Apple Welcomes Kindle Fire Tablet and More Android Fragmentation

[thenerdal]

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).

Kindle Fire's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle_Fire

"The Kindle Fire is a tablet computer version of Amazon.com's Kindle e-book reader."

Tablet computer Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer

"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Just because it "lacks a microphone, camera, Bluetooth capability, is Wifi only (with no option for 3G/4G)" and has "no GPS capabilities, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, and very few apps" doesn't mean it's not a tablet.

 

[aerok]

I for one am really happy to see a tablet at the $200 range, and I am also hoping for the sales to be really good, simply because it will means companies like Apple and Google will likely enter the budget market, especially if they want to keep that high marketshare..

Also gaming on a 7" Tablet is a lot more fun then a 9.7", I used to have an iPad but now am the owner of a Playbook, and I have to say that the 7" is particularly good when it comes to gaming.. Just much easier to manoeuvre..

That's what she said

 

[wirelessness]

My to Apple:

Hello Pot....Meet Kettle!!!

Apple IOS has a little fragmentation problem of it's own. It's hard to keep track of what features and functions work across which IOS devices I own. And of course there is a problem of which devices are eligible to get which IOS upgrades.

Don't get me wrong it's not as bad but it's gotten a lot worse since IOS 5 came out.

 

[KnightWRX]

Really? Because whether it runs Android or not, a $199 tablet, from a major ecosystem provider, dropped into a confused and competitive market, won't have any impact on the sales volume of other $100-$300 devices that as far as the majority of consumers are concerned do pretty much the same thing?

Ok then.

But then, again, it's not just an issue of fragmentation for Android, which is what Tim Cook alluded to, but for all players in the market, for which Apple is one (if you don't think so, you need to look carefully what they did with iPad and refurbished models).

So you're talking about different things than Tim Cook was.

 

[guch20]

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.

Which is sad, since it's neither a tablet, nor a "true" Android device. It's an eReader with a specialized version of Android running in the backgroud.

I guess if they want to count it as an Android device when they count them up, it makes sense. But to tabulate it in the "tablet" column is kinda crap.

 

[thenerdal]

Which is sad, since it's neither a tablet, nor a "true" Android device. It's an eReader with a specialized version of Android running in the backgroud.

I guess if they want to count it as an Android device when they count them up, it makes sense. But to tabulate it in the "tablet" column is kinda crap.

It's a tablet.
From Wikipedia:
"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Kindle Fire fits that, so it's a tablet. Just a cheaper tablet.

 

[za9ra22]

So you're talking about different things than Tim Cook was.

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

 

[guch20]

Kindle Fire's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle_Fire

"The Kindle Fire is a tablet computer version of Amazon.com's Kindle e-book reader."

Tablet computer Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer

"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Just because it "lacks a microphone, camera, Bluetooth capability, is Wifi only (with no option for 3G/4G)" and has "no GPS capabilities, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, and very few apps" doesn't mean it's not a tablet.

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.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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.

Well it is an Android tablet, and there is no uniformity among any Android device since they are all tweaked to various degrees, so why shouldn't it count. And the reality is if Fire sales are a big as hinted you probably will start seeing developers making apps first for the Fire then maybe porting over to other Android flavors.

 

[BaldiMac]

My to Apple:

Hello Pot....Meet Kettle!!!

Apple IOS has a little fragmentation problem of it's own. It's hard to keep track of what features and functions work across which IOS devices I own. And of course there is a problem of which devices are eligible to get which IOS upgrades.

Don't get me wrong it's not as bad but it's gotten a lot worse since IOS 5 came out.

Sure, but that's a different kind of fragmentation problem than is being discussed with Android.

But then, again, it's not just an issue of fragmentation for Android, which is what Tim Cook alluded to, but for all players in the market, for which Apple is one (if you don't think so, you need to look carefully what they did with iPad and refurbished models).

So you're talking about different things than Tim Cook was.

So are you. Apple executives were talking about the fragmentation of the non-iPad tablet market. Apple's single, large ecosystem is a competitive advantage over multiple smaller ecosystems.

For example if Apple has 60% of the tablet market in 2012, it has a greater advantage if the market is 60/15/10/5 (iPad, Android, Amazon, Other) than if it is 60/40 (iPad, Android).

 

[guch20]

My to Apple:

Hello Pot....Meet Kettle!!!

Apple IOS has a little fragmentation problem of it's own. It's hard to keep track of what features and functions work across which IOS devices I own. And of course there is a problem of which devices are eligible to get which IOS upgrades.

Don't get me wrong it's not as bad but it's gotten a lot worse since IOS 5 came out.

iOS 5 doesn't work with:

iPod Classic, Nano, and Mini (though those are a given)

Any iPhone before the 3GS, and any iPod Touch before 3rd gen.

