Amazon Kindle sales strong, but many buyers already own Apple's iPad

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    looking to buy iPad2 this year, but in NYC i see way more Kindles



    people want to read on the subway. kindles are cheap. hold a lot of books so you don't have to carry them around. last a long time so you aren't recharging it all the time.



    and amazon's kindle store via a web browser is a lot better than the iBook store on the iPad



    And smaller and much much lighter.
  • Reply 22 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post


    I bought my mom a Kindle 3 for Christmas and I fell in love with the device. It doesn't compare with the iPad. It does what it does really well, and that is... read books. I found myself picking it up and wanting to read it. The iPad does everything great, but for some reason the Kindle is just one of those things that you put in your den and pick up for reading that book you are working on.



    Exactly- it almost has a non-techie feel to it. Very unassuming yet highly useable. And the new color Nooks are very heavy and full of glare. Jeff is very smart positioning the Kindle as the de facto reader out there. And now Best Buy carries them as well.
  • Reply 23 of 46
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    Not hugely surprising, the bombardment of iPad ads I see every week look like they've dropped all mention of books, indicating maybe people arnt hugely interested in it as a e-reader. While at the same time I know people that don't even read books talking about getting a kindle.



    Considering the fact that you can only access the iTunes Bookstore from the device (meaning only in the app on the device) and the fact that you can't read books in iTunes on your computer...i'm sure there are plenty of iPad users that are frustrated by the lack of attention Apple has paid to this service since its inception. I for one never use it because I can't borrow books from the library on it and the various formats that are compatible don't translate to Adobe digital editions. The Nook is really the only mainstream device that does all that, and now it's in color (which i think is a mistake, since the e-ink is much easier on the eyes than LCD).



    Plus authors are getting pretty frustrated with the various formats now in place, especially books where there are side-bar notes and diagrams. The translation of books to e-book format needs to be standardized if we are to see any real progress though. I just listened to a NPR podcast where they said even though e-books are selling better than ever, the % of physical books to e-books is still in the +90% range. Although i think most of that is simply due to the fact that most e-readers are still not affordable enough for everyone.



    This is just the version 2.0 of a long road for e-books. It will get better, but it might take some time, longer than many would like i'm afraid.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iLiver View Post


    Exactly- it almost has a non-techie feel to it. Very unassuming yet highly useable. And the new color Nooks are very heavy and full of glare. Jeff is very smart positioning the Kindle as the de facto reader out there. And now Best Buy carries them as well.



    Kindle sales are not that important to Amazon per se. What they want to do is sell books, Which device their books are read on matter not so much. For reading I use my iPhone when I need to and have no problems. I like the ipad for night time and low light reading but my dedicated e-reader (not Kindle) is great for bright light situations.



    But I agree that the dedicated ereader has some other real advantages such as weight and battery life. The fact that it is dedicated makes it simpler to use. Convergence is great in theory but not always in practice and so I live with 4 devices. An iPhone, an iPad, an erader (Kobo) and of course my MBP, the trusty old workhorse.



    If I didn't have to bring my iPad to work (I don't) I would always choose an erader for the subway over an iPad.
  • Reply 25 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LeRyman View Post


    The Apple TV is #7? And what do you think the ratio is of AppleTV sales to iPod touch sales?



    Roku XD is #8? Walk into a mall and take a survey and see how many people even know what the heck a Roku XD even is. But yet it's the 8th biggest selling electronics device in the country according to Amazon.



    No, the Roku XD is not the 8th biggest selling electronics device in the country (U.S). It's the 8th best selling device (for that hour) on Amazon. That's kind of a big difference. Amazon sells a lot of stuff that is hard or impossible to find in retail stores thus the best selling lists have nothing to do with how popular any item is in the country. I went to Best Buy's website and the Roku XD is unavailable for shipping and none of the stores in my area have it in stock. And, similarly, for most of its existence, the Kindle was only available through Amazon which is going to increase its sales figures versus things such as an iPod Touch that can be picked up at a large variety of stores.



    As an aside, how many people in a mall would know what an AppleTV was? How many would respond saying they didn't know that Apple made TVs? What depressingly small percentage could even correctly tell you who the current president is?
  • Reply 26 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    You can not really compare an lcd to e-ink. There is no comparison. If you want to read, e-ink is far superior. The good news for Apple is that they have done much more damage to the netbook market than I think they anticipated.



