or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Kindle Fire shipments drop sharply as Apple's iPad takes 68% tablet share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kindle Fire shipments drop sharply as Apple's iPad takes 68% tablet share - Page 3

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The pen part is actually nice.  I think the 10.1 Galaxy Note is one of the ways that Samsung can beat the iPad in certain niches...if they can actually get the drawing apps that artists want.

The rest of the Galaxy Tab line up is kinda DOA and by having so many variants it's just confusing.

I've read that one reason they're offering the pen is because of Android's notorious lack of precision, repeatability and reliability of the touch. Every review of this shows that iPhones and iPads are much better at this than Android devices. The Android OS is blamed for this problem, and not (usually) the hardware it's running on. Display search has done testing over the years on this.
post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post

Samsung and other Android-based manufacturers continue to be hobbled by the lack of the rich book, app, and media ecosystem that surounds Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle Fire. Google newly rebranded "Google Play" may help, but would still require device makers to compete according to Google's rulebook. 




B&N will also distribute its free Nook app through Microsoft's Windows Store, giving a Metro tablet access to a large and growing library of ebook content. And Microsoft already has plenty of Xbox Live media content warmed up, ready and waiting on the bench.



All in all, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft will be working as hard as possible to make their entry a contender, and is poised to gain ground at the expense of Android.



See http://www.iSights.org/2012/05/android-tablets-drop-the-ball-during-2012s-first-quarter.html

In order to get a Nook app Microsoft just invested $300 million in the Barnes & Noble spinoff of the nook.

Why they has to do this is anyone's guess, but I imagine that Microsoft was NOT getting a Nook app for Win 8 tablets or Win RT tablets. This deal will give them that, plus access to Barnes & Noble's books. Also Netflix, etc.

This makes no sense to me as one would think that with Microsoft already having movies Tv shows, music videos, games etc, they could certainly write their own book app, and offer books as well.

The only other thing it's speculated that they may be getting out of this deal is a Win RT Nook based tablet. Why anyone would want such a thing is beyond my understanding though.

It seems like a lot of money for something that Apple, and by extension, we get for free already.
post #83 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


I've read that one reason they're offering the pen is because of Android's notorious lack of precision

You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help. I've never run across the claim that iOS offers more precise touch than Android. I'm aware that older Android devices in particular may not register touch as quickly as on an iPhone, but that's a different issue from precision.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help.

 

I put Android 1.6 on my iPhone, and it wouldn't even let me hit the Q, A, L, or P keys, as they were outside the software's range of recognition.

 

Oh, you… you probably don't trust me as a source. lol.gif

 

Well, find tests of Android on the iPhone on some trusted site, then.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #85 of 107

Of course I trust you. You've never given me a reason not to. If you say you put Android on your iPhone and weren't happy with the touchscreen response I believe you. Of course that would be an example of the "old" Android I referenced. 

 

EDIT: I don't see instructions on install procedures for anything more recent than Froyo, V2.2.1

http://www.redmondpie.com/install-android-2.2.1-froyo-on-iphone-3g-2g-using-bootlace-in-cydia-no-computer-required/


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/6/12 at 9:51am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Of course that would be an example of the "old" Android I referenced. 

 

EDIT: I don't see instructions on install procedures for anything more recent than Froyo, V2.2.1

http://www.redmondpie.com/install-android-2.2.1-froyo-on-iphone-3g-2g-using-bootlace-in-cydia-no-computer-required/

 

I really gotta get… oh, you edited. I was going to say, "I really gotta get cracking on a newer version of Android to test it out, then", but I guess there aren't many.

 

That's weird. You'd think they would have kept up with that. I would have expected to be able to install Android 4.0 on an iPhone 4S today. And the tablet versions of Android on an iPad.

