Google rumored to become Amazon Kindle Fire's fiercest competitor in early 2012

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Highest quality? From a company with zero years of hardware design & manufacturing experience?

    That's like RIM declaring "Amateur hour is over".



    Well they do own Motorola now so it's likely that this is just a Xoom 2 with a few Googly bits added in.



    As far as Android crap goes, the Xoom isn't that bad. With the right marketing, people will be fooled into buying it and because it's Google it will even get good reviews regardless of the quality.
  • Reply 22 of 44
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Don’t forget: in the Android world, a bullet point on a feature list is what matters, NOT the actual experience/usability delivered. Want a good camera, for instance?



    “Highest quality” is obviously impossible when undercutting the already-cheap iPad, unless profits are tossed out. (Which Amazon did and STILL achieved only cheap, mediocre quality.) Or unless you slap on a contract that makes you pay the predatory carrier of your choice and raised the actual price far beyond the iPad.



    BUT... try it this way:



    • Highest Quality



    ? Runs Flash Well This Time For Real Honest



    • Smaller Non-Retina Screen To Unleash Ultimate High Octane Macho Power From Robots



    See? Now this rumored future product immediately beats anything that Apple actually sells today! And rest assured, when the iPad 3 comes along, there will be another “Simon Says” awesome Android tablet that beats it hands-down! It will be a “future product," not one you can actually buy, but that’s no matter—it will have bullet points Maybe it will run Android 5 (unlike Android 4 devices, most of which will stop getting upgrades long before you pay off the 2-year contract).



    Nonetheless, it makes sense that Google would want to compete with Amazon: their goal is ads everywhere—THEIR ads delivered by selling your demographics/habits. Anything on any screen that isn’t controlled by Google is a problem.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    Amazon's Kindle Fire is as much a threat to Google's business model as Apple's iOS lines are. The Fire does nothing to contribute to Google's bottom line other than the occasional web site visit.



    Google see the threat to its business model and is responding accordingly to both Amazon and Apple by competing with them.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    They've got Daniel...



    Story: "Apple edges out Samsung in smartphone sales during the holiday quarter."



    Daniel's headline: "Samsung Readying for Bankruptcy"







    Isn't accusing someone of being a serial exaggerator by means of a giant exagerration of your own a bit twisted?



    Any fair examination of the facts makes it clear that what Daniel does is really very subtle. He rarely publishes anything that isn't (technically) factual regardless of the spin he may put on things.



    He's certainly less biased and plays a lot closer to the facts than places like BGR, 9to5Mac or CultofMac, etc.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    Love this part:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    ... Smaller Non-Retina Screen To Unleash Ultimate High Octane Macho Power From Robots....







    This should be on a TShirt as the definition of Android.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well they do own Motorola now so it's likely that this is just a Xoom 2 with a few Googly bits added in.



    IT came by night and they called it GLOOM
  • Reply 27 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Isn't accusing someone of being a serial exaggerator by means of a giant exagerration of your own a bit twisted?



    Any fair examination of the facts makes it clear that what Daniel does is really very subtle. He rarely publishes anything that isn't (technically) factual regardless of the spin he may put on things.



    He's certainly less biased and plays a lot closer to the facts than places like BGR, 9to5Mac or CultofMac, etc.



    Subtle?!



    You must be reading some other forum.



    Most often I can tell a Daniel story just by the headline. The reason: it's an exaggeration of the actual facts of the story.



    I find it odd that you call me out on this and yet you have to use a qualifier,"technically", and then you use the word, "spin" while describing Daniel's prose.



    ... and a big Mac is a lot healthier to eat than dog shit.



    Anyway... back to the show...
  • Reply 28 of 44
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,814member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Highest quality? From a company with zero years of hardware design & manufacturing experience?

    That's like RIM declaring "Amateur hour is over".



    On the other hand, Amazon isn't the paragon of manufacturing excellence either.



    So it's just a race to the bottom at the bottom end of the tablet market. Let's see who can come up with the crappiest crap. Once again, US companies are staking out the lowest end of the market. At least here, the top end is owned by a US company.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    Too bad they don't. We also see that 12 month old Nexus do not even get software updates.



    Don't go lying now...I read somewhere that some Abrahamic sky dad doesn't like that.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    ... and a big Mac is a lot healthier to eat than dog shit.



    Sounds like a headline from DED...
  • Reply 31 of 44
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well they do own Motorola now so it's likely that this is just a Xoom 2 with a few Googly bits added in.



    Except Google doesn't own Motorola. They are still waiting regulator approval. Google cannot do anything before they get the official okay.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Highest quality? From a company with zero years of hardware design & manufacturing experience?

    That's like RIM declaring "Amateur hour is over".



    Your point is well taken. But Amazon was in the same boat not long ago and the Kindle line is doing just fine. Let's not forget that Andy Rubin founded Danger, which was doing just a bit of design and manufacturing. By some standards, the Sidekick was innovative and a success.



    Design and manufacturing are not that difficult. It's design and manufacturing at the same level as Apple (or even Samsung, Nokia, GE, GM, etc.) that is hard.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    To the best of my knowledge MS never built a desktop or laptop computer and as Herbapou points out that by building a cheap tablet Google would effectively kill any incentive for other Android tablet manufacturers to enter the game.



    For this reason I deem this report as crap... either that or Google is getting dumber by the minute.



