Consider this - where has Apple met real competition in its relentless climb?
In the smartphone OS arena. Oh - and the PC arena. And the productivity software arena. And the enterprise. Indeed, in pretty much every arena except tablets, which is just seeing the competitors arriving at the stadium.
People said exactly the same thing about the iPad 1. No camera! $500 is so inexpensive!
But no disaster, at least, none that I heard about. Leaving out basic features is a typical Apple method of selling two similar products to the same customer. I'm surprised that you would think it to be a disaster in the making.
Great post- I wonder if he can figure out the answer?
If you want to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire, then go right ahead, nobody's stopping you. There is a certain market for such a tablet, but even an iPad 1 > Kindle Fire, don't kid yourself.
An iPad 1's Safari runs slow as molasses, don't kid yourself. Therefor Kindle Fire > iPad1.
Something to consider tho: If a customer purchases one of these, the purchase of another slate/tablet product in the near future is less likely. A lot of buyers will find it's more than good enough for their needs and wants. Apple's iPad sales will be affected even tho the Kindle Fire is not a direct competitor.
Best comment in this thread. I know more than a few people that are on the fence with the iPad because of price.
Bringing the same kind of echo system (if not better), the same ease of use (if not better) at a MUCH lower cost will most likely makes these same people NOT go with a iPad.
You ask that question because you're clearly ignorant as to the very big differences between an iPad and the Amazon mini tablet. The Amazon tablet will probably sell ok compared to other previous Android tablet failures and flops which came before it, but it is not in the same league or even comparable to an iPad.
(1) It's fucking tiny, less than half the screen area of an iPad.
(2) No microphone, no Skype, no calls, no communication, no voice commands etc.
(3) Shorter battery life.
(4) No real multitouch, only dual touch. This one is pretty important in my view.
(5) Half the internal storage of even the lowest spec iPad.
(6) iOS > Amazon's skinned Android
(7) It's strictly a media consumption device. The iPad is that and more as it's also a productivity device being used and adopted by all sorts of businesses and enterprise and quite a few productivity apps do exist for the iPad in all different kinds of fields and areas.
(8) 3:4 aspect ratio > 16:9 aspect ratio for tablets. 16:9 is better for movies, it's worse for everything else, including reading books, surfing, games etc.
If you want to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire, then go right ahead, nobody's stopping you. There is a certain market for such a tablet, but even an iPad 1 > Kindle Fire, don't kid yourself.
No, you're ignorant of the argument being put forward - this tablet is optimised for Amazon content, it's dual core so how the fuck is it slower? Why would they need a Mic for Skype when there's no camera? Multitouch to consume media? Important? For what? Reading? Watching movies? Listening to music?
Oh, and $199. I'l say that again for the HARD TO UNDERSTAND. $199.
The only 'panic' here is in the posts of Amazoids and possibly fandroids who are desperate for something (anything) that can put Apple in its place! Fine - no one cares! Post your android market share statistics, price point arguments, form factor arguments and 'echo-system' arguments. We've read them all and the pervading theme is simply a tirade against the iPad. Gone are the arguments about the iPad not being a computer and about Apple's walled garden.
Consider this - where has Apple met real competition in its relentless climb? Well, not in the music player and tablet markets. It has met stiff competition in the mobile phone and computer markets. The competitors in this latter segment are established and highly efficient hardware manufacturers. Apple too is an established and highly efficient hardware manufacturer that also controls every aspect of its operating system. Amazon is not and does not. They are going to release a 7" tablet because they simply cannot compete against Apple's offering. The Fire has less than half the display area of the iPad (at a slightly higher resolution) and yet:
- is over two-thirds the weight of an iPad (413g vs 609g).
- is nearly 80% of the length of an iPad (190mm vs 241.2mm).
- is 130% of the thickness of an iPad (11.4mm vs 8.8mm but who cares right?)
- offers 8 hours of reading with WiFi off, against 10 hours on the web with the iPad.
I believe too that the 7" screen will prove frustratingly small but in the end, who cares? The regulars on AI don't! We could not care less!
