The iPad and the Kindle Fire are in different markets. But this is sure to hurt iPad sales. It won't stop the growth of the iPad. But it might certainly dent it. Those who want a device to just consume media will pick this up. Those who want a well spec'd tablet computer will get the iPad.
The thing is the iPad is really expensive for what most people do on it: read, watch movies and surf the web. And occassionally play Angry Birds. You'll be able to do all that on a device that's less than half the price.
It's a brilliant move and the right strategy for a company that makes money selling content. Some are hung up on how much they might be losing per device. That's the wrong approach. They'll sell Amazon Prime memberships, Kindle Books, Movies and Android Apps and make up the shortfall in months (I would bet 3-6 months). The strategy has worked for Gillette. It's worked for every game console maker. Why can't it work for Amazon?
And since they are not forking Android (just skinning it), it will be easy for them to attract apps. No need to do additional work. Just submit your app to Amazon's App Store. They'll offer a curated app store and a media eco-system that's as good as what Apple's got (maybe even better in some respects....Amazon Prime for example). All without really having to spend time developing the OS (just work on their propreitary skin) on a tablet that's at impulse buy prices.
This thing easily has the potential to sell at Touchpad like levels. The only question is whether potential users really want an Android tablet that's fully tied into Amazon. We're about to find out how strong Amazon's brand really is.
Have you guys seen any hands on videos? I just did, and I think it looks pretty fluid, smooth and nice. I think a lot of regular people not interested in benchmarks are gonna look at these videos and think "Why pay 500 for an iPad when I can pay 200 for a Kindle Fire? I just wanna read books, surf the web and run some apps and play Angry Birds."
I'd say iPad just got in trouble. Not everyone want nor need the power of the iPad.
Very few people would disagree that this will sell well. However it is not an iPad killer - and Apple, if pushed can start to sell iPad 1's again.
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market, it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
The devices cater to two different markets. The Kindle Fire will be about consumption. The iPad will be about consumption and creation.
Until now there's been no real alternative (price/capability wise) on the consumption side. The Kindle Fire is the first reasonable competitor to the iPad on this front.
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market, it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
Very few people would disagree that this will sell well. However it is not an iPad killer - and Apple, if pushed can start to sell iPad 1's again.
Agreed. iDevice-killer is a moronic concept anyway. How do you define when a gadget has been "killed"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market...
Remains to be seen. Not everybody will want to be tied in so tightly to the Amazon ecosystem. Just like not everybody wants to be tied to the Apple or Google ecosystem. And this tablet is still not anywhere as functional as other devices. So there will be a market for regular Android tablets.
Without a doubt though, this will have changed the Android tablet game for sure. I predict we'll see tablets that have iPad capabilities for $300 in a few months. That'll be the only way to compete.
And with this move, Amazon is going to cause collateral damage everywhere. Windows tablets may suffer. So might the iPad. If you're a die-hard Amazon subscriber, would you buy a $500 iPad now just to read some Kindle books? There may have been a few who did that before. Doubt it's going to happen now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
Why would they stop developing the OS? The tablet market is still miniscule compared to the phone market....and incidentally looks like it will be less profitable too. Even if the lost the entire tablet market to Amazon (and that's unlikely), they'll still have an incentive to keep pushing the OS. After all, the iPad's lead hasn't stopped them from trying.
As for developing apps only for Android 2.2 because of this tablet. That would hurt both Amazon and Android as a whole. The higher OS versions also come with higher API levels allowing for better apps. It makes no sense for Amazon to stick to Android 2.2 only. They may have started there, but they'll evolve. It's even more important when you're selling the device at a loss to be able to offer amazing apps. It will be hard to do that if they stick to a dated version of the OS.
As for hurting Google through revenue loss. Sure. But Google cares far more about Android on your phone, than they do about Android on your tablet. You're not going to be using your tablet to navigate, to pay for stuff and to communicate on a regular basis (especially when that tablet doesn't have a 3G connection). They'll offer most of the Google apps through the App Store and be somewhat able to make up the lost revenue.
