<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;">Samsung and other Android-based manufacturers continue to be hobbled by the lack of the rich book, app, and media ecosystem that surounds Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle Fire. Google newly rebranded "Google Play" may help, but would still require device makers to compete according to Google's rulebook. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;">B&N will also distribute its free Nook app through Microsoft's Windows Store, giving a Metro tablet access to a large and growing library of ebook content. And Microsoft already has plenty of Xbox Live media content warmed up, ready and waiting on the bench.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;">All in all, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft will be working as hard as possible to make their entry a contender, and is poised to gain ground at the expense of Android.</p>
In order to get a Nook app Microsoft just invested $300 million in the Barnes & Noble spinoff of the nook.
Why they has to do this is anyone's guess, but I imagine that Microsoft was NOT getting a Nook app for Win 8 tablets or Win RT tablets. This deal will give them that, plus access to Barnes & Noble's books. Also Netflix, etc.
This makes no sense to me as one would think that with Microsoft already having movies Tv shows, music videos, games etc, they could certainly write their own book app, and offer books as well.
The only other thing it's speculated that they may be getting out of this deal is a Win RT Nook based tablet. Why anyone would want such a thing is beyond my understanding though.
It seems like a lot of money for something that Apple, and by extension, we get for free already.
I've read that one reason they're offering the pen is because of Android's notorious lack of precision
You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help. I've never run across the claim that iOS offers more precise touch than Android. I'm aware that older Android devices in particular may not register touch as quickly as on an iPhone, but that's a different issue from precision.
Of course I trust you. You've never given me a reason not to. If you say you put Android on your iPhone and weren't happy with the touchscreen response I believe you. Of course that would be an example of the "old" Android I referenced.
EDIT: I don't see instructions on install procedures for anything more recent than Froyo, V2.2.1
I really gotta get… oh, you edited. I was going to say, "I really gotta get cracking on a newer version of Android to test it out, then", but I guess there aren't many.
That's weird. You'd think they would have kept up with that. I would have expected to be able to install Android 4.0 on an iPhone 4S today. And the tablet versions of Android on an iPad.
Wonder why they stopped. I mean, obviously there's a lack of interest, but that has never really stopped experimentation like that before.
The source code is available, but I imagine developers are too busy creating compelling new apps that use the advantages of v4.x as well as make perfect use of all that display real estate on the best selling wide-screen Android tablets.
From what we're reading, it would be an 8" tablet. Just as the 9.7" screen of the iPad is thought of as a 10" device, the talked about 7.85" screen of the smaller one would be an 8" device. Saying it's 7" as we read, is wrong. The info about this size is that it would have the same ppi as the original iPhone, and the icons and spacing would be exactly the same as the iPhone.
So nothing would have to be made smaller than what Apple originally thought was proper. A 7" screen would be too small though.
I don't see how Apple could do this for $299 with GPS and 3/4G though, as that extra costs an additional $130. I thought it would have dropped to $100 with the new iPad, but it didn't. Some other manufacturers charge less for the WiFi tablet, but add as much as $150 for the 3G/GPS version.
I find the Kindle to be a good ebook reader size and a so-so bring everywhere for gaming/video/internet size since I don't carry a man purse. A iPhone thickness 5" iPod touch I can see slipping into a pocket easily.
I don't think Apple can hit $299 with GPS and 4G. I don't think it needs to. $399 strikes me as quite reasonable.
You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help. I've never run across the claim that iOS offers more precise touch than Android. I'm aware that older Android devices in particular may not register touch as quickly as on an iPhone, but that's a different issue from precision.
There has been so much written on this over the years, I wouldn't know where to starting linking. Just Google Android touchScreen accuracy, and you'll come up with pages and pages of links on this. Some of them are tests of phones and tablets, some are complaints about accuracy on forums, etc.
I find the Kindle to be a good ebook reader size and a so-so bring everywhere for gaming/video/internet size since I don't carry a man purse. A iPhone thickness 5" iPod touch I can see slipping into a pocket easily.