I dont own an Android device, and would never buy a Honeycomb tablet. Despite your protests, you actually sound like an Android fanboy yourself, albeit unintentionally, throwing specs up as an argument. I thought specs were irrelevant and it was all about the experience/ecosystem? Amazon has both nailed with this. Just accept it and move on son, it's alright, it had to end sometime.
It's an off-the-shelf Cortex-A8 at 800MHz SoC. Nothing about it appears to be better or faster than the iPad 2's SoC.
Quote:
Multitouch to consume media?
It's not just a consumption device, they do have interactive media. Dual-touch is fine for now but if they plan to grow their Kindle Fire app catalogue they will eventually add a more advanced multi-touch system to future devices.
It's an off-the-shelf Cortex-A8 at 800MHz SoC. Nothing about it appears to be better or faster than the iPad 2's SoC.
It's not just a consumption device, they do have interactive media. Dual-touch is fine for now but if they plan to grow their Kindle Fire app catalogue they will eventually add a more advanced multi-touch system to future devices.
1 (a)The comment from the OP referred to the original iPad, not iPad2. Let's be fair, at $199 vs $499, I would expect it to be faster.
1. (b)This will be faster than the iPad1, in everyday usage, especially the browser. Perhaps faster than iPad2 as well (browser only I mean.) This is better served being compared to the iPad1, it's much nearer the price point. Still $100 more, but near. No camera on it either. Plus all of the comparisons he made were with the iPad2 specs - I think they are better served with first:
- is over two-thirds the weight of an iPad (413g vs 609g). No - it's almost half the weight of the iPad1 - (413g vs 730g)
- is nearly 80% of the length of an iPad (190mm vs 241.2mm). Correct, but not really an issue.
- is 130% of the thickness of an iPad (11.4mm vs 8.8mm but who cares right?) No - it's 2mm less than the iPad1 (13.4mm)
- offers 8 hours of reading with WiFi off, against 10 hours on the web with the iPad. Pretty decent for much a smaller battery, so of course it's shorter.
2. Yes, but they don't need it for this device, the whole point is to keep costs down to gain share, which they have done very well. I'm sure they will have multi-touch, cameras etc when their ecosystem needs it, but why put it on now? It would just make them look bad, Apple waited for FaceTime, etc. Same deal.
The Fire will be out for the holiday buying season. How many people will buy it as a gift for someone thinking it has exactly the same capabilities as an iPad? How many will sit on a shelf after a couple of months? How many will be returned?
Not saying it won't be popular but I can't see it being a runaway success. The other two Kindles on the other hand... they will be bought for exactly their intended use and will fly off the shelves through November and December.
How does the iPad market/target audience differ from that of the Kindle Fire?
the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) to read, listen or to otherwise enjoy media in a lightweight and small form factor. Amazon competes against Barnes & Nobles' offering, if you're a resident of the US.
How does the iPad market/target audience differ from that of the Kindle Fire?
That's a damn good question.
The original iPad initially was sold to wealthier educated males but soon expanded into almost all demographics as the app store grew, especially when the iPad2 was introduced with its camera. The minute you add a camera you can include a younger demographic into your marketing model with a lot more ease.
So I would assume that the marketing model would center around wealthier educated people.
I'm a bit biased, though, because I just don't see the Fire being a runaway success. Successful, but not crazy successful as the iPad has been so far. The group interested in this type of device seems limited to me.
Maybe it'll be a big success with families buying this as a means to keep their children quiet.
Personally I'm curious about how well the new Silk web browser will perform. It's certainly unique, and may well make the Fire feel like a much better device than the hardware might indicate.
the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) to read, listen or to otherwise enjoy media in a lightweight and small form factor. Amazon competes against Barnes & Nobles' offering, if you're a resident of the US.
This is a segment of the iPads target audience though. How big a segment, we don't yet know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
That's a damn good question.