It's a fork. That difference is semantic anyway. Amazon will never move past 2.2. It does what they need.
Using a previous version of an OS is a fork? Since when?
So if I kept my Mac on Snow Leopard and didn't install Lion, I'd be using a fork of OS X?
As for not moving past 2.2, they can try that. They won't attract the best developers then. 2.2 is already several API levels behind. And with every OS update the gap will widen. What developer would want to work with such a limited tool set?
The iPad is a toy, for computer money. I would be more likely to buy a Kindle Fire. $199 is toy money for me. $499 is toy money for the more affuent.
IMO Amazon makes a strong point that this market does not justify a $499 price tag. Not to me, anyway. That could buy me a secondary laptop. Laptops are computers, iPad is a toy.
The iPad may be a toy for you, but it is both a tool (and a toy) for me, especially when travelling. PDF editing and plan review in the field (construction sites), e-mail, remote desktop access when needed, photo documentation, video editing of flip video, games, FaceTime, etc.
It has replaced my MacBook as a travel companion, and I leave my Lenovo ThinkPad at my desk in the office anyways
The Kindle Fire will not be capable to satisfactorily fullfill all these functions (starting at the screen size that is simply too small for remote desktop use). However: I am sure it will be the entry drug for more tablet users and it will make some Kindle users upgrade from their current devices for additional functionality. The bigger news to me is the introduction of touchscreen technology throughout the kindle product line.
On the other hand: People who are already iPad users will be less likely to downgrade to this device, and not using e-ink on a primary reading device will not tempt heavy book worms. They will tend to have both an iPad and a Kindle.
Using a previous version of an OS is a fork? Since when?
So if I kept my Mac on Snow Leopard and didn't install Lion, I'd be using a fork of OS X?
As for not moving past 2.2, they can try that. They won't attract the best developers then. 2.2 is already several API levels behind. And with every OS update the gap will widen. What developer would want to work with such a limited tool set?
You didn't build an OS, they did. Android didn't install vanilla 2.2 on their tablets and add stuff on top like a user, they forked the code and added code. Then apps. Then they compiled.
Why would they move past 2.2? it does what they want, and shares no UI with 3.0. Developers will flock to where the money is. If this is an iPad "killer" then it is a rest of the market massacrer. And if devs have no financial reason to move past 2.2, they won't.
You didn't build an OS, they did. Android didn't install vanilla 2.2 on their tablets and add stuff on top like a user, they forked the code and added code. Then apps. Then they compiled.
Wait, what? A fork implies that they have created a new branch of the OS where if you develops apps for said branch it might not work on other branches of the OS. If you develop an app that works on Android 2.2, it will work on any device that runs Android 2.2 or higher, be it from Amazon or elsewhere. Can you please provide evidence they forked the OS? Until you prove otherwise, this is a baseless assertion. Everything that they have said demonstrated so far seems to me to be a skinned version of Android 2.2. Adding apps does not mean they forked the OS. If you have anything that says they actually forked the OS, I'd love to see it. This is the first I'm reading that they forked the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Why would they move past 2.2?
Because they want developers to have better tools?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
it does what they want, and shares no UI with 3.0.
You are assuming that it does everything they want. Do you have concrete evidence that Android 2.2 meets all of Amazon's business goals for the Kindle Fire? Why is not possible that this was just the Android level they launched with because it took them damn long to skin the thing....just look at how long it takes some OEMs to put out updates because of their skins. I think it's entirely conceivable that we may see at least Android 2.3.
You may however be right about Android 3.0. But even there, Amazon would be foolish not to eventually migrate to an OS version that properly supports the development of apps for tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Developers will flock to where the money is. If this is an iPad "killer" then it is a rest of the market massacrer. And if devs have no financial reason to move past 2.2, they won't.