I don't think Apple can hit $299 with GPS and 4G. I don't think it needs to. $399 strikes me as quite reasonable.
Talking about a reader or tablet? I see a fair number of Kindle readers these days, but haven't spotted a Fire, Nook tablet, except once, and only a handful of other tablets, excepting the iPad, of which I see a lot around. Go to an airport, and they're all over. Hotels too. Go to a conference or a trade show, and almost everyone, from vendors in their booths, to people walking the floor, has one.
The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.
The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.
I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.
I really gotta get… oh, you edited. I was going to say, "I really gotta get cracking on a newer version of Android to test it out, then", but I guess there aren't many.
That's weird. You'd think they would have kept up with that. I would have expected to be able to install Android 4.0 on an iPhone 4S today. And the tablet versions of Android on an iPad.
Wonder why they stopped. I mean, obviously there's a lack of interest, but that has never really stopped experimentation like that before.
Heck, they're not even able to get newer versions of Android working on most Android phones. Why would anyone expect them to keep up to date on versions for the iPhone?
The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.
The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.
I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.
The Fire as an eBook reader isn't bad. The text format is like a tall paperback. Grabbing a random paperback and a random book on the Kindle they have about the same word count per line. Maybe one less on average for the Fire. The display is 10:6. 16:9 is 1024x576. The Toshiba Thrive is 16:10 at 1280x800. Archos makes 4:3 8" and 16:10 10" tablets.
As far as what it's used for: books, videos and games. Web at 1024x600 has the limitations as a netbook. Or an iPhone. Anything you think is bad for the kindle is worse for the smaller iPhone size at 960x640.
I see many kindles used in the same way as iPads. Kid entertainment. Folks that don't ever see Kindles aren't hanging around elementary school age kids. It's easier to tuck a kindle in a handbag than an iPad, is cheaper or the same cost as the smaller iPod touch and letting your kid use it doesn't drain your phone battery...which you might need for actual phone calls.
Apple really needs to refresh the iPod Touch with the A5 for gaming. Making it 5" as I suggested is probably a good move too.
I use my Kindle all the time and for video it's not that much smaller than the iPad since many TV shows and movies are 16:9 and on the iPad you lose a lot of the space anyway.
The Fire as an eBook reader isn't bad. The text format is like a tall paperback. Grabbing a random paperback and a random book on the Kindle they have about the same word count per line. Maybe one less on average for the Fire. The display is 10:6. 16:9 is 1024x576. The Toshiba Thrive is 16:10 at 1280x800. Archos makes 4:3 8" and 16:10 10" tablets.
As far as what it's used for: books, videos and games. Web at 1024x600 has the limitations as a netbook. Or an iPhone. Anything you think is bad for the kindle is worse for the smaller iPhone size at 960x640.
I see many kindles used in the same way as iPads. Kid entertainment. Folks that don't ever see Kindles aren't hanging around elementary school age kids. It's easier to tuck a kindle in a handbag than an iPad, is cheaper or the same cost as the smaller iPod touch and letting your kid use it doesn't drain your phone battery...which you might need for actual phone calls.
Apple really needs to refresh the iPod Touch with the A5 for gaming. Making it 5" as I suggested is probably a good move too.
I use my Kindle all the time and for video it's not that much smaller than the iPad since many TV shows and movies are 16:9 and on the iPad you lose a lot of the space anyway.
To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.
Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.
It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.
I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.
A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.
To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.
Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
I compare it to comparably priced devices that fill the same niche (mobile entertainment). The iPad 2 is $399. The iPod Touch $199. The Kindle $199.
By Kindle I mean the Fire. I have always meant the Fire. I have no idea why on earth you are even vaguely confused on the subject.
Comparing the Kindle to the iPod Touch is more than reasonable. They occupy the exact same price point and are the same general category: personal entertainment device.
Many many parents are making this very comparison.
