Nice to see Amazon employees commenting favorably inside AI as if it's going to do squat against the iPad 2. This will not compete against thee iPad 2 perspective buyers.
Android phones currently outsell iOS phones more than 2 to 1.
Why do you expect the tablet market to be different?
If I may...
2 different markets.
Everyone wants a phone but does everyone want a tablet? Maybe Apple is currently fulfilling the tablet market whereas the smartphone market has a long ways to go... lots of open road.
Just a theory as to why the tablet market might be different.
One might want to keep in mind that the Orcl vs Goog suit will almost certainly result in some licensing fees for Goog/android if not an injunction. Any device based on android has this risk built in. So the final price to amzn may be higher than the reported $180 BOM.
Unless the Kindle is 70%, the iPad wont be 30%. Because, as I have written, this tablet has killed all other Android tablets, unless other hardware manufacturers want to sell at a loss.
We saw similar comments in the early days of Android phones too.
Magazines are much more appropriate for a color device. My wife has probably a dozen or more subscriptions to various periodicals on her Nook Color, and often just because it was so convenient to do IMHO. I doubt she regularly reads some of them, but the $30+ every month still charges to her account. She's the kind of customer that Amazon is going after, and I think there's a lot of them out there.
I'm not sure how large the market is for magazine readers over book readers. I'd say the vast majority of people would rather spend $79 - $99 to read books than to pay the extra $100 or more so that they can read magazines.
The Fire just seems to be a very limited market to me.
Maybe it would sell better at $149 but that's below the $180 required to build it.
We saw similar comments in the early days of Android phones too.
You may have seen similar comments, but Android was expected to become the dominate modern smartphone OS on the market by any and all reasonable people. It's used by dozens of vendors with dozens of products (not just smartphones) in the widest distribution and price points possible. The real question is why don't all these Android-based devices besting Apple in WiFi access, page hits, and total revenue or profit. The fact that Apple's sole iPhone has any of those leads is proof Google is fraking it up.
Everyone wants a phone but does everyone want a tablet? Maybe Apple is currently fulfilling the tablet market whereas the smartphone market has a long ways to go... lots of open road.
Just a theory as to why the tablet market might be different.
Soon the market will be over saturated with Android tablets. When you have hundreds of manufacturers using Android, there's no other way around it. Apple is an army of one. Android is an army of... Well, you know.
I think the proper phrase is "doesn't directly compete ..."
The Amazon tablet is aimed at a different end user, but this same end user has up until now been buying iPads at lest some of the time. So if you are buying an iPad and just using it for reading and playing the occasional game then you might the tempted to use this device instead. It doesn't do as much, but it's cheaper.
It doesn't "directly compete" because what it does is just a subset of what the iPad can potentially do. At the same time, recent studies have shown that a lot of iPad buyers do regard them as "toys" and do primarily use them just for reading and playing the occasional game.
I don't think it's right to say that the two devices compete or don't compete. The situation is more complicated than that.
In terms of iPad sales, I would say that some sales will indeed be stolen by "dumb" or "locked" tablets like Amazon's as tablet's gain popularity in general. But the iPad is still stealing sales away from netbooks and laptops on the other end and operating in markets that the Amazon tablet will never be in. The markets for each overlap, but don't directly compete.
I think that is a correct, well thought out and phrased comment.
Soon the market will be over saturated with Android tablets. When you hundreds of manufacturers using Android, there's no other way around it. Apple is an army of one. Android is an army of... Well, you know.
Soon?
I've seen a few Android tablets come and go. I think it's going to be a little later than soon if the other tablets can't even gain any traction.
If this thing can browse the web decently and a few apps here and there......I'll take it over an iPad any day due to cost. For a phone, a full web experience isn't a big deal to me. For a tablet (if this is the market it is trying to grab), flash is a big deal. I can't stand it when I go to an Apple store and while waiting for someone to assist me on whatever it may be that I am there for, the iPad I play with loads the full webpage and certain functions don't work.
A part of it is also lazy or underfunded development for conversion away from flash.
What is the ratio of consumers looking at hardware specs vs ease of use and do what I need it to do?
I dont know the exact ratio but if hardware specs where the majority of consumers choice, the iPad would not be the leader in current sales as the Xoom and others have offered way more hardware features already. (USB, better screen ratio/res, memory etc)
The device + echo syste + ease of use for device/echo system + PRICE is the formula that only Apple has gotten right so far.
Kindle already had that formula correct when it came to e-readers.
I am referring to technology, not features. They may quote more features, Xoom is competing on equal footing with relatively similar technology (processing, screen).
Kindle fire is not similar technology, but in fact, dated technology. It will provide a need, but I doubt it will interest people who looking for leading technology. While iPAD was successful, the faster and better iPAD2 did much better. In fact people waited specifically for next best technology. Kindle fire is not that, and caters to a different market.
