Opinion: Kindle Fire means there will never be a 7" iPad

[jsh1120]

I'm not sure about this first Kindle Fire, but Fire.2 will be better and with the addition of a larger model at a bargain price Amazon's total Fire production may exceed Apple's iPad production in a year or two.

I pick "BonFire" for the name of a larger color Kindle. Then they'll need some cases made from actual kindling, and should include a box of matches with each purchase. Just a though.

You may well be right and the article on TechCrunch (?) that discussed a pre-production version of the Fire indicated a 10" Amazon tablet was in the works. But I remain somewhat skeptical unless (a) it can be sold at a $300-$350 price point and (b) it brings something truly unique to the party in the larger form factor.

I'm skeptical because I think Amazon has done a great job of defining the Fire as a product with value in its own right, not just a less capable, smaller tablet at a bargain basement price. Once you go past the 7" form factor, the weight/size effectively eliminates one-handed operation. And I think that's one of the major selling points of the Fire.

If they can pull it off without a severe weight penalty, I'm inclined to believe that a combination backlit/e-ink display may be the next step for Amazon. Though I think "reading at the beach" is rather overblown as a major benefit, there's no question that it appeals to a lot of e-Reader customers. If Amazon can do it, it might be the "unique" factor that differentiates the "bonfire" from the iPad.

 

[4DThinker]

If they can pull it off without a severe weight penalty, I'm inclined to believe that a combination backlit/e-ink display may be the next step for Amazon. Though I think "reading at the beach" is rather overblown as a major benefit, there's no question that it appeals to a lot of e-Reader customers. If Amazon can do it, it might be the "unique" factor that differentiates the "bonfire" from the iPad.

Amazon kept the price low on the Fire by eliminating features that don't serve their media consumption goals. No GPS, no Bluetooth, no cameras, no HDMI-out, etc.. The 10.1" Asus Transformer is $399 or less and fully featured. I'm guessing Amazon could go Sony S or Galaxy 10.1 strategy to keep it light, then strip out cameras and other tech to lower the price even more. Then calculate in the after-sales profits from media sales and end up with a $299 or $329 10.1" BonFire. Times are getting interesting, that's for sure.

 

[jsh1120]

Amazon kept the price low on the Fire by eliminating features that don't serve their media consumption goals. No GPS, no Bluetooth, no cameras, no HDMI-out, etc.. The 10.1" Asus Transformer is $399 or less and fully featured. I'm guessing Amazon could go Sony S or Galaxy 10.1 strategy to keep it light, then strip out cameras and other tech to lower the price even more. Then calculate in the after-sales profits from media sales and end up with a $299 or $329 10.1" BonFire. Times are getting interesting, that's for sure.

You may be right. And the Amazon brand may be enough to make such a tablet a much greater success than the Android competitors you mention. But I have a feeling that Amazon doesn't want their product to be seen as a "stripped down" device, but as a "premium" product. IMO they've done exactly that with the Fire, extending the "e-Reader" into a premium "e-Media" consumption device.

The closer they get to the iPad and other 10" tablets, the harder it will be to retain that "premium" aura. That's why I think they may want to add media consumption features, e.g. e-ink options, to the Fire rather than being seen as an "economy model" tablet.

We'll see. As you note, interesting times and fun speculation.

 

[kevink2]

Agree. They have to have people happy with what they got, and not thinking about what they DIDN'T get. For my own reasons, I wish it had GPS. Someone else may wish it had bluetooth, or 3G. For me, 3G would have been useful mainly for whisper net, or just for downloading books and syncing read books to the current location read on another device. But if I use it at home, it doesn't matter.

I don't think I'll be doing magazines on it. I think 7" would be too small for that, since magazines are normally larger. The iPad reduces size some, but is still my best computer based magazine reading format. On laptops, magazines just didn't that great on it. You sometimes had choices, and PDF on the laptop didn't have the right orientation. I generally read it in "text", or HTML, format.

I have 3 current paid magazines on my iPad (through Zinio), 1 paid via an APP, and 1 app where I get access even though my subscription is lapsed.

I think books should work fine. I've historically read books even on Palms and phones, so the Fire should be an improvement.

As for my iPad, I'll wait until I see what the iPad 3 offers next year. If it is a "must have", I would have to see whether I can upgrade and just keep my existing unlimited SIM. The older iPad can be used by someone in the family.