The iPod Touch took a beating too:
"The iPhone has beaten analysts' estimates, as the iPad: Apple has sold 15.43 million units during the holidays . It doubles its sales in one year (+ 110.56%), an encouraging figure: now it takes three times more than iPad Mac. The iPod knows a path opposite: it is sold 15.397 million units , down 20.84% ??compared to last year.
Tim Cook said Apple had sold 62 million devices iOS during the last three months of 2011 - slightly more than Android devices according to official figures activation of Google. We can estimate the sales of iPod touch to 11.6 million units."
GPU wise it's worse than the iPad 2 but better than the iPad 1 or the iPod Touch. Meaning it's as good or better than either for gaming.
Quote:
And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.
It's one report by one analyst group (IDC) AND NPD comes out and calls bloggers reporting that the Fire stopped selling idiots:
"Shipments are not sales, seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp, but it’s apparent from the hysteria that has erupted over IDC’s release of their Q1 tablet shipment data that most of the blogosphere still doesn’t get the difference. We detailed this phenomenon two years agoand still no one can get it right, so I will say it again shipments are not sales - and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item.
...
This current firestorm around the Kindle Fire numbers is a perfect example of how mistaking shipments for sales leads the market to incorrect and faulty conclusions about trends and opportunities.
...
So how did the Kindle Fire do in the first quarter of 2012, pretty darn well thank you very much. According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service the Kindle actually sold (there is that word again, this time properly used) 1.8m units in the first quarter. That is an actual consumer bought it and took it home (or had it delivered) and paid their own real money."
Taking these two into account we can expect Fire sales to exceed iPod touch sales in the next few qtrs if Apple does nothing to refresh the iPod Touch line.
Of course they will do a refresh but I think they also need to bump the size of the iPod touch to 5". The Fire may exceed iPod Touch sales anyway. Amazon's business model permits very low hardware margins. Apple's not so much.
Quote:
It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.
Millions of folks disagree regarding the Fire. It's only been out 2 qtrs. How about you not claim it's dead before its second Christmas eh?
Quote:
I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.
I had my fire and my iPad BOTH running netflix when I wrote that to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass unlike some folks. Video on the Fire is indeed about 6" long. The HEIGHT is about 4" tall for a 7.1" diagonal. The 4:3 iPad loses a lot more screen HEIGHT for any widescreen content (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1) than the Kindle. So size wise the kindle is smaller but not hugely smaller. The usable image size is actually pretty close despite the large difference in device size simply because of the aspect ratio. I'd say around 75%-80% for 16:9 content.
Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:
Resolution wise the iPad 2 has a usable screen resolution of 1024x576 for 16:9 content. Same as on the Kindle for 16:9 content. Both have an IPS screen. The Kindle has higher density at 169 ppi vs 132 ppi.
For the iPad 3 the starting price is $499. $300 more than the kindle. Meaning I can buy 3.5 refurb Kindles at $139. So yeah, I sure hope the image quality is better but the image quality for the Kindle is still very good.
So what this tells me is that you've never used the Kindle and iPad for video on a regular basis or it would be very obvious to you how much blank space there is on the iPad for movies and HD shows in comparison to the Kindle. All you've done is looked at the specs and made an incorrect assumption in actual usable screen space.
I watch movies and TV all the time on my iPhone, iPad and Kindle. When on the road I use my 3G iPad. At home, with wifi, I favor the Kindle since it's lighter and I also have access to Amazon Video as well as Netflix.
The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.
To be fair, the iPad 2 and 3 are far superior gaming devices than the Fire. Both in terms of titles and performance. And game companies go where the revenues are.
I can see the Fire doing fairly well given that Amazon is willing to pay for exclusives and have only a small set of devices to support.
The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher. http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/
Considering that there are far more downloads of apps, especially games on the iOS platform than there is on the Android platform, the 84% is likely a very good indicator of actual games played. Most major games that are on iOS aren't on Android, and most that are, are available for only a few devices.