 

Wonder why they stopped. I mean, obviously there's a lack of interest, but that has never really stopped experimentation like that before.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #87 of 107

The source code is available, but I imagine developers are too busy creating compelling new apps that use the advantages of v4.x as well as make perfect use of all that display real estate on the best selling wide-screen Android tablets. ;)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


From what we're reading, it would be an 8" tablet. Just as the 9.7" screen of the iPad is thought of as a 10" device, the talked about 7.85" screen of the smaller one would be an 8" device. Saying it's 7" as we read, is wrong. The info about this size is that it would have the same ppi as the original iPhone, and the icons and spacing would be exactly the same as the iPhone.
So nothing would have to be made smaller than what Apple originally thought was proper. A 7" screen would be too small though.
I don't see how Apple could do this for $299 with GPS and 3/4G though, as that extra costs an additional $130. I thought it would have dropped to $100 with the new iPad, but it didn't. Some other manufacturers charge less for the WiFi tablet, but add as much as $150 for the 3G/GPS version.

 

I find the Kindle to be a good ebook reader size and a so-so bring everywhere for gaming/video/internet size since I don't carry a man purse.  A iPhone thickness 5" iPod touch I can see slipping into a pocket easily.

 

I don't think Apple can hit $299 with GPS and 4G.  I don't think it needs to.  $399 strikes me as quite reasonable.

post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help. I've never run across the claim that iOS offers more precise touch than Android. I'm aware that older Android devices in particular may not register touch as quickly as on an iPhone, but that's a different issue from precision.

There has been so much written on this over the years, I wouldn't know where to starting linking. Just Google Android touchScreen accuracy, and you'll come up with pages and pages of links on this. Some of them are tests of phones and tablets, some are complaints about accuracy on forums, etc.

Here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=android+touchscreen+accuracy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
post #90 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I find the Kindle to be a good ebook reader size and a so-so bring everywhere for gaming/video/internet size since I don't carry a man purse.  A iPhone thickness 5" iPod touch I can see slipping into a pocket easily.

I don't think Apple can hit $299 with GPS and 4G.  I don't think it needs to.  $399 strikes me as quite reasonable.

Talking about a reader or tablet? I see a fair number of Kindle readers these days, but haven't spotted a Fire, Nook tablet, except once, and only a handful of other tablets, excepting the iPad, of which I see a lot around. Go to an airport, and they're all over. Hotels too. Go to a conference or a trade show, and almost everyone, from vendors in their booths, to people walking the floor, has one.

The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.

The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.

I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.
post #91 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I really gotta get… oh, you edited. I was going to say, "I really gotta get cracking on a newer version of Android to test it out, then", but I guess there aren't many.

That's weird. You'd think they would have kept up with that. I would have expected to be able to install Android 4.0 on an iPhone 4S today. And the tablet versions of Android on an iPad.

Wonder why they stopped. I mean, obviously there's a lack of interest, but that has never really stopped experimentation like that before.

Heck, they're not even able to get newer versions of Android working on most Android phones. Why would anyone expect them to keep up to date on versions for the iPhone?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.
The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.
I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.

 

The Fire as an eBook reader isn't bad.  The text format is like a tall paperback.  Grabbing a random paperback and a random book on the Kindle they have about the same word count per line. Maybe one less on average for the Fire.  The display is 10:6.  16:9 is 1024x576.  The Toshiba Thrive is 16:10 at 1280x800.  Archos makes 4:3 8" and 16:10 10" tablets.

 

As far as what it's used for:  books, videos and games.  Web at 1024x600 has the limitations as a netbook.  Or an iPhone.  Anything you think is bad for the kindle is worse for the smaller iPhone size at 960x640.  

 

I see many kindles used in the same way as iPads.  Kid entertainment.  Folks that don't ever see Kindles aren't hanging around elementary school age kids.  It's easier to tuck a kindle in a handbag than an iPad, is cheaper or the same cost as the smaller iPod touch and letting your kid use it doesn't drain your phone battery...which you might need for actual phone calls.  

 

Apple really needs to refresh the iPod Touch with the A5 for gaming.  Making it 5" as I suggested is probably a good move too. 

 

I use my Kindle all the time and for video it's not that much smaller than the iPad since many TV shows and movies are 16:9 and on the iPad you lose a lot of the space anyway.

post #93 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The Fire as an eBook reader isn't bad.  The text format is like a tall paperback.  Grabbing a random paperback and a random book on the Kindle they have about the same word count per line. Maybe one less on average for the Fire.  The display is 10:6.  16:9 is 1024x576.  The Toshiba Thrive is 16:10 at 1280x800.  Archos makes 4:3 8" and 16:10 10" tablets.