It works with all iPads.

Yep, that's some major fragmentation Apple has going there.

----------

It's a tablet.
From Wikipedia:
"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Kindle Fire fits that, so it's a tablet. Just a cheaper tablet.

According to that definition, any tablet PC that was released before the iPad is not a true tablet.

Someone should tell Microsoft that Wikipedia thinks they were wrong.

 

[thenerdal]

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.

So now you're saying that Wikipedia is wrong. And that the definition of a tablet is wrong?

You think PC Mag is wrong too? http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=tablet+computer&i=52520,00.asp#fbid=W_TqcZUBPph

You think CNN is wrong too?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/...ers_1_tablet-touch-screen-keyboard?_s=PM:TECH

It's a tablet. The reason it doesn't have many features like the iPad is because it is cheap.

----------

iOS 5 doesn't work with:

iPod Classic, Nano, and Mini (though those are a given)

Any iPhone before the 3GS, and any iPod Touch before 3rd gen.

It works with all iPads.

Yep, that's some major fragmentation Apple has going there.

----------



According to that definition, any tablet PC that was released before the iPad is not a true tablet.

Someone should tell Microsoft that Wikipedia thinks they were wrong.

Tablet PC is different than a Computer Tablet.

It has it's own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_personal_computer

 

[apolloa]

While the pricing at $199 looks disruptive for what seems to be the iPad's most important rising challenge, the Amazon Fire - it is important to note that it could fuel further fragmentation in the tablet market--given it represents yet another platform. While compatible with Android, the Apps work with Amazon products. The more fragmentation, the better, says Apple, since that could drive more consumers to the stable Apple platform.

Whilst Apple no doubt has a very sold and locked down eco system you cannot buy out of. These words do certainly have a tone of arrogance and desperation about them. This is not something Steve would have said, is this the new arrogant Apple?
I mean it is "Trying" to sue small tiny tablet manufactures, and loosing I might add:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-apple-spain-idUSTRE7A16TZ20111102

And it's pretty disgusting that not only did Apple try and sue this tiny company, demand it's stock be impounded, it also tried to demand all the tablets were destroyed! Now THAT'S arrogance. Apple cannot possibly touch the low end market, it knows this, hence it try's to sue it out of existence, but seeing as it can't do that with Amazon it just try's to slander it with words instead :roll eyes:

They can pretend as much as they like, but when it comes to eco systems and media source, Both Amazon and Apple are crashing into each other, and I suspect Amazon will come off better not least because it's pricing is cheaper.

If we are to believe the current front page rumours, then we are to believe the iPad 3 will be like the iPhone 4S and just the same design and case etc but with some upgraded internals, then it has to come across as defensive as it knows it will have very strong competition until a totally new iPad is launched.

 

[parapup]

No "all Android apps" will not still work on the Fire. Only those that don't require a camera, GPS data, a microphone, more than two fingers for multitouch, an accelerometer, or a gyroscope will work. And only if Amazon approves them.

Nitpicking. I am sure iPad apps that require camera don't work on iPad1.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well it is an Android tablet, and there is no uniformity among any Android device since they are all tweaked to various degrees, so why shouldn't it count.

But it's not an Android tablet. Ask Google.

 

[guch20]

So now you're saying that Wikipedia is wrong. And that the definition of a tablet is wrong?

You think PC Mag is wrong too? http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=tablet+computer&i=52520,00.asp#fbid=W_TqcZUBPph

You think CNN is wrong too?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/...ers_1_tablet-touch-screen-keyboard?_s=PM:TECH

It's a tablet. The reason it doesn't have many features like the iPad is because it is cheap.

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.

----------

Nitpicking. I am sure iPad apps that require camera don't work on iPad1.

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

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

----------

It's a tablet.
From Wikipedia:
"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Kindle Fire fits that, so it's a tablet. Just a cheaper tablet.

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

 

[za9ra22]

Whilst Apple no doubt has a very sold and locked down eco system you cannot buy out of. These words do certainly have a tone of arrogance and desperation about them. This is not something Steve would have said, is this the new arrogant Apple?
I mean it is "Trying" to sue small tiny tablet manufactures, and loosing I might add:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-apple-spain-idUSTRE7A16TZ20111102

And it's pretty disgusting that not only did Apple try and sue this tiny company, demand it's stock be impounded, it also tried to demand all the tablets were destroyed! Now THAT'S arrogance. Apple cannot possibly touch the low end market, it knows this, hence it try's to sue it out of existence, but seeing as it can't do that with Amazon it just try's to slander it with words instead :roll eyes:

They can pretend as much as they like, but when it comes to eco systems and media source, Both Amazon and Apple are crashing into each other, and I suspect Amazon will come off better not least because it's pricing is cheaper.

