Amazon rumored to launch 8.9-inch Kindle Fire in Q2 2012

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post






    It's now or never, didn't you get the memo? There won't be any Android tablets as of 2012:



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_in_2012.html



    You seem to forget that content providers include Sony, HTC and Samsung.
  • Reply 22 of 39
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nairb View Post


    You seem to forget that content providers include Sony, HTC and Samsung.



    Okay, good for them. I don't buy that story anyway, I was just joking. Content is peanuts to hardware companies, they can not use it in place of revenue from their core business.
  • Reply 23 of 39
    The pressure isn't on the iPad, the pressure is on the Touch. That's the price point that we're looking at and as such Apple needs to get its' ducks in a row in regards to the Touch which will suffer if Apple insists on continuing to make it an iPhone sans the phone part.



    If Apple offers a 5-inch Touch for about the same price as the smaller Fire, that would go a long way to addressing the challenge. If a larger Fire is introduced, it will be more money, obviously, and when it starts to inch closer in price to the iPad, its' inferior technology and software will dissuade most consumers from taking it seriously.



    If Apple refuses to build the Touch with a somewhat larger screen, which is the most obvious upgrade that should be made, it's going to be harmful to Apple over the long haul. At least that's how I see it.



    One more thing. If Apple doesn't see fit to tweak its' products as required as if this were disrespectful to Steve Jobs' memory, the company is doomed. Jobs never settled for letting products stagnate and Apple can't afford to provide the competition with a stationary target. The Touch is what Apple says it is. If Apple decides the Touch should have a 5-inch screen then that's what the Touch is. For example, what exactly is there that really links the iMac Version One with the current iMac.



    I keep pushing for such a change of direction for the Touch but it really seems to me to be a rather obvious progression. Besides, there isn't that much risk in going this route. I doubt Apple would have any trouble selling lots of 5-inch Touch models selling for similar prices to the current Touch and if there is a demand for something similar to the current Touch, the Nano can be morphed into such a device. Bring out the new Touch alongside the iPad in a couple of months and if necessary upsize the Nano in the fall to fill the void, if one is created.



    If Apple does this, neither Fire model would be much of a threat.
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post


    Good thinking.



    What we need is more choice to better compete with the other"s".



    7.1 in, 7.9 in, 8.9 in, 9.7 in, 10.1 in, such that the consumers are not "locked down" by the few existing "proprietary" (read: "closed") form factors.



    And most of all, all kinds of aspect rations, especially the very elongated ones. What a great opportunity to offer even more choice!



    Blah, blah choice. Tablets (real tablets and not just PDAs) have been around for over 20 years, using all sorts of display types, input methods and operating systems. There has always, repeat, ALWAYS been choice. That consumers have voted one size and aspect ratio their favorite doesn't mean they weren't given choices. They were, and they made their choice. Deal with it.
  • Reply 25 of 39
    Holy Cow! This may cause Apple to rethink their Apple tax...
  • Reply 26 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    Holy Cow! This may cause Apple to rethink their Apple tax...



    If you mean to lose money on every tablet sold like Amazon, then yes.
  • Reply 27 of 39
    I'm really curious how Amazon thinks they can optimize the tablets for all the different screen sizes. I just picture a miserable long-term experience in terms of software. There is a big difference in how you interact with a 7" screen vs a 9" screen... vs a potential phone.
  • Reply 28 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,698member
    You certainly can't accuse Amazon of not being aggressive in their mobile strategies, and that extends even to their core business, retail sales. They've announced an impressive sale this week on the ATT, Verizon and TMobile flagship (Android) phones. The best of the bunch IMHO is the $800 Motorola RAZR for one penny, of course with the obligatory 2-year contract. I guess the old "I'll make it up in volume" is Amazon's holiday sales motto.



    http://9to5google.com/2011/11/21/fla...zon-this-week/
  • Reply 29 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    Holy Cow! This may cause Apple to rethink their Apple tax...



    What 'Apple Tax'? Third-party tablets with the same specs as the iPad cost $6, 7, and 800 for the BASE model.
  • Reply 30 of 39
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    I'm really curious how Amazon thinks they can optimize the tablets for all the different screen sizes. I just picture a miserable long-term experience in terms of software. There is a big difference in how you interact with a 7" screen vs a 9" screen... vs a potential phone.



    It's really simple. The 8.9'' panel that is in the Samsung tab and will likely be used for the 8.9'' Amazon tablet has the exact same ppi as the 7'' panel in the Kindle Fire. Which means that graphical elements that are defined by the same pixel dimensions will have the same size, and will be equally easy to interact with. The spacing between elements is trivial to recalculate, and works similar to desktop OSes which utilize different screen sizes.



