need for the Amazon version of it.
They're actually pretty similar.
The major differences are that the Fire has a larger screen, while the iPod touch has more apps, a camera, an accelerometer and a gyroscope (which lots of apps use), and things can be put on the iPod Touch via USB or Wifi, while it appears that all items you want to put on the Fire must be done via Wifi only (this kinda sucks when you have a lot you want to put on the device and you're in a rush).
Kindle fire is a Tablet, iPod touch is a Portable media player. Two different types of products....
I agree - that realistic expectations are important.
There are many people who bought iPads who were disappointed in not being able to go to flash websites. I am not talking about people who post here or people who read enough about it. I'm talking average people who didn't understand why they went to sites (like farmville or whatever) and couldn't see content.
There are people who thought the iPad would be great for productivity but after using it realized that it didn't work for them as they had hoped.
Just like when the first of any new device comes out. People start to figure out what it can and can't do.
Some people feel "burned" that they wasted money (either keep it grudgingly or return it). Some people adapt and figure out ways to use it as designed. Other people love it because it was exactly what they expected and more.
The same will hold true for the Kindle fire. There will be people that fit all three of the scenarios above (and I am sure more scenarios).
You make great points but you made them for nothing (or at least, not for me). Read my (excessive number of) other posts on this thread. I totally agree with you and have been screaming that from the hills.
I was just responding to someone who said that it's not Google's fault that tons of phones aren't updated to the current version of Android. His/Her claim was that when you buy a Samsung phone that happens to run Android, it's a Samsung phone, not an Android phone, due to their particular Android skin.
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.
I'm halfway through the Isaacson book. Apple "welcoming" the Kindle Fire reminds me of the ad Apple took out in the WSJ when the IBM PC was announced: "Welcome, IBM. Seriously." (Page 135.) Surely that's not intentional?
Find another decent tablet that lacks a microphone, camera, Bluetooth capability, is Wifi only (with no option for 3G/4G), no GPS capabilities, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, and very few apps, and I'll show you something that is not a true tablet.
It's an eReader with some extra bells and whistles. That's it.
Otherwise, you're looking at an extremely limited tablet versus a very capable PMP.
But that's not what this situation is. It's a very capable eReader versus a very capable PMP (although it's not really a "versus" situation since they aren't really competing, just as the Fire isn't really competing with the iPad).
I have a feeling that none of that will stop the Kindle Fire from being counted when Android tablet market share is compared to iPad market share.