As far as paid goes, it's been shown that the average app price in the Google Marketplace is at least twice the price of the same app on iOS, and the average price is twice as high as well. So dollar for dollar, the number of apps bought would be twice that for iOS as Android, also contributing to that 84% number.
No matter how one looks at it, Android is way behind.
I compare it to comparably priced devices that fill the same niche (mobile entertainment). The iPad 2 is $399. The iPod Touch $199. The Kindle $199.
By Kindle I mean the Fire. I have always meant the Fire. I have no idea why on earth you are even vaguely confused on the subject.
Comparing the Kindle to the iPod Touch is more than reasonable. They occupy the exact same price point and are the same general category: personal entertainment device.
Many many parents are making this very comparison.
The iPod Touch took a beating too:
"The iPhone has beaten analysts' estimates, as the iPad: Apple has sold 15.43 million units during the holidays . It doubles its sales in one year (+ 110.56%), an encouraging figure: now it takes three times more than iPad Mac. The iPod knows a path opposite: it is sold 15.397 million units , down 20.84% ??compared to last year.
Tim Cook said Apple had sold 62 million devices iOS during the last three months of 2011 - slightly more than Android devices according to official figures activation of Google. We can estimate the sales of iPod touch to 11.6 million units."
GPU wise it's worse than the iPad 2 but better than the iPad 1 or the iPod Touch. Meaning it's as good or better than either for gaming.
It's one report by one analyst group (IDC) AND NPD comes out and calls bloggers reporting that the Fire stopped selling idiots:
"Shipments are not sales, seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp, but it’s apparent from the hysteria that has erupted over IDC’s release of their Q1 tablet shipment data that most of the blogosphere still doesn’t get the difference. We detailed this phenomenon two years ago and still no one can get it right, so I will say it again shipments are not sales - and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item.
...
This current firestorm around the Kindle Fire numbers is a perfect example of how mistaking shipments for sales leads the market to incorrect and faulty conclusions about trends and opportunities.
...
So how did the Kindle Fire do in the first quarter of 2012, pretty darn well thank you very much. According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service the Kindle actually sold (there is that word again, this time properly used) 1.8m units in the first quarter. That is an actual consumer bought it and took it home (or had it delivered) and paid their own real money."
Taking these two into account we can expect Fire sales to exceed iPod touch sales in the next few qtrs if Apple does nothing to refresh the iPod Touch line.
Of course they will do a refresh but I think they also need to bump the size of the iPod touch to 5". The Fire may exceed iPod Touch sales anyway. Amazon's business model permits very low hardware margins. Apple's not so much.
Millions of folks disagree regarding the Fire. It's only been out 2 qtrs. How about you not claim it's dead before its second Christmas eh?
I had my fire and my iPad BOTH running netflix when I wrote that to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass unlike some folks. Video on the Fire is indeed about 6" long. The HEIGHT is about 4" tall for a 7.1" diagonal. The 4:3 iPad loses a lot more screen HEIGHT for any widescreen content (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1) than the Kindle. So size wise the kindle is smaller but not hugely smaller. The usable image size is actually pretty close despite the large difference in device size simply because of the aspect ratio. I'd say around 75%-80% for 16:9 content.
Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:
Resolution wise the iPad 2 has a usable screen resolution of 1024x576 for 16:9 content. Same as on the Kindle for 16:9 content. Both have an IPS screen. The Kindle has higher density at 169 ppi vs 132 ppi.
For the iPad 3 the starting price is $499. $300 more than the kindle. Meaning I can buy 3.5 refurb Kindles at $139. So yeah, I sure hope the image quality is better but the image quality for the Kindle is still very good.
So what this tells me is that you've never used the Kindle and iPad for video on a regular basis or it would be very obvious to you how much blank space there is on the iPad for movies and HD shows in comparison to the Kindle. All you've done is looked at the specs and made an incorrect assumption in actual usable screen space.
I watch movies and TV all the time on my iPhone, iPad and Kindle. When on the road I use my 3G iPad. At home, with wifi, I favor the Kindle since it's lighter and I also have access to Amazon Video as well as Netflix.