The original iPad initially was sold to wealthier educated males but soon expanded into almost all demographics as the app store grew, especially when the iPad2 was introduced with its camera. The minute you add a camera you can include a younger demographic into your marketing model with a lot more ease.
So I would assume that the marketing model would center around wealthier educated people.
I'm a bit biased, though, because I just don't see the Fire being a runaway success. Successful, but not crazy successful as the iPad has been so far. The group interested in this type of device seems limited to me.
Maybe it'll be a big success with families buying this as a means to keep their children quiet.
I'm not sure where the wealthy/non-wealthy comparison comes from. Surely Amazon doesn't want cheapskates to buy hardware they're barely profiting on selling - profitability is meant to come from the content. Not directed at you, but commentary about the Kindle being targeted at these kind of people is far off the mark.
Regardless, thanks for your replies chaps. I maintain that there is an element of a 'zero-sum' game between the Kindle Fire and iPad. Not anywhere near the extent as the media think, but it's there nonetheless. If you buy a Kindle Fire, you don't really need an iPad as much and vice versa. I don't think the camera is a big deal since there's still a real gap between even the iPad 1 and Kindle Fire. I could best define the 'gap' in that if I owned a laptop a Kindle would be more suitable, whereas if I owned a desktop (which I do) an iPad would be the way to go (which it is!).
That said, functionality can be vastly be improved by apps. Additionally, I wonder if Netflix, Spotify et. al, are on Amazon's Android market?
I have feeling that if someone points at something you quizzically look at their finger.
Hahahahaha,
Like a dog I used to have, I sometimes have trouble deciding if a grape is food, or a ball to play with, and I'm not quite sure if my vacuum cleaner is an appliance or a demon from hell.
This is a segment of the iPads target audience though ...
no.
i said "the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) ..."
iPads do not fall in that category. my point on page one (1) of this thread still stands.
Comments
Consider this - where has Apple met real competition in its relentless climb?
In the smartphone OS arena. Oh - and the PC arena. And the productivity software arena. And the enterprise. Indeed, in pretty much every arena except tablets, which is just seeing the competitors arriving at the stadium.
There are already cheaper tablets that do basically the same thing,
Yeah? Like which ones?
Its a vending machine.
That's all.
Like an Apple TV/iTunes? What's wrong with that?
People said exactly the same thing about the iPad 1. No camera! $500 is so inexpensive!
But no disaster, at least, none that I heard about. Leaving out basic features is a typical Apple method of selling two similar products to the same customer. I'm surprised that you would think it to be a disaster in the making.
Great post- I wonder if he can figure out the answer?
If you want to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire, then go right ahead, nobody's stopping you. There is a certain market for such a tablet, but even an iPad 1 > Kindle Fire, don't kid yourself.
An iPad 1's Safari runs slow as molasses, don't kid yourself. Therefor Kindle Fire > iPad1.
It's not meant to directly compete with the iPad.
Something to consider tho: If a customer purchases one of these, the purchase of another slate/tablet product in the near future is less likely. A lot of buyers will find it's more than good enough for their needs and wants. Apple's iPad sales will be affected even tho the Kindle Fire is not a direct competitor.
Best comment in this thread. I know more than a few people that are on the fence with the iPad because of price.
Bringing the same kind of echo system (if not better), the same ease of use (if not better) at a MUCH lower cost will most likely makes these same people NOT go with a iPad.
You ask that question because you're clearly ignorant as to the very big differences between an iPad and the Amazon mini tablet. The Amazon tablet will probably sell ok compared to other previous Android tablet failures and flops which came before it, but it is not in the same league or even comparable to an iPad.
(1) It's fucking tiny, less than half the screen area of an iPad.
(2) No microphone, no Skype, no calls, no communication, no voice commands etc.
(3) Shorter battery life.
(4) No real multitouch, only dual touch. This one is pretty important in my view.
(5) Half the internal storage of even the lowest spec iPad.
(6) iOS > Amazon's skinned Android
(7) It's strictly a media consumption device. The iPad is that and more as it's also a productivity device being used and adopted by all sorts of businesses and enterprise and quite a few productivity apps do exist for the iPad in all different kinds of fields and areas.