As far as what it's used for:  books, videos and games.  Web at 1024x600 has the limitations as a netbook.  Or an iPhone.  Anything you think is bad for the kindle is worse for the smaller iPhone size at 960x640.  

I see many kindles used in the same way as iPads.  Kid entertainment.  Folks that don't ever see Kindles aren't hanging around elementary school age kids.  It's easier to tuck a kindle in a handbag than an iPad, is cheaper or the same cost as the smaller iPod touch and letting your kid use it doesn't drain your phone battery...which you might need for actual phone calls.  

Apple really needs to refresh the iPod Touch with the A5 for gaming.  Making it 5" as I suggested is probably a good move too. 

I use my Kindle all the time and for video it's not that much smaller than the iPad since many TV shows and movies are 16:9 and on the iPad you lose a lot of the space anyway.

To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.

Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.

And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.

It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.

I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.
post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.

The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.

http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.
Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.

 

 

I compare it to comparably priced devices that fill the same niche (mobile entertainment).  The iPad 2 is $399.  The iPod Touch $199.   The Kindle $199.

 

By Kindle I mean the Fire.  I have always meant the Fire.  I have no idea why on earth you are even vaguely confused on the subject.

 

Comparing the Kindle to the iPod Touch is more than reasonable.  They occupy the exact same price point and are the same general category:  personal entertainment device.

 

Many many parents are making this very comparison.

 

The iPod Touch took a beating too:

 

"The iPhone has beaten analysts' estimates, as the iPad: Apple has sold 15.43 million units during the holidays . It doubles its sales in one year (+ 110.56%), an encouraging figure: now it takes three times more than iPad Mac. The iPod knows a path opposite: it is sold 15.397 million units , down 20.84% ​​compared to last year.

 

Tim Cook said Apple had sold 62 million devices iOS during the last three months of 2011 - slightly more than Android devices according to official figures activation of Google. We can estimate the sales of iPod touch to 11.6 million units."

 

http://www.ihelplounge.com/ihelplounge/2012/01/apple-q1-2012-results-iphone-and-ipad-record.html

 

GPU wise it's worse than the iPad 2 but better than the iPad 1 or the iPod Touch.  Meaning it's as good or better than either for gaming.

 

Quote:
And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.

 

 

It's one report by one analyst group (IDC) AND NPD comes out and calls bloggers reporting that the Fire stopped selling idiots:

 

"Shipments are not sales, seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp, but it’s apparent from the hysteria that has erupted over IDC’s release of their Q1 tablet shipment data that most of the blogosphere still doesn’t get the difference.  We detailed this phenomenon two years ago and still no one can get it right, so I will say it again shipments are not sales - and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item.

...

This current firestorm around the Kindle Fire numbers is a perfect example of how mistaking shipments for sales leads the market to incorrect and faulty conclusions about trends and opportunities.

...

So how did the Kindle Fire do in the first quarter of 2012, pretty darn well thank you very much.  According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service the Kindle actually sold (there is that word again, this time properly used) 1.8m units in the first quarter.  That is an actual consumer bought it and took it home (or had it delivered) and paid their own real money."

 

http://www.npdgroupblog.com/2012/05/shipments-are-not-sales/

 

Taking these two into account we can expect Fire sales to exceed iPod touch sales in the next few qtrs if Apple does nothing to refresh the iPod Touch line.  

 

Of course they will do a refresh but I think they also need to bump the size of the iPod touch to 5".  The Fire may exceed iPod Touch sales anyway.  Amazon's business model permits very low hardware margins.  Apple's not so much.

 

Quote:
It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.

 

 

Millions of folks disagree regarding the Fire.  It's only been out 2 qtrs.  How about you not claim it's dead before its second Christmas eh?

 

Quote:
I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.

 

I had my fire and my iPad BOTH running netflix when I wrote that to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass unlike some folks.  Video on the Fire is indeed about 6" long.  The HEIGHT is about 4" tall for a 7.1" diagonal.  The 4:3 iPad loses a lot more screen HEIGHT for any widescreen content (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1) than the Kindle.  So size wise the kindle is smaller but not hugely smaller.  The usable image size is actually pretty close despite the large difference in device size simply because of the aspect ratio.  I'd say around 75%-80% for 16:9 content.