You're the one confused if you expect people to always expect you to mean Fire when you say Kindle. I suppose if I read your post VERY slowly and carefully, I could think you meant Fire when you say Kindle, but as no one else does that, why should you? Yes, it's confusing.
Price points don't make a good comparison. These are two very different devices, and it's not likely, even when including parents, that most people will confuse an iPod Touch with a Fire. Parents may prefer to but an Apple product like the Touch over the Fire for their kids, but not because the two are comparable, or because they cost the same. They would just rather buy them something small they can put in their pocket and runs iOS. I doubt they even consider the Fire as an alternative.
We all low that the iPhone is taking from the iPod, even the touch. So what? That's a gain for Apple, not a loss.
Either Brin or Paige stated recently that a total of 12 million Android tablets had been sold. That's well under the number of iPads. It isn't known if it included the approx 4 million Fires, or the much smaller number of Nook tablets.
Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.
Your discussion of height makes no sense at all. I can't believe you've really made the visual comparison. The screen ratio is meaningless when comparing two screens of such different sizes. The length of the image determines the height as well. The longer the image, the taller it will be. A 6" movie will be about 3.375" high, and one 7.75" long will be about 4.36" high, so I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.
You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant. And at these small sizes, the ppi difference makes very little difference in viewing quality. Pretty much none, in fact. If you are going to view the Fire movie at a more useful size, then you will have to bring it closer, which negates any supposed advantage the higher ppi has. If you don't, the the iPad movie will look better, because it's not likely you will see the higher ppi on the fire, but you will see the detail in the bigger image from the iPad. It's not comfortable to view a movie from less than a foot away which is what you will have to do in order to view it at the same size as you would the larger iPad.
Your argument that the most popular games on iOS aren't available for Android isn't true and one reason why I said it was a somewhat bogus article. Manyof the most popular paid games for iOS are free for the Androild platform.
Comments
In order to get a Nook app Microsoft just invested $300 million in the Barnes & Noble spinoff of the nook.
Why they has to do this is anyone's guess, but I imagine that Microsoft was NOT getting a Nook app for Win 8 tablets or Win RT tablets. This deal will give them that, plus access to Barnes & Noble's books. Also Netflix, etc.
This makes no sense to me as one would think that with Microsoft already having movies Tv shows, music videos, games etc, they could certainly write their own book app, and offer books as well.
The only other thing it's speculated that they may be getting out of this deal is a Win RT Nook based tablet. Why anyone would want such a thing is beyond my understanding though.
It seems like a lot of money for something that Apple, and by extension, we get for free already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I've read that one reason they're offering the pen is because of Android's notorious lack of precision
You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help. I've never run across the claim that iOS offers more precise touch than Android. I'm aware that older Android devices in particular may not register touch as quickly as on an iPhone, but that's a different issue from precision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You might be right Mel, but a trusted citation for the claim would help.
I put Android 1.6 on my iPhone, and it wouldn't even let me hit the Q, A, L, or P keys, as they were outside the software's range of recognition.
Oh, you… you probably don't trust me as a source.
Well, find tests of Android on the iPhone on some trusted site, then.
Of course I trust you. You've never given me a reason not to. If you say you put Android on your iPhone and weren't happy with the touchscreen response I believe you. Of course that would be an example of the "old" Android I referenced.
EDIT: I don't see instructions on install procedures for anything more recent than Froyo, V2.2.1
http://www.redmondpie.com/install-android-2.2.1-froyo-on-iphone-3g-2g-using-bootlace-in-cydia-no-computer-required/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course that would be an example of the "old" Android I referenced.
EDIT: I don't see instructions on install procedures for anything more recent than Froyo, V2.2.1
http://www.redmondpie.com/install-android-2.2.1-froyo-on-iphone-3g-2g-using-bootlace-in-cydia-no-computer-required/
I really gotta get… oh, you edited. I was going to say, "I really gotta get cracking on a newer version of Android to test it out, then", but I guess there aren't many.