If we are to believe the current front page rumours, then we are to believe the iPad 3 will be like the iPhone 4S and just the same design and case etc but with some upgraded internals, then it has to come across as defensive as it knows it will have very strong competition until a totally new iPad is launched.

There are a few things wrong with this point of view. Taking your last point first, it makes no sense at all to build an argument on the basis of speculation over future products, particularly when the track record of such speculation has proven rather unreliable in the past.

Secondly, Apple has never competed on price, and yet.... let's see, despite that, it remains hugely profitable. The death of Apple has been predicted so many times, yet it is still alive. Remarkable.

Thirdly, in what warped sense of justice is it wrong for anyone to sue to protect their intellectual property? If Apple feel that their patents, designs and technologies are being used without permission, what other recourse is there than to take action through whatever legal system the local jurisdiction provides? It is for the courts to decide if Apple are right - as indeed the Spanish court believed at first before being reversed on appeal. That's the legal process. The commentary by NT-K's founding partner that this was Apple trying to keep competitors out of the market is irrelevant. If it were that simple, the court would have thrown the case out on the lack of merit at the time.

 

[BC2009]

Poor Microsoft, and their 90% OS market share.

The scary thing for Microsoft is that they have less than the reciprocal of that in the mobile OS market share (i think somewhere around 5%).

I believe Windows Phone has a better shot in the long term than Android, but they have to do start gaining market share. It took Apple many many years to climb out of the 5% hole with Mac OS X to where Mac OS X is now representing 23% of all new computer sales. Apple's growth in mobile and new desktop sales bodes well for their future. Microsoft needs start that up-turn in mobile.

On the Fire, if not for the fact that they are saying it runs Android apps, I would not even consider it an Android tablet -- I would consider it an "Amazon tablet". However, I wonder how in the long term the ability for the Android apps to run on the Fire will remain. Developers are going to start taking advantage of the OS API calls in Ice Cream Sandwich and when they do they may break the app's ability to run on older versions. But given this chart, it may be a very very long time before Android apps fully take advantage of Ice Cream Sandwich or require it as a minimum OS level. Amazon may be counting on this.

 

[JRoDDz]

Kindle Fire's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle_Fire

"The Kindle Fire is a tablet computer version of Amazon.com's Kindle e-book reader."

Tablet computer Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer

"A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen."

Just because it "lacks a microphone, camera, Bluetooth capability, is Wifi only (with no option for 3G/4G)" and has "no GPS capabilities, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, and very few apps" doesn't mean it's not a tablet.

It is a tablet. The real question is are these features worth an extra $300 bucks to you for the iPad?

Already have a smartphone for camera and those other things. I want something cheap I can sit on the couch with and surf the web, read some news, maybe watch some netflix, and play a couple of games. The Kindle Fire does this at 40% of the price of the iPad. Not to mention with higher pixel density 163ppi vs 132ppi.

 

[parapup]

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

And how many killer, I-can't-live-without-this accelerometer using apps exist?
Majority doesn't care about accelerometer and the apps that use it. If they care they will not buy a $199 tablet optimized for reading and media consumption - they will have many other choices for Android tablets that will run all apps that the Fire runs plus the ones that use camera and accelerometer. Not a problem either way. Remember they are paying way less to sacrifice minor inconveniences.

 

[BJMRamage]

I would see this as good for Apple in another way.

People purchase a Kindle Fire want to take a picture or store stuff on it or want a larger screen and or maybe more apps and then see the iPad that does it all and simply sell their Fire and buy an iPad.

Not saying the Kindle is a crappy tablet. it has its uses but I can easily see some people wanting more than it can do. for others this will be that happy medium that gets them a tablet and not much else.

 

[thenerdal]

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.

Then so is the Kindle Touch and the Nook Color.

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 is a tablet. The real question is are these features worth $300 bucks to you?

Already have a smartphone for camera and those other things. I want something cheap I can sit on the couch with and surf the web, read some news, maybe watch some netflix, and play a couple of games. The Kindle Fire does this at 40% of the price of the iPad. Not to mention with higher pixel density 163ppi vs 132ppi.

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.

 

[ftaok]

Tablet PC is different than a Computer Tablet.

It has it's own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_personal_computer

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

Does it really matter what category techies put things in. The majority of people look at an iPad, Nook Color, Galaxy Tab, Kindle Fire, etc and call it a tablet. They'll look at the older "tablets" with the keyboard and swivel screen and call it a laptop. This is the way the masses see these devices.

 

[JRoDDz]

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.

I meant "are those features worth an extra $300 for the iPad?"

 

[thenerdal]

Does it really matter what category techies put things in. The majority of people look at an iPad, Nook Color, Galaxy Tab, Kindle Fire, etc and call it a tablet. They'll look at the older "tablets" with the keyboard and swivel screen and call it a laptop. This is the way the masses see these devices.

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