I don't understand their decision to sell it at $199. The cost of materials may be $180, but when you include R&D, packaging, marketing, sales, etc. they'll end up losing money on the device. Why do that? It makes no sense. The device would sell just fine at $249, and they could make a small profit. Looks like another race-to-the-bottom, started by Amazon.
I don't understand their decision to sell it at $199. The cost of materials may be $180, but when you include R&D, packaging, marketing, sales, etc. they'll end up losing money on the device. Why do that? It makes no sense. The device would sell just fine at $249, and they could make a small profit. Looks like another race-to-the-bottom, started by Amazon.
"Dumb price"
Are you serious?
It's called psychological price barrier.
Amazon has broken through that.
It's proven in marketing.
Why $199 vs $249?
Because the units sold @ $199 will be three times as much as units sold @ $249.
Are you arguing from a consumers point of view or as an Apple supporter point of view?
No consumer would say no to a lower price.
It seems like its the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
I think the proper phrase is "doesn't directly compete ..."
The Amazon tablet is aimed at a different end user, but this same end user has up until now been buying iPads at lest some of the time. So if you are buying an iPad and just using it for reading and playing the occasional game then you might the tempted to use this device instead. It doesn't do as much, but it's cheaper.
It doesn't "directly compete" because what it does is just a subset of what the iPad can potentially do. At the same time, recent studies have shown that a lot of iPad buyers do regard them as "toys" and do primarily use them just for reading and playing the occasional game.
I don't think it's right to say that the two devices compete or don't compete. The situation is more complicated than that.
In terms of iPad sales, I would say that some sales will indeed be stolen by "dumb" or "locked" tablets like Amazon's as tablet's gain popularity in general. But the iPad is still stealing sales away from netbooks and laptops on the other end and operating in markets that the Amazon tablet will never be in. The markets for each overlap, but don't directly compete.
Are you predicting that the iPad will go from 90% market share down to 10% due to the new Kindle? I think that is a little extreme, especially in the short run.
Nope. I'm saying Apple can continue to clean up the profits with their premium hardware, at-cost content strategy because not everyone wants the your average hardware that everyone has. If they can capture the top 10% of the post-PC market, I think they'd be doing great. If they get 20%, 30%? Awesome.
Who knows what they'll get and do. They can sell a $300 or $400 iPad if they wanted, but past history indicates they don't do that all that often.
Comments
Android phones currently outsell iOS phones more than 2 to 1.
Why do you expect the tablet market to be different?
If I may...
2 different markets.
Everyone wants a phone but does everyone want a tablet? Maybe Apple is currently fulfilling the tablet market whereas the smartphone market has a long ways to go... lots of open road.
Just a theory as to why the tablet market might be different.
For proof of this, just look at all the successful 7" tablets on the market today.
3:2.
the 7" tablets you are referring to have a crappy UI, no content and cost twice as much. No valid comparison whatsoever.
Bye bye iPad 90% market share.
Unless the Kindle is 70%, the iPad wont be 30%. Because, as I have written, this tablet has killed all other Android tablets, unless other hardware manufacturers want to sell at a loss.
We saw similar comments in the early days of Android phones too.
Magazines are much more appropriate for a color device. My wife has probably a dozen or more subscriptions to various periodicals on her Nook Color, and often just because it was so convenient to do IMHO. I doubt she regularly reads some of them, but the $30+ every month still charges to her account. She's the kind of customer that Amazon is going after, and I think there's a lot of them out there.
I'm not sure how large the market is for magazine readers over book readers. I'd say the vast majority of people would rather spend $79 - $99 to read books than to pay the extra $100 or more so that they can read magazines.
The Fire just seems to be a very limited market to me.
Maybe it would sell better at $149 but that's below the $180 required to build it.
Because they can't tie them to carriers as they can with phones, lol.
Seems like a distinction without a difference. Amazon will be tying the device to their online stores.
We saw similar comments in the early days of Android phones too.
You may have seen similar comments, but Android was expected to become the dominate modern smartphone OS on the market by any and all reasonable people. It's used by dozens of vendors with dozens of products (not just smartphones) in the widest distribution and price points possible. The real question is why don't all these Android-based devices besting Apple in WiFi access, page hits, and total revenue or profit. The fact that Apple's sole iPhone has any of those leads is proof Google is fraking it up.
If I may...
2 different markets.
Everyone wants a phone but does everyone want a tablet? Maybe Apple is currently fulfilling the tablet market whereas the smartphone market has a long ways to go... lots of open road.
Just a theory as to why the tablet market might be different.
Soon the market will be over saturated with Android tablets. When you have hundreds of manufacturers using Android, there's no other way around it. Apple is an army of one. Android is an army of... Well, you know.
I think the proper phrase is "doesn't directly compete ..."