That's weird. You'd think they would have kept up with that. I would have expected to be able to install Android 4.0 on an iPhone 4S today. And the tablet versions of Android on an iPad.
Wonder why they stopped. I mean, obviously there's a lack of interest, but that has never really stopped experimentation like that before.
The source code is available, but I imagine developers are too busy creating compelling new apps that use the advantages of v4.x as well as make perfect use of all that display real estate on the best selling wide-screen Android tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
From what we're reading, it would be an 8" tablet. Just as the 9.7" screen of the iPad is thought of as a 10" device, the talked about 7.85" screen of the smaller one would be an 8" device. Saying it's 7" as we read, is wrong. The info about this size is that it would have the same ppi as the original iPhone, and the icons and spacing would be exactly the same as the iPhone.
So nothing would have to be made smaller than what Apple originally thought was proper. A 7" screen would be too small though.
I don't see how Apple could do this for $299 with GPS and 3/4G though, as that extra costs an additional $130. I thought it would have dropped to $100 with the new iPad, but it didn't. Some other manufacturers charge less for the WiFi tablet, but add as much as $150 for the 3G/GPS version.
I find the Kindle to be a good ebook reader size and a so-so bring everywhere for gaming/video/internet size since I don't carry a man purse. A iPhone thickness 5" iPod touch I can see slipping into a pocket easily.
I don't think Apple can hit $299 with GPS and 4G. I don't think it needs to. $399 strikes me as quite reasonable.
There has been so much written on this over the years, I wouldn't know where to starting linking. Just Google Android touchScreen accuracy, and you'll come up with pages and pages of links on this. Some of them are tests of phones and tablets, some are complaints about accuracy on forums, etc.
Here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=android+touchscreen+accuracy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Talking about a reader or tablet? I see a fair number of Kindle readers these days, but haven't spotted a Fire, Nook tablet, except once, and only a handful of other tablets, excepting the iPad, of which I see a lot around. Go to an airport, and they're all over. Hotels too. Go to a conference or a trade show, and almost everyone, from vendors in their booths, to people walking the floor, has one.
The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.
The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.
I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.
Heck, they're not even able to get newer versions of Android working on most Android phones. Why would anyone expect them to keep up to date on versions for the iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The problem with most all Android tablets I see is that they're too concentrated on the consumption of video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything other than 16:9 Android tablets out there.
The Fire is an example, though I'm not sure if it's exactly 16:9. The problem with it is that it makes a lousy book reader, and it's bad for most everything else as well. That 16:9 is a really poor format for most things. If its vertical, you get a weird page shape for books, and magazines are impossible. Horizontally, it's worse for either. Not great shape for web browsing either, and the Rez is too low because it's just 600 in the narrow width. Text is difficult except in large sizes, and makes page breaks even worse, with little to read per page.
I'm not sure what most people use it for. The screen is less than 50% of the area of an iPad. It's really much smaller than the 7" makes it seem. If people actually use it, they will know exactly what I mean. It's not surprising that sales have dropped off the cliff.
The Fire as an eBook reader isn't bad. The text format is like a tall paperback. Grabbing a random paperback and a random book on the Kindle they have about the same word count per line. Maybe one less on average for the Fire. The display is 10:6. 16:9 is 1024x576. The Toshiba Thrive is 16:10 at 1280x800. Archos makes 4:3 8" and 16:10 10" tablets.
As far as what it's used for: books, videos and games. Web at 1024x600 has the limitations as a netbook. Or an iPhone. Anything you think is bad for the kindle is worse for the smaller iPhone size at 960x640.
I see many kindles used in the same way as iPads. Kid entertainment. Folks that don't ever see Kindles aren't hanging around elementary school age kids. It's easier to tuck a kindle in a handbag than an iPad, is cheaper or the same cost as the smaller iPod touch and letting your kid use it doesn't drain your phone battery...which you might need for actual phone calls.