    Apple clearly misjudged what products they were actually competing against, but manage to come out strong anyway.



    While I have no doubt that netbooks have been impacted by the iPad, they still sold 38 million 2010, which is up from 2009 and all indicators are that they will increase in 2011. Netbooks quickly rose then started peaking before the iPad was even know about. It is the natural way of a product. The smaller version of the Air will add to Netbook sales.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LeRyman View Post


    Ok, right now (12/28/10 @ 11:30 AM EST) on Amazon…



    #8. Roku XD Streaming Player 1080p by Roku - Price: $79.99



    The Roku XDS for $99.99 is now ahead of the XD. Their CEO said their sales were doubled from the AppleTV’s release. Apple did this before with the iPhone with smartphone interest and the iPod with PMP interest. I guess it’s a bit of a double edged sword. You get a surge of sales, but it may come at an inevitable loss of your entire market if your not careful.



    I think Roku’s saving grace is that Apple probably won’t upgrade the AppleTV to support 1080p until 1080p is available from the iTS. However, the AppleTV seems to be successful enough to warrant Apple making an SDK/App Store and integrating it into the ecosystem in a way that Roku could never do, and $99 is low enough for CE impulse buy.



    Quote:

    #9. Ranking has gone down in the past 24 hours - Sony BDP-S570 3D Blu-ray Disc Player by Sony - Price: $148.00



    Who would pay that much for a Blu-ray player when they can be had for half that price¡
  • Reply 28 of 46
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    They report preferring Kindle for reading because it weighs less, eliminates battery anxiety with its month-long battery, and has the advanced paper-like Pearl e-ink display that reduces eye-strain, doesn't interfere with sleep patterns at bedtime, and works outside in direct sunlight, an important consideration especially for vacation reading.



    Apple could solve this issue in one move and I wish they would. The iPad is too heavy but it's also a good size for browsing so making a smaller version isn't a great idea.



    They just need to realise that different applications have different hardware requirements and go the modular route. The iPad has a lower spec than the current iPhone 4 so why make both?



    The only device they need to sell is the iPod Touch. It performs the same as the iPhone, it just needs the better camera:



    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3903/a...-mans-iphone-4



    Then they just make holders for it.

    Have an add-on to let you make calls on any network you choose.

    Have an e-reader add-on that lets you read books.

    Have a 10" screen add-on that lets you browse and do some productive tasks.



    All of your data is on the same core device. Apple could even have partnered up with Amazon and had the Kindle be the iPod eReader accessory.



    Having people buy another A4 processor + RAM + GPU seems a waste when they just need the screen + battery. Then have a scalable UI that works across all screens. If you get wireless display technology in there, even better although that would drain the battery quickly.
  • Reply 29 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    ... Apple turned such a huge corner on what cell phones should be. Why couldn't Google and RIM push beyond the iPhone instead of just copying. I don't get it. ...



    Google's original version of Android was a straight ripoff of BlackBerry. Don't believe me? Here's a photo from Wikipedia: BlackBerry clone.



    Originally Google's reason for creating Android was to take business from Microsoft's Windows Mobile. Google saw how successful RIM had become with BlackBerry, so they copied BlackBerry. Google's tactic in attacking Microsoft was to copy Microsoft's strongest competitor. At first it was RIM's BlackBerry. But when Apple released iPhone, Google ran back to the drawing board to copy iPhone OS, as it was called back then.



    Never forget: Google gives away Android for free to maximize the number of eyeballs on AdMob ads. Not as a grand altruistic gesture.



    And what did RIM do when iPhone was introduced? Nothing. They sat there, in denial, and ignored iPhone and its Android clones. RIM was being attacked by iPhone at the high end and Android at the low end. Their market share eroded, but they figured their core enterprise business would be safe.



    Wrong. iOS now has Exchange support, remote wipe, and other enterprise connectivity and security features. So what did RIM do? They rushed out a bad copy of iOS and its multi-touch interface, which simultaneously repelled new users and alienated their existing consumer and corporate users. RIM's remaining users have been brainwashed to think they still need mechanical keyboards.