 

Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:

 

aspect127dw-1264640853.jpg

 

Resolution wise the iPad 2 has a usable screen resolution of 1024x576 for 16:9 content.  Same as on the Kindle for 16:9 content.  Both have an IPS screen.  The Kindle has higher density at 169 ppi vs 132 ppi.

 

For the iPad 3 the starting price is $499.  $300 more than the kindle.  Meaning I can buy 3.5 refurb Kindles at $139.  So yeah, I sure hope the image quality is better but the image quality for the Kindle is still very good.

 

So what this tells me is that you've never used the Kindle and iPad for video on a regular basis or it would be very obvious to you how much blank space there is on the iPad for movies and HD shows in comparison to the Kindle.  All you've done is looked at the specs and made an incorrect assumption in actual usable screen space.

 

I watch movies and TV all the time on my iPhone, iPad and Kindle.  When on the road I use my 3G iPad.  At home, with wifi, I favor the Kindle since it's lighter and I also have access to Amazon Video as well as Netflix.


Edited by nht - 5/8/12 at 9:39am
post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.

http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/

 

To be fair, the iPad 2 and 3 are far superior gaming devices than the Fire.  Both in terms of titles and performance.  And game companies go where the revenues are.

 

I can see the Fire doing fairly well given that Amazon is willing to pay for exclusives and have only a small set of devices to support.

post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:

 

aspect127dw-1264640853.jpg

 

 

That image is horribly misleading. No, it's not even that. It's just completely wrong.

 

AufA9.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That image is horribly misleading. No, it's not even that. It's just completely wrong.

 

 

 

Oops, sorry grabbed the wrong one from TUAW.  

 

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/01/27/watching-movies-on-an-ipad-what-you-see-is-what-you-get/

 

I meant to grab THIS one:

 

ipadres2dw127.jpg

 

Point still stands.  Here is a (bad) picture of the iPad, iPod and Kindle playing video:

 

2.jpg

 

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/amazons-kindle-fire-a-tweener-worth-your-and-apples-serious-consideration/

 

1 minutes worth of work in Pixelmator gives you this approximation:

 

Kindle vs ipad cropped.png

 

It would be better if it were not so angled and playing the same content at the same time.

 

1.jpg

 

Here's an image of the two stacked.  Visually the difference is around the size of the Kindle's bezel when watching movies. 

 

THIS is why folks say there is little difference in size between the iPad and the Kindle for videos.  


Edited by nht - 5/8/12 at 10:18am
post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.
http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/

Considering that there are far more downloads of apps, especially games on the iOS platform than there is on the Android platform, the 84% is likely a very good indicator of actual games played. Most major games that are on iOS aren't on Android, and most that are, are available for only a few devices.

As far as paid goes, it's been shown that the average app price in the Google Marketplace is at least twice the price of the same app on iOS, and the average price is twice as high as well. So dollar for dollar, the number of apps bought would be twice that for iOS as Android, also contributing to that 84% number.

No matter how one looks at it, Android is way behind.
post #100 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


I compare it to comparably priced devices that fill the same niche (mobile entertainment).  The iPad 2 is $399.  The iPod Touch $199.   The Kindle $199.

By Kindle I mean the Fire.  I have always meant the Fire.  I have no idea why on earth you are even vaguely confused on the subject.

Comparing the Kindle to the iPod Touch is more than reasonable.  They occupy the exact same price point and are the same general category:  personal entertainment device.

Many many parents are making this very comparison.

The iPod Touch took a beating too:

"The iPhone has beaten analysts' estimates, as the iPad: Apple has sold 15.43 million units during the holidays . It doubles its sales in one year (+ 110.56%), an encouraging figure: now it takes three times more than iPad Mac. The iPod knows a path opposite: it is sold 15.397 million units , down 20.84% ​​compared to last year.

Tim Cook said Apple had sold 62 million devices iOS during the last three months of 2011 - slightly more than Android devices according to official figures activation of Google. We can estimate the sales of iPod touch to 11.6 million units."

http://www.ihelplounge.com/ihelplounge/2012/01/apple-q1-2012-results-iphone-and-ipad-record.html

GPU wise it's worse than the iPad 2 but better than the iPad 1 or the iPod Touch.  Meaning it's as good or better than either for gaming.