Reality is far more complex. Even if Amazon takes the entire Android tablet market, that market will still be miniscule for a while to come, compared to the Android smartphone market. Developers would make far more money there. And there's nothing stopping developers from submitting to both markets, which, if you look at the apps on the Amazon App Store, is exactly what most developers have done.
As for not having any financial reason to move past 2.2. Well that's up to Amazon. If they stagnate the OS version, the best apps will stay on the Android Market and attract the best developers. The Amazon App Store will be its poor cousin. As of right now, most app are developed for 2.1/2.2. In a year from now? That might not be the case.
In any event, we'll see what happens....it's an interesting move on Amazon's part.
It's cheaper, it's fast enough and good enough -- and it really is pretty minimalist. This tablet is basically a consumption device. Amazon works from its strength, and delivers content. It will be a big success.
How much will this cut into the iPad? Not much. It's complementary. The iPad and the Kindle Fire both build the tablet market, and this is a different segment. The iPad may have a little brother someday, but Apple's a hardware company. They aren't retailers on the level of Amazon. I want to know the security details of Silk. It only works if you allow all your web content to go the cloud, get rendered and be passed down to your Fire. That means that Amazon will have a perfectly-detailed record of everything you do on your tablet. It's cheap, but at a price -- it will mostly be like having a store to wander around and buy things from.
1) a fork implies nothing about Apis. It's just taking code from a branch, rather than the latest version.
No. That's not the definition of a fork. A fork is when you take the code and undertake independent development on it that results in a distinct piece of software. Amazon is using Android 2.3 (not 2.2, confirmed by TIMN). They are creating their own unique version of Android. They are however, creating a unique UI. Or skin.
If they did what you are suggesting, none of the apps on the Amazon Android Appstore would work on the device. Keep in mind the Android Appstore launched months ago and has been selling apps to regular Android users. Had they forked Android, the apps on the Android Appstore would not work on other Android devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
2) amazon have no reason to care about googles tools or long term plans.
They don't. But they should care about their long term progress. If they want to compete with the iPad, either they provide the tools or use the tools somebody else (ie. Google) has built. Simple as that.
They haven't even shown the same ambition that Baidu has. Baidu forked Android. Amazon did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
3) If a company is asked to develop an app in the future - say a game - the clients will ask for it to run on Kindle. Thus stymies future Android dev.
All depends whether that company cares about selling that app solely in the Amazon Android Appstore or if they want to sell it in the Android Market as well. What do you think most rational developers would choose?
1) This thing has no mic or camera. So it won't support apps like Skype.
2) The Amazon Appstore (6 countries?) and all their various media services are still not available everywhere.
3) Kindle Games are US only I believe.
4) Amazon Prime is US only
5) It won't have the most popular apps on Android: all the Google apps (Maps, GMail, Gtalk, Google Earth).
I think sales predictions should be tempered with those items in mind. This will sell better than the Kindle. Might have a minor impact on the growth of iPad sales. And it'll do a bit to Android tablet sales. But not as much as some expect. People will realize its limitations sooner or later. That's my opinion. Others are, of course, entitled to their own.
No, it is your ignorance that is amazing. A large percentage, although not 95% buy an ipad because its an apple device and its cool. They won't even look at a Kindle. Another large percentage buy an iPad because the need iOS to be compatible with their other Apple devices. They too won't look at an iPad.
The competition for a Kindle is a Barnes and Noble Nook Color, not iPad
Comments
For the unabashed fanboys: http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/28/e...dle-fire-ipad/
The thing is the iPad is really expensive for what most people do on it: read, watch movies and surf the web. And occassionally play Angry Birds. You'll be able to do all that on a device that's less than half the price.
It's a brilliant move and the right strategy for a company that makes money selling content. Some are hung up on how much they might be losing per device. That's the wrong approach. They'll sell Amazon Prime memberships, Kindle Books, Movies and Android Apps and make up the shortfall in months (I would bet 3-6 months). The strategy has worked for Gillette. It's worked for every game console maker. Why can't it work for Amazon?
