Apple iPad Killer PING!
Discuss technical issues, software, and hardware.
Don't attack people!
Don't respond to the Anti-Apple Thread Trolls!
PLEASE IGNORE THEM!!!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 09/28/2011 1:24:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The company's new Kindle Fire tablet, a 7-inch touch-screen device powered by Amazon's content ecosystem and priced at just $199, may be an orange to Apple's iPad apple, but I'd argue that it's an iPad killer all the same.
On paper, the Kindle Fire has half the features of the iPad. In fact, it's almost literally half the features--here's a handy comparison chart so you can see for yourself. There's no camera, front or rear; the 8GB of onboard storage is half the amount of the base-model iPad; the Fire has no cellular options, no built-in GPS, and no Bluetooth, as the iPad does. The software options compared to the iPad are minimal, and the app library for Android still isn't nearly as robust as the iOS app library. All true facts. Doesn't matter.
There may be more strikes against the Kindle Fire, too: Amazon hasn't explicitly denied that it will block access to competing content-delivery apps like Hulu, Netflix, or any upstart e-bookstores that might want to be on the Fire, but I'd be surprised if you ever find them there. Amazon has taken a closed, proprietary approach with the Kindle line, and I think it's more than a safe bet to say that this won't be the "open" Android tablet experience you've been hearing about with the Galaxy Tabs or the Xooms of the world. Not even close, in fact.
And then, of course, there's the fact that the Kindle Fire is a 7-inch tablet in a 10-inch tablet world. All previous 7-inch competitors, from the original Galaxy Tab to the poor, doomed PlayBook have fallen by the wayside--while Steve Jobs personally mocked them as "dead on arrival", and once gruesomely suggested you'd have to file down your fingers to live with one.
Again, all true facts about the Kindle Fire, none of which matter. In these troubled times, and possibly even before, you need look no further than the $99 TouchPad buying frenzy for the lesson of the tablet market (and maybe every other electronics market, ultimately): it's the price, stupid.
At $199, virtually any mainstream consumer is going to stand next to these two devices, look at them side-by-side, and make a price-conscious decision--and that decision is easier than you might think, as tablet usage starts to sort itself out. Sure, the Kindle Fire lacks a camera for video chat and movie-making. So what? Hardly anyone is doing that with their tablets anyway. No GPS? That's what your phone is for. No Bluetooth? Shrug. It's one hundred and ninety-nine dollars.
The iPad, in even sideways competition with a Kindle Fire, faces the same problem it's always had, but it's a bigger problem now. The problem is that hardly anyone actually needs an iPad. And as tablet usage starts to shake out, it's more and more apparent that a low-cost option with fewer features will actually suit most people's first-world needs. According to a recent Citigroup survey, the vast majority of tablet users use these devices primarily for lightweight entertainment: mostly casual gaming, Web browsing, e-mail, and, increasingly, e-books.
Fully half of tablet users are streaming video. We're also traveling with them like crazy, which means throwing them in bags; taking them to restaurants, which means exposing them to foodstuffs of all sorts; and giving them to our kids, which means, well, you know. Also, 35 percent of respondents to a Staples survey said they use their tablets in the bathroom. I'm just saying, wouldn't you rather that be a $199 tablet than a $500 tablet?
In my opinion, Amazon has kicked off more than a price war, here. It's unquestionably slaughtered every Android tablet on the market, and it's set up a showdown with the iPad that doesn't have to be feature for feature. If anything, Amazon has done what Apple did with the iPad in the first place: create an entirely new market. And the timing simply couldn't be better.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
My iPhone and iPad do it wirelessly to my big screen TV through my AppleTV... no need for HDMI.
Don’t knock buying market share. That you’re comparing the Amazon situation to Dell and HP tells me that you don’t. It’s much more analogous to compare Amazon to Sony or Microsoft in this endeavor.