It's one report by one analyst group (IDC) AND NPD comes out and calls bloggers reporting that the Fire stopped selling idiots:

"Shipments are not sales, seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp, but it’s apparent from the hysteria that has erupted over IDC’s release of their Q1 tablet shipment data that most of the blogosphere still doesn’t get the difference.  We detailed this phenomenon two years ago and still no one can get it right, so I will say it again shipments are not sales - and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item.
...
This current firestorm around the Kindle Fire numbers is a perfect example of how mistaking shipments for sales leads the market to incorrect and faulty conclusions about trends and opportunities.
...
So how did the Kindle Fire do in the first quarter of 2012, pretty darn well thank you very much.  According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service the Kindle actually sold (there is that word again, this time properly used) 1.8m units in the first quarter.  That is an actual consumer bought it and took it home (or had it delivered) and paid their own real money."

http://www.npdgroupblog.com/2012/05/shipments-are-not-sales/

Taking these two into account we can expect Fire sales to exceed iPod touch sales in the next few qtrs if Apple does nothing to refresh the iPod Touch line.  

Of course they will do a refresh but I think they also need to bump the size of the iPod touch to 5".  The Fire may exceed iPod Touch sales anyway.  Amazon's business model permits very low hardware margins.  Apple's not so much.



Millions of folks disagree regarding the Fire.  It's only been out 2 qtrs.  How about you not claim it's dead before its second Christmas eh?


I had my fire and my iPad BOTH running netflix when I wrote that to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass unlike some folks.  Video on the Fire is indeed about 6" long.  The HEIGHT is about 4" tall for a 7.1" diagonal.  The 4:3 iPad loses a lot more screen HEIGHT for any widescreen content (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1) than the Kindle.  So size wise the kindle is smaller but not hugely smaller.  The usable image size is actually pretty close despite the large difference in device size simply because of the aspect ratio.  I'd say around 75%-80% for 16:9 content.

Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:

LL

Resolution wise the iPad 2 has a usable screen resolution of 1024x576 for 16:9 content.  Same as on the Kindle for 16:9 content.  Both have an IPS screen.  The Kindle has higher density at 169 ppi vs 132 ppi.

For the iPad 3 the starting price is $499.  $300 more than the kindle.  Meaning I can buy 3.5 refurb Kindles at $139.  So yeah, I sure hope the image quality is better but the image quality for the Kindle is still very good.

So what this tells me is that you've never used the Kindle and iPad for video on a regular basis or it would be very obvious to you how much blank space there is on the iPad for movies and HD shows in comparison to the Kindle.  All you've done is looked at the specs and made an incorrect assumption in actual usable screen space.

I watch movies and TV all the time on my iPhone, iPad and Kindle.  When on the road I use my 3G iPad.  At home, with wifi, I favor the Kindle since it's lighter and I also have access to Amazon Video as well as Netflix.

You're the one confused if you expect people to always expect you to mean Fire when you say Kindle. I suppose if I read your post VERY slowly and carefully, I could think you meant Fire when you say Kindle, but as no one else does that, why should you? Yes, it's confusing.

Price points don't make a good comparison. These are two very different devices, and it's not likely, even when including parents, that most people will confuse an iPod Touch with a Fire. Parents may prefer to but an Apple product like the Touch over the Fire for their kids, but not because the two are comparable, or because they cost the same. They would just rather buy them something small they can put in their pocket and runs iOS. I doubt they even consider the Fire as an alternative.

We all low that the iPhone is taking from the iPod, even the touch. So what? That's a gain for Apple, not a loss.

Either Brin or Paige stated recently that a total of 12 million Android tablets had been sold. That's well under the number of iPads. It isn't known if it included the approx 4 million Fires, or the much smaller number of Nook tablets.

Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.

Your discussion of height makes no sense at all. I can't believe you've really made the visual comparison. The screen ratio is meaningless when comparing two screens of such different sizes. The length of the image determines the height as well. The longer the image, the taller it will be. A 6" movie will be about 3.375" high, and one 7.75" long will be about 4.36" high, so I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.