    The thing that both Google and RIM have in common is lack of vision. Google only wants to maximize the number of AdMob ads seen by their Android users. It is not necessary or even profitable to innovate in order to achieve that goal. Their vision is a world full of cheap or free Android devices all playing ads.



    RIM is finally acknowledging that they are in trouble. They are losing market share, and their new subscriber rates dropped off a cliff this fall. But instead of innovating to save their phone handset business, they are starting work on an iPad wannabe. RIM's vision of the future is PlayBook running QNX plus the same old BlackBerry with its mechanical keyboard. They don't even have a prototype PlayBook to demo, and yet they say they are "ahead" of Apple's iPad. Time to install some new top management.
  • Reply 30 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The iPad is too heavy but it's also a good size for browsing so making a smaller version isn't a great idea.



    I?d like it to be lighter, but I don?t want to sacrifice the screen real estate, durability or battery life to get it. I also have plenty of books that are much, much heavier than the iPad so saying it?s ?too heavy? seems hyperbolic to me.



    Quote:

    They just need to realise that different applications have different hardware requirements and go the modular route. The iPad has a lower spec than the current iPhone 4 so why make both?



    The only device they need to sell is the iPod Touch. It performs the same as the iPhone, it just needs the better camera:



    ¿Que? It was demoed 6 months before the iPhone 4 was released and it?s a new product category for Apple with a new UI. I don?t think anyone should expect that from a first generation product category. I think the fact Apple used a 1GHz 'A4' instead of just recommissioning the 3GS HW is telling.



    Note that the iPod Touch has lower specs than the iPhones that precede it. Most notably the non-IPS display.



    Quote:

    Having people buy another A4 processor + RAM + GPU seems a waste when they just need the screen + battery. Then have a scalable UI that works across all screens. If you get wireless display technology in there, even better although that would drain the battery quickly.



    It?s scalable for devs because they made it that way, but the UI isn?t just a smearing of the UI found in the iPhone. It?s a completely new UI using CocoaTouch designed specifically for the iPad.



    As for having you buy "another A4 processor + RAM + GPU seems a waste? I hope you?re not suggesting that the next iPad be a giant dummy dock for the iPhone and/or iPod Touch.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bettieblue View Post


    Next Apple Insider Blog post



    "X company has (good sales, whatever postive), however Apple does better somehow."



    Apple Insider defining sad, bias, jounalism with every single blog post.



    I have an iPad and a Kindle 3. I read a lot, and I would never use my iPad to read anything more than a short email, or a web page.



    The Kindle 3 runs circles around the iPad as a e-reader.



    The real story here is that the iPad as a e-reader is a failure, and that Kindle and others have continued strong sales. That bloggers and ANALists should not compare Apples to Oranges.



    I remember the old days when Apple Insider actually had articles about Apple...now, especially over the last year, they have become more of an extension to Apple's PR department. Any article by Dan especially is so far screwed in Apple's direction, it can almost be funny at times. I believe he is an Apple stock holder or was so that makes sense but is never disclosed in his articles. Anyways...



    When I bought my iPad, I gave my Kindle to my dad as a gift thinking the iPad would fill it's role for reading. But the Kindle is easier to read for longer times and just a little more portable for reading. So, I just bought a new Kindle for myself just for that purpose. But for the casual reader, the iPad will do and that is probably enough...
  • Reply 32 of 46
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I also have plenty of books that are much, much heavier than the iPad so saying it?s ?too heavy? seems hyperbolic to me.



    Possibly, there is a stat online from a big book retailer that the average book weighs 12oz and over 75% are under 1.7lbs. The iPad does fit into that bracket but I don't think I've ever heard any reviewer say that it feels light and it felt heavier than I expected in something that size.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It was demoed 6 months before the iPhone 4 was released



    Sure but they would have been working on the iPhone 4 before then.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Note that the iPod Touch has lower specs than the iPhones that precede it. Most notably the non-IPS display.



    Yeah but that's just because they want to hit a certain price-point. If they had a single product, it wouldn't be necessary to do that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s scalable for devs because they made it that way, but the UI isn?t just a smearing of the UI found in the iPhone. It?s a completely new UI using CocoaTouch designed specifically for the iPad.



    They didn't redevelop CocoaTouch for the iPad. They just added some functions like UIPopOverController and resampled the UI elements at a higher resolution.