Apple really needs to refresh the iPod Touch with the A5 for gaming. Making it 5" as I suggested is probably a good move too.
I use my Kindle all the time and for video it's not that much smaller than the iPad since many TV shows and movies are 16:9 and on the iPad you lose a lot of the space anyway.
To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.
Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.
It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.
I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.
http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
To take the last first, it's not proper to compare it to a phone. This is being sold as a tablet, and it's much bigger than even the largest phones. That said, it's pretty bad. I've tried it as a book reader, and I didn't find it to be even as good as a regular Kindle, and far worse than my iPad, even the lower Rez earlier models, except in weight, of course.
Well, from what I've seen, and from those I've spoken to, most kids wouldn't want a Kindle instead of an iPad. I'm assuming that by Kindle, you mean the extremely limited book readers. But even a Fire is very limited. A very recent survey, or report, said that of all mobile gaming, something that kids especially are interested in, 84% is done using iOS devices. Not much room for the Fire there.
I compare it to comparably priced devices that fill the same niche (mobile entertainment). The iPad 2 is $399. The iPod Touch $199. The Kindle $199.
By Kindle I mean the Fire. I have always meant the Fire. I have no idea why on earth you are even vaguely confused on the subject.
Comparing the Kindle to the iPod Touch is more than reasonable. They occupy the exact same price point and are the same general category: personal entertainment device.
Many many parents are making this very comparison.
The iPod Touch took a beating too:
"The iPhone has beaten analysts' estimates, as the iPad: Apple has sold 15.43 million units during the holidays . It doubles its sales in one year (+ 110.56%), an encouraging figure: now it takes three times more than iPad Mac. The iPod knows a path opposite: it is sold 15.397 million units , down 20.84% ??compared to last year.
Tim Cook said Apple had sold 62 million devices iOS during the last three months of 2011 - slightly more than Android devices according to official figures activation of Google. We can estimate the sales of iPod touch to 11.6 million units."
http://www.ihelplounge.com/ihelplounge/2012/01/apple-q1-2012-results-iphone-and-ipad-record.html
GPU wise it's worse than the iPad 2 but better than the iPad 1 or the iPod Touch. Meaning it's as good or better than either for gaming.
Quote:
And the report that Fire sales have burned out is telling us that it's not really being that well received. A lot of them were bought as presents over the holidays for others (who probably wanted an iPad), who put them into the closets after a couple of weeks. There's no other explanation for why sales suddenly died. We normally expect sales to fall off after the holidays, but not by over 80%.
It's one report by one analyst group (IDC) AND NPD comes out and calls bloggers reporting that the Fire stopped selling idiots:
"Shipments are not sales, seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp, but it’s apparent from the hysteria that has erupted over IDC’s release of their Q1 tablet shipment data that most of the blogosphere still doesn’t get the difference. We detailed this phenomenon two years ago and still no one can get it right, so I will say it again shipments are not sales - and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item.
...
This current firestorm around the Kindle Fire numbers is a perfect example of how mistaking shipments for sales leads the market to incorrect and faulty conclusions about trends and opportunities.
...
So how did the Kindle Fire do in the first quarter of 2012, pretty darn well thank you very much. According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service the Kindle actually sold (there is that word again, this time properly used) 1.8m units in the first quarter. That is an actual consumer bought it and took it home (or had it delivered) and paid their own real money."
http://www.npdgroupblog.com/2012/05/shipments-are-not-sales/
Taking these two into account we can expect Fire sales to exceed iPod touch sales in the next few qtrs if Apple does nothing to refresh the iPod Touch line.
Of course they will do a refresh but I think they also need to bump the size of the iPod touch to 5". The Fire may exceed iPod Touch sales anyway. Amazon's business model permits very low hardware margins. Apple's not so much.
Quote:
It seems people really don't want a limited product such as the Fire, or for that matter, most other Android tablets (or the Playbook, or the WebOS Touchpad). We'll see how Win 8 and Metro on Arm tablets do when they come out, but I doubt they'll do as well as some think.