(8) 3:4 aspect ratio > 16:9 aspect ratio for tablets. 16:9 is better for movies, it's worse for everything else, including reading books, surfing, games etc.
If you want to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire, then go right ahead, nobody's stopping you. There is a certain market for such a tablet, but even an iPad 1 > Kindle Fire, don't kid yourself.
No, you're ignorant of the argument being put forward - this tablet is optimised for Amazon content, it's dual core so how the fuck is it slower? Why would they need a Mic for Skype when there's no camera? Multitouch to consume media? Important? For what? Reading? Watching movies? Listening to music?
Oh, and $199. I'l say that again for the HARD TO UNDERSTAND. $199.
The only 'panic' here is in the posts of Amazoids and possibly fandroids who are desperate for something (anything) that can put Apple in its place! Fine - no one cares! Post your android market share statistics, price point arguments, form factor arguments and 'echo-system' arguments. We've read them all
Consider this - where has Apple met real competition in its relentless climb? Well, not in the music player and tablet markets. It has met stiff competition in the mobile phone and computer markets. The competitors in this latter segment are established and highly efficient hardware manufacturers. Apple too is an established and highly efficient hardware manufacturer that also controls every aspect of its operating system. Amazon is not and does not. They are going to release a 7" tablet because they simply cannot compete against Apple's offering. The Fire has less than half the display area of the iPad (at a slightly higher resolution) and yet:
- is over two-thirds the weight of an iPad (413g vs 609g).
- is nearly 80% of the length of an iPad (190mm vs 241.2mm).
- is 130% of the thickness of an iPad (11.4mm vs 8.8mm
- offers 8 hours of reading with WiFi off, against 10 hours on the web with the iPad.
I believe too that the 7" screen will prove frustratingly small but in the end, who cares? The regulars on AI don't! We could not care less!
I dont own an Android device, and would never buy a Honeycomb tablet. Despite your protests, you actually sound like an Android fanboy yourself, albeit unintentionally, throwing specs up as an argument. I thought specs were irrelevant and it was all about the experience/ecosystem? Amazon has both nailed with this. Just accept it and move on son, it's alright, it had to end sometime.
...it's dual core so how the fuck is it slower?
It's an off-the-shelf Cortex-A8 at 800MHz SoC. Nothing about it appears to be better or faster than the iPad 2's SoC.
Multitouch to consume media?
It's not just a consumption device, they do have interactive media. Dual-touch is fine for now but if they plan to grow their Kindle Fire app catalogue they will eventually add a more advanced multi-touch system to future devices.
It's an off-the-shelf Cortex-A8 at 800MHz SoC. Nothing about it appears to be better or faster than the iPad 2's SoC.
It's not just a consumption device, they do have interactive media. Dual-touch is fine for now but if they plan to grow their Kindle Fire app catalogue they will eventually add a more advanced multi-touch system to future devices.
1 (a)The comment from the OP referred to the original iPad, not iPad2. Let's be fair, at $199 vs $499, I would expect it to be faster.
1. (b)This will be faster than the iPad1, in everyday usage, especially the browser. Perhaps faster than iPad2 as well (browser only I mean.) This is better served being compared to the iPad1, it's much nearer the price point. Still $100 more, but near. No camera on it either. Plus all of the comparisons he made were with the iPad2 specs - I think they are better served with first:
- is over two-thirds the weight of an iPad (413g vs 609g). No - it's almost half the weight of the iPad1 - (413g vs 730g)
- is nearly 80% of the length of an iPad (190mm vs 241.2mm). Correct, but not really an issue.
- is 130% of the thickness of an iPad (11.4mm vs 8.8mm but who cares right?) No - it's 2mm less than the iPad1 (13.4mm)
- offers 8 hours of reading with WiFi off, against 10 hours on the web with the iPad. Pretty decent for much a smaller battery, so of course it's shorter.