    If they had a different CocoaTouch implementation, iPhone apps wouldn't work properly.



    The scalable UI is going to become important with the next iPad version because I'd be surprised if they get a 2048 x 1536 screen on there. If they manage it, it will be ok but create a disconnect between iPad 1 apps and iPhone 4 apps. If they stick with 1024 x 768, they won't be able to call it a retina display so in some ways is inferior for reading on than an iPhone. If they go somewhere in between like 1600 x 1200, that's not going to be the best for upscaling as you aren't using whole pixels.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    As for having you buy "another A4 processor + RAM + GPU seems a waste? I hope you?re not suggesting that the next iPad be a giant dummy dock for the iPhone and/or iPod Touch.



    Why don't you hope that? It means that you get both at a cheaper price and no loss in performance. The next iPad won't go beyond iPhone 5.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Sure but they would have been working on the iPhone 4 before then.



    Working on, sure, but that doesn?t mean anything considering these designed are worked on a couple years before becoming a shipping product. The mistake we?ve seen with other vendors is they?ve thought they could simply swap out a component or two and have everything fall into place when the reality is much more complex than that and anything less leads to an inferior product.



    Quote:

    They didn't redevelop CocoaTouch for the iPad. They just added some functions like UIPopOverController and resampled the UI elements at a higher resolution.



    I didn?t say they developed CocoaTouch for the iPad, but they did develop a new UI for the iPad using CocoaTouch. Big difference and it?s what makes the iPad work.



    No, the difference between IOS for iPhone/Touch and iOS for iPad isn?t the inclusion of PopOvers. The entire UI was designed to meet the needs of the primary I/O, the display panel.



    Just look at how iPhone/Touch apps look on the iPad. Even Google says Android won?t be ready for tablets until 3.0.



    Quote:

    If they had a different CocoaTouch implementation, iPhone apps wouldn't work properly.



    Again, different UI, not different API.



    Quote:

    If they stick with 1024 x 768, they won't be able to call it a retina display so in some ways is inferior for reading on than an iPhone. If they go somewhere in between like 1600 x 1200, that's not going to be the best for upscaling as you aren't using whole pixels.



    I don?t see Apple trying to compete with itself on that level. It?s like saying Macs are shitty because they have less pixels than the iPhone/Touch.. and they always have. The larger the display the less dense the pixels will tend to be. This isn?t likely to change anytime soon.



    Note that the original iPhone was slightly ahead of the curve with the original iPhone display, but by the 3rd generation it was well behind. I see no precedence for Apple to increase the display willy nilly.



    Quote:

    Why don't you hope that? It means that you get both at a cheaper price and no loss in performance. The next iPad won't go beyond iPhone 5.



    It makes for an inferior device. It?s slower, heavier, and costlier than it needs to be.



    This is how the iPhone 4 connects to the board.
    I can?t imagine how using the 30-pin dock connector to run the display output, touch panel input, power charging, bypass connectors and whatever other HW you have would be to make this is a horrible experience.



    And what if you don?t want to use iPhone, but an iPod Touch does it have some dock sleeve to put on? What if you just want a tablet, you now have to buy two items, you now have two displays, etc. all in a larger overall size that is more prone to wear and tear and other potential issues. Apple doesn?t even have user removal batteries on their notebooks!
  • Reply 34 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The Roku XDS for $99.99 is now ahead of the XD. Their CEO said their sales were doubled from the AppleTV?s release. Apple did this before with the iPhone with smartphone interest and the iPod with PMP interest. I guess it?s a bit of a double edged sword. You get a surge of sales, but it may come at an inevitable loss of your entire market if your not careful.



    I think Roku?s saving grace is that Apple probably won?t upgrade the AppleTV to support 1080p until 1080p is available from the iTS. However, the AppleTV seems to be successful enough to warrant Apple making an SDK/App Store and integrating it into the ecosystem in a way that Roku could never do, and $99 is low enough for CE impulse buy.





    Who would pay that much for a Blu-ray player when they can be had for half that price¡



    Possibly the same person who would pay more for a Mac when an HP can be had for half the price!



    And with the HP you get Windows as a bonus rather than OSX.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I didn?t say they developed CocoaTouch for the iPad, but they did develop a new UI for the iPad using CocoaTouch. Big difference and it?s what makes the iPad work.



