or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amazon reportedly planning switch to 8.9" display for next-gen Kindle Fire
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amazon reportedly planning switch to 8.9" display for next-gen Kindle Fire - Page 2

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


Despite the fact that the 7" form factor has been a failure in for media tablets, Amazon is probably gambling on the hope that consumers won't see the Kindle Fire as a competitor to the iPad, but more of a "color Kindle with benefits," a blinged-out e-book reader.


I think that is correct.

But Amazon sells a whole lot more than eBooks. They also sell movies and TV shows which can be consumed directly by the device, and everything else under the sun, which can be delivered via UPS.


Kind of like an Apple TV on steroids.
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

and then discontinued, because that was less than half what HP paid to make them

Great value for consumers, maybe. Terrible value for the manufacturer.

I love the twisting of words I see here so often.

Steve was a master at it. He could twist everything so that black really meant white. His RDF was difficult to spot, and even harder to refute on the spur of the moment.


But when the run of the mill forum poster tries it, the specious nature of the word trick is almost always immediately apparent.

"value for the manufacturer". Good one!
post #43 of 59
I have had several coworkers who are very interested in the Kindle Fire and have asked me about it. For nearly all of them I have suggested that they give it a shot because for what they are wanting in a tablet the lower speced Kindle Fire should be adequate. This being said, every single one of the people that I have talked to about the Fire have been interested in it for one primary reason, PRICE.

So, the most important question that needs to be asked about Amazon's possible foray into larger screen sized tablets is whether they will be able to keep their largest advantage over Apple and the iPad, a low price? If they cannot manage to make a ~10" tablet for less than Apple can make the iPad then I don't see a larger sized Kindle Fire selling well at all. Especially, when you consider that Apple is not likely to take this laying down.

I would be shocked if when the iPad 3 is released that they don't do the same thing with the iPad that they do with every other iOS device, keep the older model and reduce the price. So, it is highly likely that when the iPad 3 is released that there will be an iPad 2 option for $399, and it is even possible that they might offer a two generation old option for even less - like what they are doing with the iPhone.

Thus, now the price difference between the Kindle Fires and the iPads is a lot less. I mean which option would you choose, a 7" tablet for $199 or a 10" tablet for $299 (possible two generation old iPad price)?

Apple's competitors and detractors need to realize that this isn't the same old Apple that couldn't/wouldn't compete on price in the PC arena. The new CEO is a supply-chain genius (according to most reports) which means that Apple can now be a very cost competitive company when it needs to be. And the plain simple fact exist that until the Kindle Fire Apple hasn't had to compete on price because nobody has really been able to match them.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well, we'll never know if Kindle Fire ever outsells the iPad cuz Amazon ain't talkin'.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos today noted that the new Amazon Fire touch tablet -- the company's $199 answer to the Apple iPad -- has seen robust pre-orders since it was announced on Sept. 28. The device will be available in November, and Bezos said Amazon is making "millions more" than it had intended.


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...profits-dip-/1
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos today noted that the new Amazon Fire touch tablet -- the company's $199 answer to the Apple iPad -- has seen robust pre-orders since it was announced on Sept. 28. The device will be available in November, and Bezos said Amazon is making "millions more" than it had intended.


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...profits-dip-/1

This says nothing. What is the number of Kindle Fires sold to customers? Interesting they are taking the Microsoft approach and not saying anything specific. That could only mean one thing...FAIL.
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Apple has proven no such thing.

Success based on a 9.7" screen is correlation not causation, i.e., Apple have shown that they can successfully sell the iPad which has a 9.7" screen, that doesn't mean the iPad is successful because it has a 9.7" screen.

The Xoom and Galaxy Tab sales are a case in point. You think Samsung and Motorola would would have suddenly sold millions of tablets if they had built them with 9.7" screens instead of 10.1"?

I would argue that a price point which gives a good sense of "value" is actually more important.

The HP TouchPad is a good example of this. At $500 it was perceived to be a "bad value" purchase and didn't sell well. At $99 the same tablet was seen as very "good value", and was stripped from the shelves in a day.

The screen size for the iPad is a fundamental part of it's success - because Apple tested and confirmed that that size was what worked best for what they were trying to deliver to consumers in terms of user experience.

And the point for Motorola and Samsung is moot - the screen were not to be had at a competitive price point because had locked up supplies.