Amazon is not in the hardware business but is in the content delivery business. Microsoft and Sony have the exact same business model when it comes to the Playstation and Xbox lines. No profit on the units, but they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
Note that there were TONS of iPod killers that were less expensive than the iPod... and none of them killed the iPod... none. They all disappeared from the market place over time. Just as many of the so called iPad killers have been disappearing from the market place now. This is the first one from a "name" that breaks the price barrier, but it does so by breaking the FEATURE barrier. The other tablets tried to match or exceed the iPad in features bur found they could not beat it in price... and had to go head to head with the iPad and its ecosystem at an equal or higher price. Amazon has cut features drastically... and has, according to Business Insider, elected to go for Advertising subsidy to get the price down for a feature bereft model that forces buyers to wade through ads to get to content and apps for something they BOUGHT. Is that a good model? In the interest of fair reporting, it is said the ads only appear when the subsidized Kindle is not being "actively used", what ever that means.Amazon Kindle Fire vs. iPad 2 vs. Nook Color: by the numbers
Posted by: Chris Ziegler on September 28, 2011 11:07 am
Clearly, Amazon’s just-announced Kindle Fire isn’t designed to compete head-to-head with the iPad 2 on specs alone, but that doesn’t mean consumers won’t be cross-shopping the two this holiday season — and that means a comparison is in order. Of course, Barnes & Noble’s Nook Color is a more direct competitor, so we’re throwing that in as well. Amazon’s valueproposition for the Fire comes from its vast, deep ecosystem and a highly-customized build of Android that CEO Jeff Bezos suggests will rock our world, so you don’t want to read too deeply into these numbers — particularly when the iPad starts at $300 more — but it’s something to keep in mind. — Source.
Then there is this analysis from CNBC:
The Kindle Fire: Will It Burn Apple or Google?
Published: Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011 | 3:04 PM ET
By: Jon Fortt—CNBC, Tech Correspondent
Amazon’s Kindle FireNow that we've seen the Kindle Fire, the big question: Is it an iPad killer?
The simple answer is no.
If you're in the market for an iPad 2, looking to tap into apps or play games, you're not necessarily going to grab a Fire instead. That's because the new high-end Kindle has a screen that's small for video, Amazon's Android marketplace is nascent, and the Fire doesn't have a built-in microphone or camera for capturing video or audio.
This isn't to say the Fire won't have any impact on Apple or the iPad. It will. Consumers who are looking for a media consumption device will now have a low-cost option from a trusted brand. The question is whether a significant percentage of people who were planning to buy an iPad will go for a Kindle Fire instead.
Probably not.
But this could doom the field of tablet also-rans like the BlackBerry PlayBook, Motorola Xoom and Samsung Galaxy Tab. They were already struggling; while Apple shipped 9.25 million iPads last quarter, RIM shipped just 200,000 PlayBooks and Motorola shipped about a half million Xooms. (Samsung is doing a bit better with the Galaxy.) If you're not going to get a $500 iPad 2, why would you buy an Android competitor that costs just as much ... when you can get one that costs less than half?
You know who needs to really worry about the Kindle Fire, though?
Google. That's because Amazon has taken Google's Android operating system and co-opted it for its own purposes. Up to this point, Google has maintained control over the Android ecosystem through apps like Google Maps, mail and Google's Android app store, the latest versions of which are available only to licensees who play by the rules. What Amazon has done, though, is use its own resources to build up a version of Android that doesn't rely on Google's support.
Why is this dangerous for Google? Right now it seems likely that at year's end, Amazon will have the most popular Android tablet on the market. That means developers who are targeting Android tablets probably will start developing for Amazon's Android app store, not Google's. Why is that a problem? Google's entire business premise behind Android is giving away the software to get people hooked on Google services (and viewing Google ads).
The Kindle Fire potentially breaks that model. — Source.
Amazon’s problem (and difference from Apple) is obvious — it doesn’t dominate its core business with this product. Instead of worrying about the delivery system, it needs to make sure its product line — books, definitely, music maybe — is available for it, iow software first. Considering how many titles of books Amazon carries, it’s remarkable that an e-tailer doesn’t have a broader digital product line. Thanks SM.
Dell and HP have been buying marketshare, by selling hardware units (PC, laptops) at a cost equal to, or in a few instances ‘less than’ the cost of manufacturing. This was the case with the sub-$300 PC/printer/monitor bundles.
The thought was that the consumer would find the deal so attractive, that ‘brand loyalty’ would kick in when it came time to purchase larger systems or Enterprise level systems. It didn’t, and combined with warrenty costs of these cheap systems (which is substancial), Dell lost their shirt and thousands of Dell employees lost their jobs as a result.
People shop the lowest price, or will trump the low price offer if they find the best price:performance ratio. Apple is a prime example of this with their iPod. The iPod is NOT the cheapest .mp3 player on the market, but the market has decided (and I agree) that it is the best.
Amazon is in a unique position of being the primary content supplier (books/movies/games) like Apple - but as soon as someone makes a hack that allows Amazon to be bypassed; they are going to lose their shorts.
That was a really good post, and I agree with each of his points. Thanks for the enlightenment.