You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant. And at these small sizes, the ppi difference makes very little difference in viewing quality. Pretty much none, in fact. If you are going to view the Fire movie at a more useful size, then you will have to bring it closer, which negates any supposed advantage the higher ppi has. If you don't, the the iPad movie will look better, because it's not likely you will see the higher ppi on the fire, but you will see the detail in the bigger image from the iPad. It's not comfortable to view a movie from less than a foot away which is what you will have to do in order to view it at the same size as you would the larger iPad.
post #101 of 107

Mel, here are the top games on the Android Play Store. Note the games that are free. 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/category/GAME/collection/topselling_free?hl=en

 

Here are the top paid games in Apple's Appstore. Note the ones that also appear in the previous link for Android for FREE.

http://www.148apps.com/top-apps/top-paid-iphone-games/

 

Your argument that the most popular games on iOS aren't available for Android isn't true and one reason why I said it was a somewhat bogus article. Manyof the most popular paid games for iOS are free for the Androild platform.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #102 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Oops, sorry grabbed the wrong one from TUAW.  

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/01/27/watching-movies-on-an-ipad-what-you-see-is-what-you-get/

I meant to grab THIS one:

LL

Point still stands.  Here is a (bad) picture of the iPad, iPod and Kindle playing video:

LL

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/amazons-kindle-fire-a-tweener-worth-your-and-apples-serious-consideration/

1 minutes worth of work in Pixelmator gives you this approximation:

LL

It would be better if it were not so angled and playing the same content at the same time.

LL

Here's an image of the two stacked.  Visually the difference is around the size of the Kindle's bezel when watching movies. 

THIS is why folks say there is little difference in size between the iPad and the Kindle for videos.  

And as you can easily see, the movie on the iPad looks much larger than the one on the fire does.

It isn't even close!
post #103 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You're the one confused if you expect people to always expect you to mean Fire when you say Kindle. I suppose if I read your post VERY slowly and carefully, I could think you meant Fire when you say Kindle, but as no one else does that, why should you? Yes, it's confusing.

 

We're talking about tablets and there's only one Kindle tablet.

 

Quote:
Price points don't make a good comparison. These are two very different devices, and it's not likely, even when including parents, that most people will confuse an iPod Touch with a Fire. Parents may prefer to but an Apple product like the Touch over the Fire for their kids, but not because the two are comparable, or because they cost the same. They would just rather buy them something small they can put in their pocket and runs iOS. I doubt they even consider the Fire as an alternative.

 

 

No one "confuses" the iPod Touch with the Fire.

 

Google Trends:

 

"iPad vs Kindle Fire"

 

viz?q=iPad+vs+Kindle+Fire&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

"iPod Touch vs Kindle Fire"

 

viz?q=iPod+Touch+vs+Kindle+Fire&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

Seems like a common enough search term...

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kindle+Fire+vs+iPod+Touch

 

Look at all those results...

 

Yes, amazingly people DO compare items that do the same things (play games, movies, etc) with the same cost against each other.

 

People catch on pretty quick that you can't reasonably compare the Kindle with the iPad.  The difference in cost and capabilities are too great.  Folks looking for a $200 entertainment device have two popular choices:  The Fire and the iPod Touch.

 
Quote:
Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.

 

You didn't read the link or the text did you?  Still confused between shipped and sold are we?

 

Quote:
Your discussion of height makes no sense at all. I can't believe you've really made the visual comparison. The screen ratio is meaningless when comparing two screens of such different sizes. The length of the image determines the height as well. The longer the image, the taller it will be. A 6" movie will be about 3.375" high, and one 7.75" long will be about 4.36" high, so I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.

 

The screen ratio means EVERYTHING.  A 16:9 image in a 4:3 screen results in letterboxing.  Meaning that extra screen real estate is nothing but black space and unused when watching a movie.

 

Not surfing the web or using apps or whatever but watching video.  Video which is largely widescreen today and not 4:3 aspect ratio.

 

As you said, Android devices tend to be optimized for video and Apple devices for general purpose.  This is the trade off.  For wide screen content, whether games, TV or movies, the 16:9 Android tablet screens have much more usable screen real estate than the same sized 4:3 tablet.