Firesaling the HP TouchPad did not create good value for the consumer. It gave them a product they were willing to buy without support and with no effective future as a device. It's only value was a a throw-away technology for those that purchased them. And I would argue that the only ones who will continue to use them will be those who are tech-saavy enough to root and maintain them independently - certainly NOT mainstream consumers.

Since the profitability of a consumer device depends on sales into the mainstream marketplace, Apple has demonstrated they understand the average consumer mindset and delivered to it. HP did not and the average consumer failed to buy the TouchPad in droves. So, the HP TouchPad is most certainly a BAD example of good value to the average consumer, not a good one.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #47 of 59
Dupe Deleted.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I think this is an interesting enough concept to warrant exploration.

What feature-set do you believe justifies classification as a "full tablet".

Do we start drawing the lines between "content creation" and "content consumption" again?

There are a number of basic "content consumption" tasks that both the iPad and the Kindle Fire will perform well. For example reading email, news or a book, checking Facebook, watching a TV show or movie or playing a game.

Then there are more complex "content creation" tasks like researching a paper, writing a report, designing a presentation or creating a spreadsheet. These are things that an iPad can do, but only poorly. A Kindle Fire will perform them even worse.

Then there are more advanced "content consumption" tasks such as phone to tablet gaming, connecting a remote desktop to a PC, or AirPlay gaming that the iPad can do very well but the Kindle Fire cannot.

It would seem to me that handling the basic "content consumption" tasks would justify classification as a "basic tablet".

Classification as a "full tablet" appears to be far more difficult.

Focusing on the ability to perform advanced "content consumption" tasks, however poorly, seems like an odd thing to do. This area will become increasingly messy as more tablets are released that are designed specifically toward advanced "content consumption" tasks. For example, it will be hard to classify an iPad and an x86 Windows 8 tablet as the same thing.

However this leaves us with the features that exist on the iPad that don't exist on the Kindle Fire as being the definition of a "full tablet", which seems kind of arbitrary.

Thoughts?

I think that the distinction between content consumption and content creation is specious. Take email for example: you both read them and write them, so which category does that fall into? How about when you sit and listen to music, and use the time to correct/enhance/update/diddle with the music's tag info? Certainly you are creating information, but mainly, you are consuming information.

I think that the "full tablet" designation is useful, but that the line may be fuzzy, and will get increasingly fuzzy.

The iPad has lots of stuff that the Fire does not. A big screen. Lots of antennas and sensors, including very advanced stuff like gyros and GPS. A couple of cameras. A gigantic ecosystem. All add capabilities that do not exist on the Fire.

So the SOTA tablet is "full", most certainly.

The Fire can be distinguished due to its lack of capabilities. In that sense, it is less than a "full tablet"; it performs only a subset of the functions that one might use a "full tablet" to perform.

But the features and capabilities of tablets will be (might get?) sliced and diced as more enter the market. Some, like Samsung, will vie for SOTA. S ome will try for the lowest possible price (like Coby), and most will be in the middle. Archos is likely to keep on releasing weird combinations of features on unusual hardware. Amazon might broaden the appeal of the Fire, or it may keep it as their dedicated shopping appliance, and continue to sell them near cost. Me, I'd love a 15 inch "browser only" 1080p tablet for a cheap price.



Distinctions are useful only to the extent that they help clarify reality. Some distinctions are fuzzy, but useful, at least in certain instances. I think that as of today, using "full tablet" as a category makes sense, but that the usefulness of the term will diminish over time.
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

This says nothing. What is the number of Kindle Fires sold to customers? Interesting they are taking the Microsoft approach and not saying anything specific. That could only mean one thing...FAIL.

Bezos said Amazon is making "millions more" than it had intended.

I was pointing out that the prior statement "Amazon ain't talking" was not quite correct. Whether or not you consider Amazon's talking to be satisfying is a different question.
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by tru_canuk View Post

For the sake of competition, I'm glad Amazon is finding success with the Kindle but it makes no sense to produce an 8.9" and a 10.1" tablet. Just choose one, stick with it & improve it over time.

If were them I'd choose the 10.1". Apple's proven that sweet spot for tablets in terms of delivering mobility and a decent user experience is between around 9.7".

I would agree with the first part. Two models only 1.2" in difference wouldn't seem to make much sense. Better to split the difference and make one size to save money on economies of scale. I could see a 7" and an 8.9" set of models. The nearly 2" difference might not seem like much, but that's a diagonal measurement which translates into approximately a 50% increase in screen size.