 

[trip1ex]

Cut your iPad 2 in half and that's a KIndle Fire.

The Fire's landscape mode will have text as big as portrait mode on the iPad.

 

[xraydoc]

Its been reported that Amazon is selling the Fire at a $50 loss per unit.

The Fire would be $249 if Amazon wanted to just break even on it. That says nothing about making a profit.

They're selling the razor handle only. The razor blades are the $79/year subscription to their Prime service, sales of TV/Movies, music sales, Kindle book sales and app sales through the Amazon app store (I don't know if any other app store is permitted on the Fire).

Apple supports the iTunes store as a way to sell iPods/iPads. Amazon is doing the opposite.

There's no way Apple would sell an item at a $50 loss. Unless the Fire is a success - and generates tons of after-the-primary-sale sales, they'll lose a crap-ton of money on it.

 

[palpatine]

Its been reported that Amazon is selling the Fire at a $50 loss per unit.

The Fire would be $249 if Amazon wanted to just break even on it. That says nothing about making a profit.

They're selling the razor handle only. The razor blades are the $79/year subscription to their Prime service, sales of TV/Movies, music sales, Kindle book sales and app sales through the Amazon app store (I don't know if any other app store is permitted on the Fire).

There's no way Apple would sell an item at a $50 loss. Unless the Fire is a success - and generates tons of after-the-primary-sale sales, they'll lose a crap-ton of money on it.

it isn't a tablet. it is a kindle, and like the other ones, a gateway drug to amazon services. some free prime membership comes with it as well. they probably are selling it at a loss, and they will probably recoup that money. if they don't now, then certainly on the second generation. they used a similar strategy with earlier kindles.

five years ago, who would have thought amazon would be the go to place for so many goods and services? some people have given up bookstores entirely. wow. welcome to the revolution. buckle up!

 

[jsh1120]

...

I don't think I'll be doing magazines on it. I think 7" would be too small for that, since magazines are normally larger. The iPad reduces size some, but is still my best computer based magazine reading format. On laptops, magazines just didn't that great on it. You sometimes had choices, and PDF on the laptop didn't have the right orientation. I generally read it in "text", or HTML, format.

Amazon has an agreement with Conde Nast to provide magazine subscriptions via apps designed specifically for the Fire. The model is something like the New Yorker subscription on the iPad optimized for the particular device. You'll see lots more of those in the future.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I have an iPad 1 and a Kindle with 3G. One of the main selling points for the kindle is e-ink, "free"* 3g, and the ability to read in the sun. I believe the Fire has antiglare, but I am not sure it will work very good in bright sunlight.

I really can't think of anything I would use it for that my combo above can't do better. I prefer magazines, web, etc.. on a larger screen.

However, I can see some people that were holding out because of price jumping on board. Also, because of price, some people will jump in out of curiosity. I just don't think it works any better for anything than what I already have.


* not really free.. If I remember correctly it was $50.

 

[palpatine]

I have an iPad 1 and a Kindle with 3G. One of the main selling points for the kindle is e-ink, "free"* 3g, and the ability to read in the sun. I believe the Fire has antiglare, but I am not sure it will work very good in bright sunlight.

I really can't think of anything I would use it for that my combo above can't do better. I prefer magazines, web, etc.. on a larger screen.

However, I can see some people that were holding out because of price jumping on board. Also, because of price, some people will jump in out of curiosity. I just don't think it works any better for anything than what I already have.


* not really free.. If I remember correctly it was $50.

3G is free. It does not cost 50 dollars. The device with 3G capability is 50 dollars more. Sorry to quibble, but it's something that was a selling point for me.

 

[jsh1120]

3G is free. It does not cost 50 dollars. The device with 3G capability is 50 dollars more. Sorry to quibble, but it's something that was a selling point for me.

The terminology is confusing. You're correct, of course. There is no monthly subscription for downloads via 3G networks with a 3G radio equipped Kindle. The $50 charge is presumably split between Amazon (for the cost of the hardware) and the carrier (AT&T in the US?) for "lifetime" unlimited 3G access.

There is no such provision for the Fire. As has been discussed (perhaps on this thread or others), the carriers are not willing to provide that service over their 3G networks at that price for a device that does more than occasionally download a book for a minute or two.