 

Quote:
You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant. 

 

The blank space is not used when viewing movies and therefore doesn't count in terms of usable viewing area.  This should be pretty obvious as to why it is relevant to the discussion.

 

Quote:
And at these small sizes, the ppi difference makes very little difference in viewing quality. Pretty much none, in fact. If you are going to view the Fire movie at a more useful size, then you will have to bring it closer, which negates any supposed advantage the higher ppi has. If you don't, the the iPad movie will look better, because it's not likely you will see the higher ppi on the fire, but you will see the detail in the bigger image from the iPad. It's not comfortable to view a movie from less than a foot away which is what you will have to do in order to view it at the same size as you would the larger iPad.

 

If the ppi makes no difference why did you bring up the iPad 3?  The answer is that ppi IS relevant. The statement that the ppi difference makes little difference in viewing quality at these sizes is hilarious.  Then that would imply that moving to the retina display on the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch "makes very little difference...pretty much none".

 

The Fire's PPI advantage allows you even further offset the iPad's size advantage.  Between aspect ratio and being able to hold it closer I doubt there's all that much Field of View difference between the two devices for widescreen content.

 

The PPI difference is slight but again the difference in the 16:9 image size is about the same size of the kindle's bezel.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And as you can easily see, the movie on the iPad looks much larger than the one on the fire does.
It isn't even close!

 

.LL

 

This looks like a big difference?  I'm sorry regarding your impairment.  

 

Letterboxing is why the Kindle image (with little letterboxing) is not hugely smaller than the iPad which is normally twice as large screen wise but has large letterboxing.  They are comparable in size...smaller but not the significant difference when using the entire panel.  

 

In actual usage, the kindle is actually very nice when watching movies.  But then I actually own and use one.

post #104 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

We're talking about tablets and there's only one Kindle tablet.



No one "confuses" the iPod Touch with the Fire.

Google Trends:

"iPad vs Kindle Fire"

viz?q=iPad+vs+Kindle+Fire&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N
"iPod Touch vs Kindle Fire"

viz?q=iPod+Touch+vs+Kindle+Fire&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

Seems like a common enough search term...



 



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kindle+Fire+vs+iPod+Touch



 



Look at all those results...



 



Yes, amazingly people DO compare items that do the same things (play games, movies, etc) with the same cost against each other.



 



People catch on pretty quick that you can't reasonably compare the Kindle with the iPad.  The difference in cost and capabilities are too great.  Folks looking for a $200 entertainment device have two popular choices:  The Fire and the iPod Touch.



 

You didn't read the link or the text did you?  Still confused between shipped and sold are we?


The screen ratio means EVERYTHING.  A 16:9 image in a 4:3 screen results in letterboxing.  Meaning that extra screen real estate is nothing but black space and unused when watching a movie.

Not surfing the web or using apps or whatever but watching video.  Video which is largely widescreen today and not 4:3 aspect ratio.

As you said, Android devices tend to be optimized for video and Apple devices for general purpose.  This is the trade off.  For wide screen content, whether games, TV or movies, the 16:9 Android tablet screens have much more usable screen real estate than the same sized 4:3 tablet.


The blank space is not used when viewing movies and therefore doesn't count in terms of usable viewing area.  This should be pretty obvious as to why it is relevant to the discussion.


If the ppi makes no difference why did you bring up the iPad 3?  The answer is that ppi IS relevant. The statement that the ppi difference makes little difference in viewing quality at these sizes is hilarious.  Then that would imply that moving to the retina display on the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch "makes very little difference...pretty much none".

The Fire's PPI advantage allows you even further offset the iPad's size advantage.  Between aspect ratio and being able to hold it closer I doubt there's all that much Field of View difference between the two devices for widescreen content.

The PPI difference is slight but again the difference in the 16:9 image size is about the same size of the kindle's bezel.

.LL

This looks like a big difference?  I'm sorry regarding your impairment.  

Letterboxing is why the Kindle image (with little letterboxing) is not hugely smaller than the iPad which is normally twice as large screen wise but has large letterboxing.  They are comparable in size...smaller but not the significant difference when using the entire panel.  