The Amazon tablet is aimed at a different end user, but this same end user has up until now been buying iPads at lest some of the time. So if you are buying an iPad and just using it for reading and playing the occasional game then you might the tempted to use this device instead. It doesn't do as much, but it's cheaper.
It doesn't "directly compete" because what it does is just a subset of what the iPad can potentially do. At the same time, recent studies have shown that a lot of iPad buyers do regard them as "toys" and do primarily use them just for reading and playing the occasional game.
I don't think it's right to say that the two devices compete or don't compete. The situation is more complicated than that.
In terms of iPad sales, I would say that some sales will indeed be stolen by "dumb" or "locked" tablets like Amazon's as tablet's gain popularity in general. But the iPad is still stealing sales away from netbooks and laptops on the other end and operating in markets that the Amazon tablet will never be in. The markets for each overlap, but don't directly compete.
I think that is a correct, well thought out and phrased comment.
Seems like a distinction without a difference. Amazon will be tying the device to their online stores.
And it wont compete with the iPad... With other e-readers? Yes!
the 7" tablets you are referring to have a crappy UI, no content and cost twice as much. No valid comparison whatsoever.
Same here.
Soon the market will be over saturated with Android tablets. When you hundreds of manufacturers using Android, there's no other way around it. Apple is an army of one. Android is an army of... Well, you know.
Soon?
I've seen a few Android tablets come and go. I think it's going to be a little later than soon if the other tablets can't even gain any traction.
A part of it is also lazy or underfunded development for conversion away from flash.
What is the ratio of consumers looking at hardware specs vs ease of use and do what I need it to do?
I dont know the exact ratio but if hardware specs where the majority of consumers choice, the iPad would not be the leader in current sales as the Xoom and others have offered way more hardware features already. (USB, better screen ratio/res, memory etc)
The device + echo syste + ease of use for device/echo system + PRICE is the formula that only Apple has gotten right so far.
Kindle already had that formula correct when it came to e-readers.
I am referring to technology, not features. They may quote more features, Xoom is competing on equal footing with relatively similar technology (processing, screen).
Kindle fire is not similar technology, but in fact, dated technology. It will provide a need, but I doubt it will interest people who looking for leading technology. While iPAD was successful, the faster and better iPAD2 did much better. In fact people waited specifically for next best technology. Kindle fire is not that, and caters to a different market.
the Kindle Fire neither was nor ever intended to compete directly against the iPad.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/28/i...ys-stay-tuned/
I don't understand their decision to sell it at $199. The cost of materials may be $180, but when you include R&D, packaging, marketing, sales, etc. they'll end up losing money on the device. Why do that? It makes no sense. The device would sell just fine at $249, and they could make a small profit. Looks like another race-to-the-bottom, started by Amazon.
"Dumb price"
Are you serious?
It's called psychological price barrier.
Amazon has broken through that.
It's proven in marketing.
Why $199 vs $249?
Because the units sold @ $199 will be three times as much as units sold @ $249.
Are you arguing from a consumers point of view or as an Apple supporter point of view?
No consumer would say no to a lower price.
It seems like its the latter.
I think the proper phrase is "doesn't directly compete ..."
The Amazon tablet is aimed at a different end user, but this same end user has up until now been buying iPads at lest some of the time. So if you are buying an iPad and just using it for reading and playing the occasional game then you might the tempted to use this device instead. It doesn't do as much, but it's cheaper.
It doesn't "directly compete" because what it does is just a subset of what the iPad can potentially do. At the same time, recent studies have shown that a lot of iPad buyers do regard them as "toys" and do primarily use them just for reading and playing the occasional game.
I don't think it's right to say that the two devices compete or don't compete. The situation is more complicated than that.
In terms of iPad sales, I would say that some sales will indeed be stolen by "dumb" or "locked" tablets like Amazon's as tablet's gain popularity in general. But the iPad is still stealing sales away from netbooks and laptops on the other end and operating in markets that the Amazon tablet will never be in. The markets for each overlap, but don't directly compete.
You are in denial.
Soon?
I've seen a few Android tablets come and go. I think it's going to be a little later than soon if the other tablets can't even gain any traction.
Most of them are DOA. And the only real distinction between them all is the name on the unit.
But remember what it is....
Its a vending machine.
That's all.
Are you predicting that the iPad will go from 90% market share down to 10% due to the new Kindle? I think that is a little extreme, especially in the short run.
Nope. I'm saying Apple can continue to clean up the profits with their premium hardware, at-cost content strategy because not everyone wants the your average hardware that everyone has. If they can capture the top 10% of the post-PC market, I think they'd be doing great. If they get 20%, 30%? Awesome.
Who knows what they'll get and do. They can sell a $300 or $400 iPad if they wanted, but past history indicates they don't do that all that often.