 

[palpatine]

The terminology is confusing. You're correct, of course. There is no monthly subscription for downloads via 3G networks with a 3G radio equipped Kindle. The $50 charge is presumably split between Amazon (for the cost of the hardware) and the carrier (AT&T in the US?) for "lifetime" unlimited 3G access.

There is no such provision for the Fire. As has been discussed (perhaps on this thread or others), the carriers are not willing to provide that service over their 3G networks at that price for a device that does more than occasionally download a book for a minute or two.

yep. that is a huge drawback for a device designed to rely so much on the cloud. then again, 3g through my carrier is a scam, so i suppose the were smart to go all wifi.

 

[Uofmtiger]

The terminology is confusing. You're correct, of course. There is no monthly subscription for downloads via 3G networks with a 3G radio equipped Kindle. The $50 charge is presumably split between Amazon (for the cost of the hardware) and the carrier (AT&T in the US?) for "lifetime" unlimited 3G access.

There is no such provision for the Fire. As has been discussed (perhaps on this thread or others), the carriers are not willing to provide that service over their 3G networks at that price for a device that does more than occasionally download a book for a minute or two.

I really don't think it is that confusing. If you want 3G on your kindle, be prepared to pay $50 bucks for it.

I did not get into what percentage went into the service (if anything) or how much went into adding the capability to the kindle. It is irrelevant. Fifty bucks left my pocket because I wanted it....the 3G feature was not free.

I should mention, before being taken to task again, there is more cost to the consumer for "free" 3G than the initial outlay. According to articles I have read, Amazon has a certain markup in their kindle books for the service. If you buy kindle books, I bet you have paid more than $50 initial outlay for the feature... Of course, that probably means that kindle owners without 3G are also paying for the feature.


On a related note, the "experimental browser" feature could be pulled at any time. It costs Amazon money and does not have any source for recovery like they have with books. However, I am enjoying it while it is available.

 

[jsh1120]

Its been reported that Amazon is selling the Fire at a $50 loss per unit.

The Fire would be $249 if Amazon wanted to just break even on it. That says nothing about making a profit.

They're selling the razor handle only. The razor blades are the $79/year subscription to their Prime service, sales of TV/Movies, music sales, Kindle book sales and app sales through the Amazon app store (I don't know if any other app store is permitted on the Fire).

Apple supports the iTunes store as a way to sell iPods/iPads. Amazon is doing the opposite.

There's no way Apple would sell an item at a $50 loss. Unless the Fire is a success - and generates tons of after-the-primary-sale sales, they'll lose a crap-ton of money on it.

Wow! I was unaware that Apple's financials were so easily available. So Apple doesn't make money on iTunes? Well, that might explain why it's such a crappy application but I don't think it's true. And you're right, I don't think Amazon will allow other app stores on the Fire. That's in stark contrast to Apple where other app stores have an equal standing with iTunes.

In fact, no one outside Amazon knows whether the company will be making money on the sale of the Fire, no matter what "has been reported." I find it odd, however, that this is so widely commented upon in a manner of barely concealed disapproval. It's not as if Amazon hasn't demonstrated its capacity to make money. If Amazon's overall revenue is negatively impacted by selling the Fire, they'll stop selling it. But their track record doesn't suggest many missteps.

 

[jsh1120]

I really don't think it is that confusing. If you want 3G on your kindle, be prepared to pay $50 bucks for it.

I did not get into what percentage went into the service (if anything) or how much went into adding the capability to the kindle. It is irrelevant. Fifty bucks left my pocket because I wanted it....the 3G feature was not free.

I should mention, before being taken to task again, there is more cost to the consumer for "free" 3G than the initial outlay. According to articles I have read, Amazon has a certain markup in their kindle books for the service. If you buy kindle books, I bet you have paid more than $50 initial outlay for the feature... Of course, that probably means that kindle owners without 3G are also paying for the feature.


On a related note, the "experimental browser" feature could be pulled at any time. It costs Amazon money and does not have any source for recovery like they have with books. However, I am enjoying it while it is available.

My apologies if you thought I was "taking you to task." I didn't mean to do so. I was simply clarifying a common misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "free 3G" and the frequent comments/questions about whether it should be included on the Fire.