And since they are not forking Android (just skinning it), it will be easy for them to attract apps. No need to do additional work. Just submit your app to Amazon's App Store. They'll offer a curated app store and a media eco-system that's as good as what Apple's got (maybe even better in some respects....Amazon Prime for example). All without really having to spend time developing the OS (just work on their propreitary skin) on a tablet that's at impulse buy prices.
This thing easily has the potential to sell at Touchpad like levels. The only question is whether potential users really want an Android tablet that's fully tied into Amazon. We're about to find out how strong Amazon's brand really is.
I'd say iPad just got in trouble. Not everyone want nor need the power of the iPad.
Question:
What if Oracle wins its case against Google for Android? Does this mean that anyone who has forked Android is open to a similar lawsuit from Oracle?
As I understand it, once you fork Android -- it's yours from then on (or until you fork another version).
Verdad?
This is not a fork of Android though. They are just skinning it. Like HTC Sense, Motorola Motoblur, Samsung Touchwiz, etc. It's a UI layer.
I don't know why I even try.
For the unabashed fanboys: http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/28/e...dle-fire-ipad/
Very few people would disagree that this will sell well. However it is not an iPad killer - and Apple, if pushed can start to sell iPad 1's again.
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market, it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
I don't know why I even try.
For the unabashed fanboys: http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/28/e...dle-fire-ipad/
Excellent article and spot on.
I believe the same thing.
The devices cater to two different markets. The Kindle Fire will be about consumption. The iPad will be about consumption and creation.
Until now there's been no real alternative (price/capability wise) on the consumption side. The Kindle Fire is the first reasonable competitor to the iPad on this front.
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market, it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
Nail, meet head.
This is not a fork of Android though. They are just skinning it. Like HTC Sense, Motorola Motoblur, Samsung Touchwiz, etc. It's a UI layer.
It's a fork. That difference is semantic anyway. Amazon will never move past 2.2. It does what they need.
I totally agree with this. 16:9 is not an optimal ratio for activities other than watching movies.
We interrupt this programming to bring you a rant-
So why do all these !#@% laptop makers put 16:9 screens into laptops???.
Sorry, rhetorical rant. Bring back the 4:3 laptop screen!!
You may resume your normal programming.
Very few people would disagree that this will sell well. However it is not an iPad killer - and Apple, if pushed can start to sell iPad 1's again.
Agreed. iDevice-killer is a moronic concept anyway. How do you define when a gadget has been "killed"?
It has killed the rest of the Android tablet market...
Remains to be seen. Not everybody will want to be tied in so tightly to the Amazon ecosystem. Just like not everybody wants to be tied to the Apple or Google ecosystem. And this tablet is still not anywhere as functional as other devices. So there will be a market for regular Android tablets.
Without a doubt though, this will have changed the Android tablet game for sure. I predict we'll see tablets that have iPad capabilities for $300 in a few months. That'll be the only way to compete.
And with this move, Amazon is going to cause collateral damage everywhere. Windows tablets may suffer. So might the iPad. If you're a die-hard Amazon subscriber, would you buy a $500 iPad now just to read some Kindle books? There may have been a few who did that before. Doubt it's going to happen now.
it has killed Googles tablet OS plans ( why bother if the major Android OS is not going to use your stuff - devs will develop for 2.2 only, and possibly use Android specific API if any) and it means that google will get no money from tablet sales - the browser caches searches so Android gets one search term per day and delivers it to everybody who searches for that term. Google have developed an OS which is now going to significantly harm their bottom line. They may well stop with tablet versions of the OS.
Why would they stop developing the OS? The tablet market is still miniscule compared to the phone market....and incidentally looks like it will be less profitable too. Even if the lost the entire tablet market to Amazon (and that's unlikely), they'll still have an incentive to keep pushing the OS. After all, the iPad's lead hasn't stopped them from trying.