As for the second statement, I'd agree with other responses that Apple has proven no such thing. I'd bet a large amount of money that if the original iPad had been 9" it would have been just as successful. (It's a safe bet because it can never be decided if I'm right or not! ) Size is only one aspect. Put Android on a device with the same size screen as the iPad and what do you get? There's a reason there are multiple sizes of MBPs and iMacs. Apple landed on a good size, perhaps even a great size. "Optimal" size? Who knows, there's really nothing to compare it to. Even Apple makes mistakes...they thought a buttonless iPod shuffle was a good idea! But I doubt they landed on the only viable size.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I love the twisting of words I see here so often.

Steve was a master at it. He could twist everything so that black really meant white. His RDF was difficult to spot, and even harder to refute on the spur of the moment.


But when the run of the mill forum poster tries it, the specious nature of the word trick is almost always immediately apparent.

"value for the manufacturer". Good one!

You're a worthless troll who should have been banned (again) long ago, and who doesn't deserve a response, but your disgusting attacks on a man who is dead are beyond the pale.

Steve Jobs did not twist anything. He wasn't even a master marketer or speaker. The fact is that what he had to sell was so good that all he had to do was get up on stage and tell the truth about it.

And RDF doesn't even mean what you think it does. It was about making people believe that they could accomplish things they "knew" weren't possible.

You, on the other hand, are nothing.
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
... Saying one size fits all is like saying a single shoe-size would fit all. To have the same experience, i.e. to have the elements on the screen same relative size to your fingers etc., depending on the above personal factors and perhaps more, different size people would need different sized tablets. The iPad experinece is hugely different for a child than it is to a basket ball player. Commercial decisions are one thing, but clearly the humane need to have the option to tailor the size of whatever tools - including tablets - you use to your physique is there. Commercially, of course, there needs to be compromises. I fall to the camp who thinks there is too much compromise in the iOS lineup sizewise, two size-options for both the iPhone and iPad would be a great start. Maybe even more. ...

Following your logic to it's natural conclusion, the correct strategy for tablet manufacturers is to produce an infinite variety of tablet sizes, to match the practically infinite variation in humans. Clearly, that's absurd, as is the reasoning that leads to it.

Please re-read what I wrote, especially the last few sentences that you quoted.

I especially said, that commercially there needs to be compromises, I never implied or said infinite amount of sizes would be needed. I understand commercial reality sets the limit somewhere. I disagree with the limit being one, though.

I said "two size-options for both the iPhone and iPad would be a great start". That would be a grand total of four iOS screen sizes from Apple, less than they offer for the Macintosh. That is hardly absurd.

I did say, maybe even more (than two size-options) because Samsung does offer four screen-sizes for the Galaxy Tab, and a few more for the Galaxy phones, but even in that case I thought maybe a maximum of three different screen-sized tablets from Apple. Not an infinite number and definitely not more than four, which btw, is the amount of MacBook screen-sizes from Apple.

People have different-sized physiques. Offering different tablet sizes to cater to different physiques (different sized hands etc.) and different mobility needs is hardly an absurd idea in my opinion.

Frankly, I think it is absurd to say wishing for two or few iPad sizes for different needs is absurd... Apple can certainly choose to not do so for whatever reasons, but even then I don't think there is anything absurd about wishing for it. Clearly the need is plausible at least.
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And RDF doesn't even mean what you think it does. It was about making people believe that they could accomplish things they "knew" weren't possible.

Disagree. The official Steve Jobs biography makes it abundantly clear the thing you call RDF was only a small part of the reality distortion field. In the book even Mrs Jobs, who wanted the true complete, complex picture out, said Steve was really goot at spin. He was. And sometimes reality was distorted a lot. It is not an attack on him to say this, even his own wife wanted this side of him out in the open. It is learning, good and bad, from a great guy.

Steve was a great gut-leader, clearly, and a true product-guy... but he was not perfect and he did have a talent and tendency to mislead too when it suited him. The authoritative book, I think, finally puts this topic to rest.
post #54 of 59
Samsung produces 8.9" screens.

They also produce the 7" screens.

Not to leave out the 10.1" screens too.

Get the picture?

The suppliers basically dictate what the OEM can make.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

The suppliers basically dictate what the OEM can make.