As far as whether one pays for the service via content purchases, however, if I understand you, that is (in your words) "irrelevant." Amazon sells digital books at a price set by the marketplace, frequently at less than the same book on iTunes, for example. They are able to command a cut of the markup on each book because they have a tremendous marketing advantage for the content they sell. This is no different from the cut they demand from suppliers of other products.

Obviously they don't charge a different price depending upon whether it is delivered via wifi or 3G, but that is no different from Sears stores in Chicago and Seattle charging the same price for a product that has different shipping costs to the two stores.

Edit: Forget the next paragraph. My confusion.

I'm somewhat confused by your comment about the "experimental browser." Are you referring to Amazon's "Silk" browser? If so, I don't quite understand your comment. You're correct that Amazon doesn't profit directly from the feature, but it's integral to the product, itself. To say they could "pull it" at any time seems analogous to saying that Amazon could decide to make the Fire case out of cardboard whenever they choose since they don't "profit directly" from a more durable case. Am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[palpatine]

3g is free. 3g capability is not. you paid for 3g capability. i am not taking you to task. i am clarifying your misleading statement. if i purchase a 3g ipad, i don't pay for 3g. i pay for the capability. the wording is the same, but the cool thing with amazon is that once you get capability you do not need a carrier deal and can use it anywhere in the world for free. it is bundled with the device. all you have to do is make the initial outlay for the hardware (the 3g model).

amazon does not charge you more for books because of the 3g. for a longtime they even took substantial losses on books in order to get customers into the system. that was the 9.99 pricing for bestsellers that led to a backlash in the publishing industry. people may be speculating, but amazon releases very few numbers, so i wouldn't put much stock in it.

the experimental browser in the eink kindles is experimental and could be discontinued at any time. you are right. but, it has been around for years now, so i wouldn't hold my breath. the silk browser, of course, is different. i doubt that will appear on the eink kindles.

 

[jsh1120]

...
the experimental browser in the eink kindles is experimental and could be discontinued at any time. you are right. but, it has been around for years now, so i wouldn't hold my breath. the silk browser, of course, is different. i doubt that will appear on the eink kindles.

Thanks for the clarification, palpatine. Apologies for my confusion.

 

[Danoc]

It has a good name that says everything: it's a Kindle.

 

[edfore]

3g is free. 3g capability is not. you paid for 3g capability. i am not taking you to task. i am clarifying your misleading statement. if i purchase a 3g ipad, i don't pay for 3g. i pay for the capability. the wording is the same, but the cool thing with amazon is that once you get capability you do not need a carrier deal and can use it anywhere in the world for free. it is bundled with the device. all you have to do is make the initial outlay for the hardware (the 3g model).

FREE 3G sounds great, but what company does Amazon have contracts w/ to use towers for 3G. If what you're saying is correct, Unless you live in a major city, coverage could be a problem. At some point, they will have to start charging for usage and that could be sooner rather than later depending on sales.

 

[edfore]

in a 1-1.5years I see the Fire being the market leader in the tablet space. they really hit a home run with this one.

Only if you want a "limited" Tablet that may be true. I own a small business and after the iPad 3rd gen is released, we are buying them for use in the field (for marketing, light document use in conjunction w/ cloud services, etc...).

 

[jsh1120]

FREE 3G sounds great, but what company does Amazon have contracts w/ to use towers for 3G. If what you're saying is correct, Unless you live in a major city, coverage could be a problem. At some point, they will have to start charging for usage and that could be sooner rather than later depending on sales.

This thread continues to confuse apples and oranges. The $50 "free 3G" feature is not available (and will not be available) on the Fire. It is available only on the original Kindles (and the revamped Kindle Touch.) It won't be available on the Fire because no carrier is going to sacrifice a monthly service charge for 3G access ($25-$35 per month on the iPad) for devices that make heavy use of their data networks for internet access.

The one-time $50 fee for 3G Kindles is possible because users typically use 3G only periodically (when they purchase a book, for example) and even then for only a minute or so. As I recall, (and I may be wrong), Amazon contracts with AT&T for that service. And if that network is not available, reciprocity arrangements between AT&T and other carriers allows users to access whatever network is available.