As for developing apps only for Android 2.2 because of this tablet. That would hurt both Amazon and Android as a whole. The higher OS versions also come with higher API levels allowing for better apps. It makes no sense for Amazon to stick to Android 2.2 only. They may have started there, but they'll evolve. It's even more important when you're selling the device at a loss to be able to offer amazing apps. It will be hard to do that if they stick to a dated version of the OS.
As for hurting Google through revenue loss. Sure. But Google cares far more about Android on your phone, than they do about Android on your tablet. You're not going to be using your tablet to navigate, to pay for stuff and to communicate on a regular basis (especially when that tablet doesn't have a 3G connection). They'll offer most of the Google apps through the App Store and be somewhat able to make up the lost revenue.
It's a fork. That difference is semantic anyway. Amazon will never move past 2.2. It does what they need.
Using a previous version of an OS is a fork? Since when?
So if I kept my Mac on Snow Leopard and didn't install Lion, I'd be using a fork of OS X?
As for not moving past 2.2, they can try that. They won't attract the best developers then. 2.2 is already several API levels behind. And with every OS update the gap will widen. What developer would want to work with such a limited tool set?
The iPad is a toy, for computer money. I would be more likely to buy a Kindle Fire. $199 is toy money for me. $499 is toy money for the more affuent.
IMO Amazon makes a strong point that this market does not justify a $499 price tag. Not to me, anyway. That could buy me a secondary laptop. Laptops are computers, iPad is a toy.
The iPad may be a toy for you, but it is both a tool (and a toy) for me, especially when travelling. PDF editing and plan review in the field (construction sites), e-mail, remote desktop access when needed, photo documentation, video editing of flip video, games, FaceTime, etc.
It has replaced my MacBook as a travel companion, and I leave my Lenovo ThinkPad at my desk in the office anyways
The Kindle Fire will not be capable to satisfactorily fullfill all these functions (starting at the screen size that is simply too small for remote desktop use). However: I am sure it will be the entry drug for more tablet users and it will make some Kindle users upgrade from their current devices for additional functionality. The bigger news to me is the introduction of touchscreen technology throughout the kindle product line.
On the other hand: People who are already iPad users will be less likely to downgrade to this device, and not using e-ink on a primary reading device will not tempt heavy book worms. They will tend to have both an iPad and a Kindle.
What I would like to know is why the hell is the new entry model $79 in the USA and £89 in the UK?
Using a previous version of an OS is a fork? Since when?
So if I kept my Mac on Snow Leopard and didn't install Lion, I'd be using a fork of OS X?
As for not moving past 2.2, they can try that. They won't attract the best developers then. 2.2 is already several API levels behind. And with every OS update the gap will widen. What developer would want to work with such a limited tool set?
You didn't build an OS, they did. Android didn't install vanilla 2.2 on their tablets and add stuff on top like a user, they forked the code and added code. Then apps. Then they compiled.
Why would they move past 2.2? it does what they want, and shares no UI with 3.0. Developers will flock to where the money is. If this is an iPad "killer" then it is a rest of the market massacrer. And if devs have no financial reason to move past 2.2, they won't.
You didn't build an OS, they did. Android didn't install vanilla 2.2 on their tablets and add stuff on top like a user, they forked the code and added code. Then apps. Then they compiled.
Wait, what? A fork implies that they have created a new branch of the OS where if you develops apps for said branch it might not work on other branches of the OS. If you develop an app that works on Android 2.2, it will work on any device that runs Android 2.2 or higher, be it from Amazon or elsewhere. Can you please provide evidence they forked the OS? Until you prove otherwise, this is a baseless assertion. Everything that they have said demonstrated so far seems to me to be a skinned version of Android 2.2. Adding apps does not mean they forked the OS. If you have anything that says they actually forked the OS, I'd love to see it. This is the first I'm reading that they forked the OS.
Why would they move past 2.2?