2. Yes, but they don't need it for this device, the whole point is to keep costs down to gain share, which they have done very well. I'm sure they will have multi-touch, cameras etc when their ecosystem needs it, but why put it on now? It would just make them look bad, Apple waited for FaceTime, etc. Same deal.
Not saying it won't be popular but I can't see it being a runaway success. The other two Kindles on the other hand... they will be bought for exactly their intended use and will fly off the shelves through November and December.
jmho
How does the iPad market/target audience differ from that of the Kindle Fire?
the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) to read, listen or to otherwise enjoy media in a lightweight and small form factor. Amazon competes against Barnes & Nobles' offering, if you're a resident of the US.
How does the iPad market/target audience differ from that of the Kindle Fire?
That's a damn good question.
The original iPad initially was sold to wealthier educated males but soon expanded into almost all demographics as the app store grew, especially when the iPad2 was introduced with its camera. The minute you add a camera you can include a younger demographic into your marketing model with a lot more ease.
So I would assume that the marketing model would center around wealthier educated people.
I'm a bit biased, though, because I just don't see the Fire being a runaway success. Successful, but not crazy successful as the iPad has been so far. The group interested in this type of device seems limited to me.
Maybe it'll be a big success with families buying this as a means to keep their children quiet.
An iPad 1's Safari runs slow as molasses, don't kid yourself.
Except it doesn't.
Except it doesn't.
Compared to an iPhone 4 and iPad 2 it does.
An iPad 1's Safari runs slow as molasses, don't kid yourself. Therefor Kindle Fire > iPad1.
Install Dolphin, iPad 1 > Kindle Fire.
Install Dolphin, iPad 1 > Kindle Fire.
We'll know in November.
Personally I'm curious about how well the new Silk web browser will perform. It's certainly unique, and may well make the Fire feel like a much better device than the hardware might indicate.
the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) to read, listen or to otherwise enjoy media in a lightweight and small form factor. Amazon competes against Barnes & Nobles' offering, if you're a resident of the US.
This is a segment of the iPads target audience though. How big a segment, we don't yet know.
That's a damn good question.
The original iPad initially was sold to wealthier educated males but soon expanded into almost all demographics as the app store grew, especially when the iPad2 was introduced with its camera. The minute you add a camera you can include a younger demographic into your marketing model with a lot more ease.
So I would assume that the marketing model would center around wealthier educated people.
I'm a bit biased, though, because I just don't see the Fire being a runaway success. Successful, but not crazy successful as the iPad has been so far. The group interested in this type of device seems limited to me.
Maybe it'll be a big success with families buying this as a means to keep their children quiet.
I'm not sure where the wealthy/non-wealthy comparison comes from. Surely Amazon doesn't want cheapskates to buy hardware they're barely profiting on selling - profitability is meant to come from the content. Not directed at you, but commentary about the Kindle being targeted at these kind of people is far off the mark.
Regardless, thanks for your replies chaps. I maintain that there is an element of a 'zero-sum' game between the Kindle Fire and iPad. Not anywhere near the extent as the media think, but it's there nonetheless. If you buy a Kindle Fire, you don't really need an iPad as much and vice versa. I don't think the camera is a big deal since there's still a real gap between even the iPad 1 and Kindle Fire. I could best define the 'gap' in that if I owned a laptop a Kindle would be more suitable, whereas if I owned a desktop (which I do) an iPad would be the way to go (which it is!).
That said, functionality can be vastly be improved by apps. Additionally, I wonder if Netflix, Spotify et. al, are on Amazon's Android market?
I have feeling that if someone points at something you quizzically look at their finger.
Hahahahaha,
Like a dog I used to have, I sometimes have trouble deciding if a grape is food, or a ball to play with, and I'm not quite sure if my vacuum cleaner is an appliance or a demon from hell.
This is a segment of the iPads target audience though ...
no.
i said "the Kindle line, announced thus far, is primarily targeted at folks looking for a relatively inexpensive tablet (sub $250 price cap in Canada or the US) ..."
iPads do not fall in that category. my point on page one (1) of this thread still stands.