I'm sure Apple was forced to buy up all those 9.7" 4:3 IPS displays that were just sitting around in supplier warehouses.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

HP did not and the average consumer failed to buy the TouchPad in droves. So, the HP TouchPad is most certainly a BAD example of good value to the average consumer, not a good one.

I couldn't care less if the TouchPad was or wasn't actually good value to the people that purchased it. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

At $499 no-one purchased the thing. At $99 people were lining up and going from store to store to find one.

So there was a perception among consumers that $99 is a good price for something that isn't as good as an iPad.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

I would argue that a price point which gives a good sense of "value" is actually more important. -firefly7475

More important in what way. I don't think a fire sale of a couple hundred thousand units(I think) is more important in any way than selling over 10 million units in a quarter within a sustainable business model. The perceived value is obvious - they were practically giving them away.

More important than a screen that is exactly the same size as the iPad. Or, more specifically, more important than trying to copy Apple.

Samsung, Motorola and HP have all shown releasing something that looks like an iPad, is priced like an iPad, but isn't actually an iPad is a sure-fire way to fail.

I think Amazon are on the right track with the Kindle Fire. Trying to copy Apple will just land them in the same boat as Samsung, Motorola and HP. For a chance at success they need to change the game.
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

More important than a screen that is exactly the same size as the iPad. Or, more specifically, more important than trying to copy Apple.

Samsung, Motorola and HP have all shown releasing something that looks like an iPad, is priced like an iPad, but isn't actually an iPad is a sure-fire way to fail.

I think Amazon are on the right track with the Kindle Fire. Trying to copy Apple will just land them in the same boat as Samsung, Motorola and HP. For a chance at success they need to change the game.

Ok, I agree that it's important for companies to have examples of what not to do. But in my opinion not more important than what can be learned by the success of the ipad.

One could spend a very long time releasing failures and continually learning that lesson
in new and interesting ways. There are surely many more ways to fail than succeed.

Well crap. I honestly keep going back and forth here and am tired of rewriting. You do have a point. To me it hinges on whether other companies can compete directly with the ipad at all. Given the excellent hardware/software integration and pretty amazing economy of scale in their production it may be that they can't right now. The problem with changing the game is that it's been not much more than a year since the release of the original game changer. Amazon is doing well enough with the kindle I think. Not ipad well obviously. Although back to a much earlier point, I predict most other tablets will gravitate, size-wise, towards an ipad. I think Apple did hit the sweet spot there and is one of the causes of its success. It's a strong correlation and though that's not proof, it's an important indicator.
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbera View Post

Please re-read what I wrote, especially the last few sentences that you quoted.

I especially said, that commercially there needs to be compromises, I never implied or said infinite amount of sizes would be needed. I understand commercial reality sets the limit somewhere. I disagree with the limit being one, though.

I said "two size-options for both the iPhone and iPad would be a great start". That would be a grand total of four iOS screen sizes from Apple, less than they offer for the Macintosh. That is hardly absurd.

I did say, maybe even more (than two size-options) because Samsung does offer four screen-sizes for the Galaxy Tab, and a few more for the Galaxy phones, but even in that case I thought maybe a maximum of three different screen-sized tablets from Apple. Not an infinite number and definitely not more than four, which btw, is the amount of MacBook screen-sizes from Apple.

People have different-sized physiques. Offering different tablet sizes to cater to different physiques (different sized hands etc.) and different mobility needs is hardly an absurd idea in my opinion.

Frankly, I think it is absurd to say wishing for two or few iPad sizes for different needs is absurd... Apple can certainly choose to not do so for whatever reasons, but even then I don't think there is anything absurd about wishing for it. Clearly the need is plausible at least.

I agree with gerbera. There's nothing absurd about it. Apple has gone about with one size for iPhone and iPad and done it well. It definitely satisfies the majority of the iPhone/iPad users but whats to say that there aren't Apple users that don't wish for a smaller screen or a bigger screen. I've heard of colleagues using the SGSII saying that they'll go for an iPhone if Apple increased the screen size. People have different wants and needs.

Maybe the word 'absurd' is just too strong in this context. Perhaps replacing it with 'harder to develop apps' would sound better.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Amazon reportedly planning switch to 8.9" display for next-gen Kindle Fire
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amazon reportedly planning switch to 8.9" display for next-gen Kindle Fire