Unless Amazon reaches agreements with one or more major carriers to provide 3G service for the Fire via plans that are similar to that provided for the iPad, the only way to get 3G (or 4G) service for a Fire is through a mobile hotspot that enables a wifi Fire to access the internet. If Amazon does reach such an agreement, the cellular radio that is included in a mobile hotspot would have to be incorporated into the Fire hardware.

 

[xraydoc]

Wow! I was unaware that Apple's financials were so easily available. So Apple doesn't make money on iTunes? Well, that might explain why it's such a crappy application but I don't think it's true. And you're right, I don't think Amazon will allow other app stores on the Fire. That's in stark contrast to Apple where other app stores have an equal standing with iTunes.

In fact, no one outside Amazon knows whether the company will be making money on the sale of the Fire, no matter what "has been reported." I find it odd, however, that this is so widely commented upon in a manner of barely concealed disapproval. It's not as if Amazon hasn't demonstrated its capacity to make money. If Amazon's overall revenue is negatively impacted by selling the Fire, they'll stop selling it. But their track record doesn't suggest many missteps.

Apple has stated many times, both publicly and via shareholder meetings that they make very little on the iTunes music store (not sure about the app store). But it's no secret that Apple developed the iTunes store as a way to sell more iPods. This is exactly the opposite of what Amazon is doing - taking a loss on the hardware in hopes of recouping that lost profit via sales of media.
One reference: http://allthingsd.com/20100225/apple-billions-of-songs-billions-of-apps-not-much-profit/

Here's an interesting article from Reuters regarding Amazon's at-a-loss unit sales of the Fire and what it may do to its bottom line (as well as a discussion on potential manufacturing issues):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-amazon-supply-idUSTRE78T04220110930

From the article - "The rock-bottom price of the new Kindle Fire tablet computer is raising questions about Amazon.com Inc's ability to keep up with demand and the device's effect on the company's already razor-thin profit margins."

It should be interesting to see if Amazon can actually make a profit, especially given the Fire's tethered-to-the-cloud operation and lack of anything but wifi.

And as for the app store - yes, I know Apple only has one app store. I was making a comparison to other Android devices which are, generally, open to any app store (Google, Amazon, Handango, Mobihand, AndAppStore, etc.).

Basically, all the available apps for iOS devices are available on Apple's App Store. There is no other place to get them. For the Fire, on the other hand, if it's not in Amazon's app store, you've got no other way of getting an app that isn't offered there. And Amazon's app store doesn't have everything. There's part of the difference.

 

[Uofmtiger]

My final word on the subject. If Amazon offered a $50 capability without the 3G service, I would not have paid extra for just the capability. I do not have 3G on my iPad. I paid $50 extra for the capability AND the 3G access. You are saying that the access is free, but the access was part of the transaction. If they pulled the 3G service tomorrow, I would expect that a court would assign a portion of that $50 toward the 3G service that they pulled. My point is that the capability is useless without the service.

In other words, if it was not part of the initial transaction, they could pull it tomorrow and we would have no recourse. I have "free" maintenance on my car, too. However, if the dealership refused to service the car, a court would assign a price (probably the cost of having it serviced elsewhere) to the service.

I will read any responses, but this is really beating a dead horse. I believe my $50 paid for the right to use the 3G service and that it was part of the transaction. You obviously don't, but I wonder if your opinion would change if they decided to end your 3G access?

 

[jsh1120]

Apple has stated many times, both publicly and via shareholder meetings that they make very little on the iTunes music store (not sure about the app store). But it's no secret that Apple developed the iTunes store as a way to sell more iPods. This is exactly the opposite of what Amazon is doing - taking a loss on the hardware in hopes of recouping that lost profit via sales of media.
One reference: http://allthingsd.com/20100225/apple-billions-of-songs-billions-of-apps-not-much-profit/

Here's an interesting article from Reuters regarding Amazon's at-a-loss unit sales of the Fire and what it may do to its bottom line (as well as a discussion on potential manufacturing issues):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-amazon-supply-idUSTRE78T04220110930

From the article - "The rock-bottom price of the new Kindle Fire tablet computer is raising questions about Amazon.com Inc's ability to keep up with demand and the device's effect on the company's already razor-thin profit margins."

It should be interesting to see if Amazon can actually make a profit, especially given the Fire's tethered-to-the-cloud operation and lack of anything but wifi.

