Originally Posted by Cpsro
Not a factor for a lot of people because those desiring GPS haven't looked to the Kindle yet.
What would it cost to add a-GPS when Amazon is already charging an arm and a leg just for an extra 16 GB and LTE? The high end model is hardly a bargain. Oh, you might think it's cheap because you're comparing it to older hardware, but realistically (and historically) the price is expected to drop 50% per year for the same features.
Arm and a leg? Let's compare - Wi-Fi based Kindle Fire HD 8.9 16gb vs iPad 3rd generation 16gb (no GPS), $299 vs $499, a $200 difference - 4G enabled Kindle Fire HD 32gb vs iPad 3rd generation 32gb (with GPS), $499 vs $729, a $230 difference.
Could add a GPS in the Kindle for $30? I have no idea, but it's obvious that's not what the Kindle is designed to do. It isn't meant to be everything - it's meant to be a Kindle, just as the iPad is meant only to be an iPad. If GPS is important to you, the Kindle Fire HD is not going to work for you. I'm willing to bet most people don't know about GPS in the iPad nor care about it. It's a niche add-on.
Also, what are you talking about when you mean "comparing it to older hardware?" Amazon has *never* released a Kindle Fire tablet with cellular before, and the prices for it undercut Apple's tablet by at least $200. If you factor the same 250 megabyte plan for each device, the Kindle comes in at $49.99 a year, while the iPad comes in at $179.88 per year for the cheapest plan in the US. As Amazon pointed out, the difference in ownership of the first year is nearly $350 for the basic plan.
Originally Posted by focher
You've pretty much made my point. Integrating LTE on the device makes no sense with that kind of data plan because 1) you won't be getting very much data over cellular and 2) the LTE capable radio does use more battery than a non LTE one.
I'm not arguing against LTE. It's great. I have it on my iPad and soon on my iPhone. My point is that the matching data plan, while a perfectly fine deal for the quota you get, doesn't match up with the need to have a high bandwidth capable technology like LTE. There's a mismatch. It's the equivalent of having FiOS with a quota based on a 56k modem utilization. I'm just saying Amazon is wasting money on its BOM because they're putting hardware in the device that people won't be able to leverage.
I'm still not understanding your point, actually. You're somehow suggesting that a slower, less efficient, and *more expensive* cellular technology makes more sense to use than a modern, more efficient and faster network. I'm willing to bet that LTE will be the *only* option on this device, and 3G won't be enabled at all. Why? Again, expense. You'd need to add more components to support 3G, which ads to the cost of manufacturing the device, and has only a marginal benefit of coverage that will no longer be a problem in a few years when LTE coverage is everywhere.
I'm betting that battery life on 3G+LTE-enabled devices is worse than 3G by itself because it has to support two completely different antenna types, networks, and data handling. By eliminating 3G, you probably eliminate a lot of the battery drain as well. So again, LTE benefits users and carriers, which results in faster networks at lower prices. That's *exactly* what we want.