    So there will be no need for separate interfaces as there is for iPhone and iPad, which have nearly the same pixels count but a threefold size difference.
  • Reply 31 of 39
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    It's really simple. The 8.9'' panel that is in the Samsung tab and will likely be used for the 8.9'' Amazon tablet has the exact same ppi[read as pixels along the x and y] as the 7'' panel in the Kindle Fire. Which means that graphical elements that are defined by the same pixel dimensions will have the same size, and will be equally easy to interact with. The spacing between elements is trivial to recalculate, and works similar to desktop OSes which utilize different screen sizes.



    So there will be no need for separate interfaces as there is for iPhone and iPad, which have nearly the same pixels count but a threefold size difference.



    Um… no they won't be the same size because you defined the pixels as being identical and the dispaly areas as being larger, which by definition means the pixels will be larger.



    Or they can have the same poi, but the resolution is different and there it's a different UI.
  • Reply 32 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,698member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    What 'Apple Tax'? Third-party tablets with the same specs as the iPad cost $6, 7, and 800 for the BASE model.



    Perhaps at full retail pricing. Comparable tablets from Samsung, Acer, Toshiba and especially ASUS all commonly come in under Apple's least expensive iPad2 model at Best Buy, HH Gregg, Amazon and other big retailers. That doesn't mean there's an Apple tax since Apple's product would be considered premium, but they certainly aren't hurting on margins.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Um… no they won't be the same size because you defined the ppi as being identical and the dispaly areas as being larger, which by definition means the pixels will be larger.



    Read my post again. Elements with the same pixel dimensions (as in 64 by 64 pixels) will have the same size (in inches) on screens with the same ppi (pixels per inch). Same ppi means same pixel size.
  • Reply 34 of 39
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadow415 View Post


    I believe it is in reference to the story below this one. A UK Rabbi blames Apple for the ego-centric attitude of our culture.



    Probably. Bcause the post takes one individual's comments and paints a whole people with it, I deleted it as a racist comment.
  • Reply 35 of 39
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Probably. Bcause the post takes one individual's comments and paints a whole people with it, I deleted it as a racist comment.



    Thank you Jeff.



    I deleted my comments as well.
  • Reply 36 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Same ppi means same pixel size.



    Yes, but the element spacing is different. On some things it is functional, others it isn't. Keyboards are especially a pain, as the key spacing changes, or the assumption of where a thumb or finger can reach needs to change.



    It is easy to kludge a solution together to make things display, but from an interaction perspective it is broken.
  • Reply 37 of 39
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Read my post again. Elements with the same pixel dimensions (as in 64 by 64 pixels) will have the same size (in inches) on screens with the same ppi (pixels per inch). Same ppi means same pixel size.



    You're right, I read your PPI to mean total number of pixels, same resolution. But that just makes your point worse because while items, like icons, on the display will be the same size there is now a lot more display area to cover. This makes a new UI even more difficult as you have to build from the ground up to deal with a new resolution.



    Assuming a 16:9 aspect ratio for the Kindle Fire your talking a about 20.92"^2 for a 7" display and 33.82"^2 for an 8.9" display. That over 50% more display area. Are you just going to have a black unused border for anything that is different from the 7" resolution? Of course not, you create a UI that can take advantage of this new resolution as display size.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    Yes, but <..>



    But, but, but... give it a break, we are discussing a non-existent hypothetical UI, for crying out loud. 7'' is not very different form 8.9'', the effort to adapt the UI will be minimal. I am sure they have much more serious issues to resolve than adapting to a slightly different screen size.
  • Reply 39 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,698member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You're right, I read your PPI to mean total number of pixels, same resolution. But that just makes your point worse because while items, like icons, on the display will be the same size there is now a lot more display area to cover. This makes a new UI even more difficult as you have to build from the ground up to deal with a new resolution.



    Assuming a 16:9 aspect ratio for the Kindle Fire your talking a about 20.92"^2 for a 7" display and 33.82"^2 for an 8.9" display. That over 50% more display area. Are you just going to have a black unused border for anything that is different from the 7" resolution? Of course not, you create a UI that can take advantage of this new resolution as display size.



    Solipsism, if you want to familiarize yourself with how Android handles scaling, particularly on tablets, here's a link. It's different from Apple.

    http://developer.android.com/guide/p...gTabletLayouts
Sign In or Register to comment.