    Google COULD possibly pull it of. If they completely separated the hardware groups from the software group and publicly promised that they would never share information, other hardware companies would not be at a disadvantage (since Google doesn't charge for Android).



    Of course, they probably won't do that, so your point is valid.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post


    DigiTimes is all over the latest tech rumors these days.



    Read: DigiTimes is making stuff up as fast as they can these days.



    Sure, but if they make up 100 stories and one of them happens to be right, they'll be screaming about their great prediction skills.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post


    Amazon's Kindle Fire is as much a threat to Google's business model as Apple's iOS lines are. The Fire does nothing to contribute to Google's bottom line other than the occasional web site visit.



    Google see the threat to its business model and is responding accordingly to both Amazon and Apple by competing with them.



    Exactly. Since Fire doesn't buy into the Google ecosystem, Google gains nothing. In some ways, the Fire is even more of a threat since it's running Android so is comparable to other Android tablets and it's cheap - so Android manufacturers don't have a major price advantage.



    When competing against the iPad, Android manufacturers always have price to fall back on. They lose that argument against the Fire. Plus, the fire has a very solid eReader ecosystem.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post


    Amazon's Kindle Fire is as much a threat to Google's business model as Apple's iOS lines are. The Fire does nothing to contribute to Google's bottom line other than the occasional web site visit.



    Google makes plenty of money on iOS (I believe iOS contributes more than half of Google's mobile revenues) so why should it be any different on the Fire?



    The more mobile and tablet devices sold, the more people go online, and the more Google ads that are viewed. A rising tide lifts all boats.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well they do own Motorola now so it's likely that this is just a Xoom 2 with a few Googly bits added in.



    As far as Android crap goes, the Xoom isn't that bad. With the right marketing, people will be fooled into buying it and because it's Google it will even get good reviews regardless of the quality.



    Googly bits? I try to keep mine covered.

    Remember: Eric Schmidt said he told Steve Jobs that he thought that if Apple got into the tablet business, they would fail because nobody buys tablets.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Google makes plenty of money on iOS (I believe iOS contributes more than half of Google's mobile revenues) so why should it be any different on the Fire?



    The more mobile and tablet devices sold, the more people go online, and the more Google ads that are viewed. A rising tide lifts all boats.



    ...But my point was that apps in both iOS and in Amazon's Fire do not rely as heavily on the web as desktop and laptops do and therefore minimize the profit Google makes. That means less money to develop Android with.



    Google traded most of the potential profit in order to buy marketshare and critical mass quickly enough to blunt the rise of iOS.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    tinman0tinman0 Posts: 168member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post


    Google see the threat to its business model and is responding accordingly to both Amazon and Apple by competing with them.



    Which business model? The one revolving around search which they gave up on years ago (seeing as they mastered that), and are now reinventing themselves as everybody else?



    Or do you mean the Android business model which sucks money out of them faster than a hooker in Vegas?



    Google's joined up thinking seems to be about giving away the Android business model, and then screwing over their hardware partners further down the road. In the case of Moto Mobile, it also seem to entail raping a dead body. Nice.



    Samsung should stop being worried about Apple, and start worrying about their bestest buddy, Google.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post


    Which business model? The one revolving around search which they gave up on years ago (seeing as they mastered that), and are now reinventing themselves as everybody else?



    Or do you mean the Android business model which sucks money out of them faster than a hooker in Vegas?



    Google's joined up thinking seems to be about giving away the Android business model, and then screwing over their hardware partners further down the road. In the case of Moto Mobile, it also seem to entail raping a dead body. Nice.



    Samsung should stop being worried about Apple, and start worrying about their bestest buddy, Google.



    Why? Details please...and not some shot in the dark hoping no one questions your anti-Google paranoid conspiracy nutjob rant (or anything not Apple depending on the topic) due to the forum you're on.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post


    ...But my point was that apps in both iOS and in Amazon's Fire do not rely as heavily on the web as desktop and laptops do and therefore minimize the profit Google makes. That means less money to develop Android with.



    Google traded most of the potential profit in order to buy marketshare and critical mass quickly enough to blunt the rise of iOS.



    Are you suggesting that Android was released because they had some odd desire to blunt the rise of Apple?
  • Reply 40 of 44
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Are you suggesting that Android was released because they had some odd desire to blunt the rise of Apple?



    Only inasmuch as Apple?s rise, especially in mobile, takes power in the market away from Google, and Google?s free-with-ads model for all things, and Google?s ability to control advertising at every level of the user experience. In short, yes



    Android was created (when it was a Blackberry clone) to control as many mobile screens as possible and feed ads to those screens without other parties (like RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, whoever) having the ability to choose other ad methods or go ad-free. You might say Google could just rest content with ads in searches, where they?ve long been dominant, but Google?s vision for advertising goes beyond that; plus if they don?t control the OS and the browser, who?s to say some other search company might not get a foot in the door someday? It?s good business for Google to control everything on every screen, larger or small, that they can. Android exists because Google recognized the growing importance of the mobile Internet, which we now take for granted.



    Then the iPhone came along, and suddenly Blackberry didn?t seem to be the threat anymore! Apple?s rise was the new threat?all the more so because Apple?s mission is a great, ad-free user experience. Any success Apple sees with that model is a problem for Google! So Android was shoehorned into becoming an iPhone clone over the following year. Blunting the rise of iOS was, absolutely, the goal.
Sign In or Register to comment.