That was so dumb!
Tell me, can any of “davenport, ottoman, credenza, vitrine”, be used as a point of sale device, like what Amazon is using their “tablet” to do?
Last time I looked, when I make a purchase at a store, there is a cash machine/POS device there to record the transaction, and nowhere around the cashier did I see a credenza or an ottoman or a davenport or a vitrine to assist the cashier in recording the transaction.
The “Fire” is being used as a portable POS device, with lock-in to the Amazon store for services and products. The only thing the “Fire” can’t do is to serve up change or cash or “money back”.
Thanks Swordmaker for the comparisons and analysis by Chris Ziegler and Jon Fortt.
More than you think. Barnes and Noble could give away their Nooks and still make money from the content delivery side.
I think the media content is highly profitable 'today', but I think the content price is going to drop dramatically soon. I mean, with a paperback/hardcover you have printing costs, distribution, storage, shelf-space and damages. With ebooks there are a couple copies of a small file on a bunch of servers (for data security); and each copy is sent out 'x' times. No storage, no shipping, no printing, no shelf-space.
As Amazon, Apple, Google, Nook and others enter into this industry - prices are gonna drop and they can drop a LONG way.
And this doesn't count 'Overdrive' where you log in with your Library card - and can 'borrow' practially any book from a local library for 2 weeks at a time.
So how often did she carry it around, and how many trips to the bathroom with it? Can't drop it if you don't carry it around!
All kidding aside, valid point about dropping a machine. My daughter dropped her iPhone in the street, and a car ran over it. Still functioned fine, although the case was bent up and scratched. I've dropped my iPad from 5 feet and scraped the corners. Portability is taking a toll on these modern machines.
Ha-ha, you had me laughing for a while with that post and pic, good one! Hey, it's all in the makeup. Take off the makeup, and they're all equal. Right.
Valid point. However, these demographics will change as casual users discover other uses. That's already starting to happen, as professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. are using iPads for business purposes.
I find my iPad extremely useful as a portable reference library for my woodworking, automotive and electronics hobbies. Instead of leafing thru hardbound books, I pull up relevant PDFs or training videos on my iPad, right next to whatever I'm working on whether in the garage or in an outside workshop. I used to rely on a microfiche reader for parts and reference lookup on my vintage car hobby. Now the entire microfiche is available on my iPad for ready reference, and grease doesn't bother the virtual keyboard.
Nope it is already to late, Apple is doomed, doomed I tell you.
Tiny computer. The ones I worked on were in rooms twenty times larger, with dozens of rows of equipment racks and many terminal consoles. Bluetooth and wi-fi would have been a dream, as wiring was a nightmare, both below the floor and overhead. I remember working on bringing up a new mainframe site. A green engineer used the wrong labeling tape to identify the ends of hundreds of cables under the floor tiles. After a few months, all the labels lost their stickiness and fell off the cables. Instant panic! I welcome the innovations of having these new portable wireless computers!
That's the beauty of it... I don't need an AppleTV... I can use any modern TV.
I worked for a guy in 1960 that had a car phone. It consisted of a box about half the size of a foot locker in the trunk and a long whip antenna, {:-)
I wish the lazy tech press would stop looking for an Apple “killer.” There isn’t one, and there’s unlikely to be one. None of the “iPhone killers” lived up to that title — but android phones have taken the larger share of the market collectively. I’d expect much the same thing with tablets.
What Amazon did was take all of the limitations people complained about with the original iPad, steer into the skid, and drop the price point to something no one (with the exception of unusable crap) can come close to matching. Too closed, no camera, no productivity apps, too little storage, no SD slot. Add to that no Bluetooth, no GPS, no cellular option, lower (no 720p) resolution, no video output.
The critique, largely unjustified, was that the iPad was only good for consuming content. The Fire embraces that. It is much more locked in to Amazon than the iPad is to Apple, for the strategic reason that Amazon is selling the tablet at a loss and counting on content sales to turn a profit.
Is this a successful strategy? Probably. It might make a bit of a dent in iPad sales numbers, but it’s fundamentally aiming at a different audience. Its (now hopelessly outclassed) competitors are the Nook Color, other e-readers, and — bear with me on this — those portable clamshell DVD players. This would be a killer device for entertaining kids in the back seat, and if you’re buying Amazon movies instead of DVDs, you can have your whole movie collection with you on vacation. Just pull into a truck stop with WiFi, and you can download another half-dozen movies and get back on the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