    It was your mention of 'using CocoaTouch' that suggested it was different from the iPhone SDK. The UI wasn't drastically overhauled from what I can see. The list views are the same, just split in two. the home screen is the same but one extra column and row. Anyway, that doesn't require there to be a separation between the distributions and for the dock idea, it would use the UI layout for the bigger screen.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It makes for an inferior device. It?s slower, heavier, and costlier than it needs to be.



    It could well be slower as it will optimise for the small battery but when docked, it could go faster. It wouldn't be heavier. The iPod Touch is 3.5 ounces. You're saying it's costlier to own an iPod Touch + screen Dock than just an iPad. Well a 32GB iPod Touch is $299 and a 32GB iPad is $599.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I can?t imagine how using the 30-pin dock connector to run the display output, touch panel input, power charging, bypass connectors and whatever other HW you have would be to make this is a horrible experience.



    The bandwidth of the 30-pin port could be a concern. It handles video output ok but there's a chance it wouldn't be enough. I think it's about time they replaced the 30-pin plug by now anyway. Micro-USB 3 or something would work better.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    And what if you don?t want to use iPhone, but an iPod Touch does it have some dock sleeve to put on? What if you just want a tablet, you now have to buy two items, you now have two displays, etc. all in a larger overall size that is more prone to wear and tear and other potential issues. Apple doesn?t even have user removal batteries on their notebooks!



    You can think of it the other way too though, what if you want both a tablet and phone, which is a more likely scenario than just a tablet. In that scenario, you have to buy two devices outright at huge expense, especially with data access on both. There was a survey of 448 iPad owners where 66% had an iPhone already and 92% had an iPod:



    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10472604-17.html



    Almost everyone has a mobile phone so like I say, why produce all these redundant devices? Just focus on one product, perfect the manufacturing process and drive the cost down with volume then offer flexibility with accessories.



    Although an iPad may cost less than an iPod + dock, they don't have to buy at the same time. Christmas one year it's the iPod for $299 and the next, it's the screen for $199 or whatever. Wear and tear isn't a huge issue as you dock your iPhone daily anyway.
  • Reply 36 of 46
    When will you guys get?

    Amazon Kindle is an e-Reader. Stop comparing it with iPad. They are just in different market.
  • Reply 37 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    Not hugely surprising, the bombardment of iPad ads I see every week look like they've dropped all mention of books, indicating maybe people arnt hugely interested in it as a e-reader. While at the same time I know people that don't even read books talking about getting a kindle.



    I have a couple hundred epub/pdf books on my iPad. I could care less about using a Kindle.
  • Reply 38 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by striker_kk View Post


    When will you guys get?

    Amazon Kindle is an e-Reader. Stop comparing it with iPad. They are just in different market.



    Its you that doesn't get it, Amazon released the Kindle SDK and announced a soon to be released app store in Jan. 2010 (remember that Amazon debacle?). Amazon said it was to combat its newest soon-to-be-released competitor....the new Apple tablet.



    Even if YOU think they are in different markets, Amazon does not agree. It looks as iPad as a direct competitor and it is not going well for Kindle based on inside information.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by striker_kk View Post


    When will you guys get?

    Amazon Kindle is an e-Reader. Stop comparing it with iPad. They are just in different market.



    I agree 100%. Bought my wife a kindle for christmas and she loves it. The ipad is cool but for an e-reader I believe the kindle is a much better choice.
  • Reply 40 of 46
    tjwtjw Posts: 216member
    Apple fans on here just don't understand the kindle model.



    Kindle is all about boosting amazon book sales so they take over the ebook market before it ever really takes off. There strategy is hugely successful. They don't sell a kindle device purely for big profit margins like apple do with the ipad. The kindle store model is far superior to iBooks because of the range of devices it is available on and the greater range of ebooks available. In addition the kindle as a reader is so much better than an ipad, even if you discount the amazing screen you have a device that is lighter, smaller and with insanely long battery life - kindle wins hands down as a reader. In addition to this kindle 3 is the best selling product in amazon history!



    Apple seemed to have realised this too - as another poster mentioned they are no longer pushing ebooks in their ipad adverts.



    The two devices are completely different, I don't know why appleinsider is even reporting on it.
Sign In or Register to comment.