In actual usage, the kindle is actually very nice when watching movies.  But then I actually own and use one.

In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.

As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.

Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/557151-kindle-sales-plunge-made-amazon-com-s-gross-margin-look-better?source=yahoo
post #105 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.
As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.
Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/557151-kindle-sales-plunge-made-amazon-com-s-gross-margin-look-better?source=yahoo

 

Kindle Fire SHIPMENTS were estimated to be 750K units.  Kindle Fire SALES are estimated to be 1.8M according to NPD.

 

The SeekingAlpha article makes the exact same mistakes regarding the Fire.  YOU DID NOT READ THE NPD ARTICLE.

 

Jesus.  You'd think that on an Apple site everyone would be very aware of the differences between shipments and sales.

 

And I proved that the 16:9 video on the Fire's is only 20-25% smaller than on the iPad by providing a picture of the two superimposed on top of each other.  I have no idea what more proof you require.

 

So yeah...run away.  That seems typical for you.

post #106 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Kindle Fire SHIPMENTS were estimated to be 750K units.  Kindle Fire SALES are estimated to be 1.8M according to NPD.

The SeekingAlpha article makes the exact same mistakes regarding the Fire.  YOU DID NOT READ THE NPD ARTICLE.

Jesus.  You'd think that on an Apple site everyone would be very aware of the differences between shipments and sales.

And I proved that the 16:9 video on the Fire's is only 20-25% smaller than on the iPad by providing a picture of the two superimposed on top of each other.  I have no idea what more proof you require.

So yeah...run away.  That seems typical for you.

Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.

There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.

And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.

I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.
post #107 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.
There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.
And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.
I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.

 

1) Santos has zero visibility into Kindle Fire sales.  All he has is eInk financial reports that stated that their #1 client ordered nearly no panels from them because they bought too many in Q4 for Christmas.

2) He has no idea of the number of panels purchased in Q4 other than guesstimates based on iSuppli estimates of the cost of panels.

3) His assumption that Amazon strives for stable inventory is wrong given that Amazon kindle sales are seasonal and they increased purchases for Christmas.  Monthly Kindle sales are unlikely to have averaged 7M/qtr. 

4) His logic is wrong.  If average quarterly sales were 3M/qtr and Amazon bought 7M panels in Q4 expecting to see 6M in sales over the holidays but it only hit 4M in sales because of the Fire it would have an extra 3M readers on hand.  More than enough for the expected lower Q1 sales without the Kindle eBook reader sales collapse.  The fact that Q1 eInk sales cratered does NOT mean that Amazon Kindle sales cratered in Q1.  It only means that Amazon bought too many panels in Q4.

5) His assertion that Kindle Fire sales declined by 75% are completely based on the same IDC report regarding Fire shipments.  He got this completely wrong and confused sales with shipments...which for Android tablets you can never do.

 

So there's a whole mass of unsubstantiated conjecture he uses to begin his financial analysis of Amazon gross margins.  Given that Amazon is far more opaque than even Apple he has zero idea what could be impacting Amazon's gross margins.

 

His conclusion is highly fanciful:

 

"The imminent failure of Amazon.com's strategy to dominate the e-reader space, as illustrated by an estimated 75%+ drop on Kindle eReader sales, was what brought about Amazon.com's much celebrated gross margin improvement."

 

Finally: It is very dubious to trust negative Amazon analysis from someone who is short Amazon.

 


The same thing happened to Fire shipments that happened to Kindle eBook shipments:  namely Amazon expected a better Christmas season than they got and they had enough inventory on hand for Q1. Q1 sales are normally lower.
 
You know exactly where NPD got their numbers...from their own Consumer Tracking Service, not someone else.  Why on earth would you take IDC numbers as gospel and then claim that NPD numbers must be completely wrong?  
 
Regarding the screen size we have to disagree. The Fire including bezel, is 7.75" so the difference in image size is the width and height of the bezel.  The iPad image is 60% larger but not double the size as when using the full surface area.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Kindle Fire shipments drop sharply as Apple's iPad takes 68% tablet share
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Kindle Fire shipments drop sharply as Apple's iPad takes 68% tablet share