Because they want developers to have better tools?
it does what they want, and shares no UI with 3.0.
You are assuming that it does everything they want. Do you have concrete evidence that Android 2.2 meets all of Amazon's business goals for the Kindle Fire? Why is not possible that this was just the Android level they launched with because it took them damn long to skin the thing....just look at how long it takes some OEMs to put out updates because of their skins. I think it's entirely conceivable that we may see at least Android 2.3.
You may however be right about Android 3.0. But even there, Amazon would be foolish not to eventually migrate to an OS version that properly supports the development of apps for tablets.
Developers will flock to where the money is. If this is an iPad "killer" then it is a rest of the market massacrer. And if devs have no financial reason to move past 2.2, they won't.
Reality is far more complex. Even if Amazon takes the entire Android tablet market, that market will still be miniscule for a while to come, compared to the Android smartphone market. Developers would make far more money there. And there's nothing stopping developers from submitting to both markets, which, if you look at the apps on the Amazon App Store, is exactly what most developers have done.
As for not having any financial reason to move past 2.2. Well that's up to Amazon. If they stagnate the OS version, the best apps will stay on the Android Market and attract the best developers. The Amazon App Store will be its poor cousin. As of right now, most app are developed for 2.1/2.2. In a year from now? That might not be the case.
In any event, we'll see what happens....it's an interesting move on Amazon's part.
2) amazon have no reason to care about googles tools or long term plans.
3) If a company is asked to develop an app in the future - say a game - the clients will ask for it to run on Kindle. Thus stymies future Android dev.
How much will this cut into the iPad? Not much. It's complementary. The iPad and the Kindle Fire both build the tablet market, and this is a different segment. The iPad may have a little brother someday, but Apple's a hardware company. They aren't retailers on the level of Amazon. I want to know the security details of Silk. It only works if you allow all your web content to go the cloud, get rendered and be passed down to your Fire. That means that Amazon will have a perfectly-detailed record of everything you do on your tablet. It's cheap, but at a price -- it will mostly be like having a store to wander around and buy things from.
1) a fork implies nothing about Apis. It's just taking code from a branch, rather than the latest version.
No. That's not the definition of a fork. A fork is when you take the code and undertake independent development on it that results in a distinct piece of software. Amazon is using Android 2.3 (not 2.2, confirmed by TIMN). They are creating their own unique version of Android. They are however, creating a unique UI. Or skin.
If they did what you are suggesting, none of the apps on the Amazon Android Appstore would work on the device. Keep in mind the Android Appstore launched months ago and has been selling apps to regular Android users. Had they forked Android, the apps on the Android Appstore would not work on other Android devices.
2) amazon have no reason to care about googles tools or long term plans.
They don't. But they should care about their long term progress. If they want to compete with the iPad, either they provide the tools or use the tools somebody else (ie. Google) has built. Simple as that.
They haven't even shown the same ambition that Baidu has. Baidu forked Android. Amazon did not.
3) If a company is asked to develop an app in the future - say a game - the clients will ask for it to run on Kindle. Thus stymies future Android dev.
All depends whether that company cares about selling that app solely in the Amazon Android Appstore or if they want to sell it in the Android Market as well. What do you think most rational developers would choose?
1) This thing has no mic or camera. So it won't support apps like Skype.
2) The Amazon Appstore (6 countries?) and all their various media services are still not available everywhere.
3) Kindle Games are US only I believe.
4) Amazon Prime is US only
5) It won't have the most popular apps on Android: all the Google apps (Maps, GMail, Gtalk, Google Earth).
I think sales predictions should be tempered with those items in mind. This will sell better than the Kindle. Might have a minor impact on the growth of iPad sales. And it'll do a bit to Android tablet sales. But not as much as some expect. People will realize its limitations sooner or later. That's my opinion. Others are, of course, entitled to their own.
The competition for a Kindle is a Barnes and Noble Nook Color, not iPad