And as for the app store - yes, I know Apple only has one app store. I was making a comparison to other Android devices which are, generally, open to any app store (Google, Amazon, Handango, Mobihand, AndAppStore, etc.).

Basically, all the available apps for iOS devices are available on Apple's App Store. There is no other place to get them. For the Fire, on the other hand, if it's not in Amazon's app store, you've got no other way of getting an app that isn't offered there. And Amazon's app store doesn't have everything. There's part of the difference.

As I recall, there was much speculation in the business media that Apple had made a terrible mistake with the iPad when it was introduced. In fact, if the world has taught us anything over the last four years, or so, it's that the well informed business press is about as accurate in their assessments as the fortune teller in the strip mall down the street.

As far as whether Amazon can make a profit, time will tell, but suffice to say that I'm more inclined to trust Jeff Bezos' judgment than the Jim Cramer's of the financial prognostication world.

Interesting WSJ article on the speculated profit of iTunes. Especially interesting that it was written two months before the introduction of the original iPad. And this is an interesting little morsel from the same article in reference to Apple's claim that iTunes was only a bit more than a break-even business, "An alternate theory, held by some of Apple’s media partners–the company was being overly modest about its success..." Not of course that Apple would EVER mislead their suppliers about the profit they make from the content they buy...No, not ever.

Finally, I'm a bit mystified by the following comment...

"...Basically, all the available apps for iOS devices are available on Apple's App Store. There is no other place to get them. For the Fire, on the other hand, if it's not in Amazon's app store, you've got no other way of getting an app that isn't offered there..."

How about this as an alternate wording...

"Basically, if it's not in Apple's App store, you've got no other way to get them. For the Fire, on the other hand, all of the available apps are available in the Amazon App Store..."

I think the problem is that you're confusing the fact that the Fire uses the Android kernel with it being an Android device. It's not. No more than the fact that iOS is based on a unix kernel makes it a unix device. Amazon is not selling an Android tablet (much to the fury of Android fans.)

Furthermore, it appears that if the Fire were a typical Android tablet, it would undercut the point you're trying to make. Easy availability of apps for the Fire from other sources (just like easy availability of apps for iOS devices from other sources) would make the Fire a less proprietary device. And if you're correct that Amazon is selling every Fire at less than their cost, the last thing they would want to do is to sell the devices to people who won't use their app store.

The bottom line is that the business models for Apple and Amazon are very similar. None of us knows whether Apple makes a dime from the sales of iPads. But if they do, the profit margin is, if not razor thin, at least paper thin. If it weren't you'd see other comparable tablets at significantly lower price points.

Amazon may or may not be taking a loss on the less costly Fire. But they also have a much greater opportunity for cross shopping in the entire Amazon inventory than Apple does with the iPad. (You can buy lawn furniture and even iPads from Amazon.) Furthermore, Amazon has a huge opportunity to build profit margins from their "Prime" service in delivering both digital content and free shipping of physical products to their customers via an infrastructure (both digital and physical) that far surpasses Apple's iCloud service at startup. I'm guessing that more than 80% of Fire customers will opt to keep their "free" Prime membership after a month.

 

[palpatine]

FREE 3G sounds great, but what company does Amazon have contracts w/ to use towers for 3G. If what you're saying is correct, Unless you live in a major city, coverage could be a problem. At some point, they will have to start charging for usage and that could be sooner rather than later depending on sales.

In the US I think it used to be Sprint. Now I think it is ATT. I don't know in every country who the carriers are, but I have used it in the US and overseas without problems. I am sure there are places outside the coverage. That sucks, but Amazon takes returns without any problem, so it is a no risk deal.

As jsh1120 said, they can do it because usage is relatively light. No one knows the specifics of the deal, but the risk they took by offering it has certainly paid off. There is nothing like sitting in an airport in a foreign country, taking out your Kindle to check your email, and downloading a book for the plane ride

And, as jsh1120 also said, the Fire is not 3G capable. For 3G you will have to get the eink Kindles. I imagine that the usage with the Fire is so radically different (movies and such) that it would have been inconceivable to offer free 3G with it.

At any rate, Amazon guarantees 3G access with its Kindles (besides the Fire). That has not changed in the last few years, and I doubt it will change in the near future (the life of the device). So, if you want free 3G, buy the eink Kindle (with all of its limitations).