Millions of folks disagree regarding the Fire. It's only been out 2 qtrs. How about you not claim it's dead before its second Christmas eh?
Quote:
I doubt very much that you've ever compared video on the iPad with video on the Fire, or you wouldn't have said that it's not much smaller on the Fire. I read people saying that, and it's not even close to being true. Video on the Fire is about 6" long, while on the iPad it's about 7.75" long. When viewing both, the iPad video appears much larger, with better detail. Compared to the new iPad, there's no contest in IQ.
I had my fire and my iPad BOTH running netflix when I wrote that to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass unlike some folks. Video on the Fire is indeed about 6" long. The HEIGHT is about 4" tall for a 7.1" diagonal. The 4:3 iPad loses a lot more screen HEIGHT for any widescreen content (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1) than the Kindle. So size wise the kindle is smaller but not hugely smaller. The usable image size is actually pretty close despite the large difference in device size simply because of the aspect ratio. I'd say around 75%-80% for 16:9 content.
Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:
Resolution wise the iPad 2 has a usable screen resolution of 1024x576 for 16:9 content. Same as on the Kindle for 16:9 content. Both have an IPS screen. The Kindle has higher density at 169 ppi vs 132 ppi.
For the iPad 3 the starting price is $499. $300 more than the kindle. Meaning I can buy 3.5 refurb Kindles at $139. So yeah, I sure hope the image quality is better but the image quality for the Kindle is still very good.
So what this tells me is that you've never used the Kindle and iPad for video on a regular basis or it would be very obvious to you how much blank space there is on the iPad for movies and HD shows in comparison to the Kindle. All you've done is looked at the specs and made an incorrect assumption in actual usable screen space.
I watch movies and TV all the time on my iPhone, iPad and Kindle. When on the road I use my 3G iPad. At home, with wifi, I favor the Kindle since it's lighter and I also have access to Amazon Video as well as Netflix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The report actually claimed iOS was taking 84% of the mobile revenue, and it was only an estimate based on the top 200 paid games on both Android and iOS platforms. Kinda bogus anyway since a top PAID game on iOS might be the same top FREE game on Android. With that said there's no doubt that iOS games are more likely to be for pay, and the resulting revenue would be higher.
http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-84-mobile-gaming-revenue/
To be fair, the iPad 2 and 3 are far superior gaming devices than the Fire. Both in terms of titles and performance. And game companies go where the revenues are.
I can see the Fire doing fairly well given that Amazon is willing to pay for exclusives and have only a small set of devices to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Here's how it breaks down for the iPad:
That image is horribly misleading. No, it's not even that. It's just completely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That image is horribly misleading. No, it's not even that. It's just completely wrong.
Oops, sorry grabbed the wrong one from TUAW.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/01/27/watching-movies-on-an-ipad-what-you-see-is-what-you-get/
I meant to grab THIS one:
Point still stands. Here is a (bad) picture of the iPad, iPod and Kindle playing video:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/amazons-kindle-fire-a-tweener-worth-your-and-apples-serious-consideration/
1 minutes worth of work in Pixelmator gives you this approximation:
It would be better if it were not so angled and playing the same content at the same time.
Here's an image of the two stacked. Visually the difference is around the size of the Kindle's bezel when watching movies.
THIS is why folks say there is little difference in size between the iPad and the Kindle for videos.
Considering that there are far more downloads of apps, especially games on the iOS platform than there is on the Android platform, the 84% is likely a very good indicator of actual games played. Most major games that are on iOS aren't on Android, and most that are, are available for only a few devices.
As far as paid goes, it's been shown that the average app price in the Google Marketplace is at least twice the price of the same app on iOS, and the average price is twice as high as well. So dollar for dollar, the number of apps bought would be twice that for iOS as Android, also contributing to that 84% number.
No matter how one looks at it, Android is way behind.
You're the one confused if you expect people to always expect you to mean Fire when you say Kindle. I suppose if I read your post VERY slowly and carefully, I could think you meant Fire when you say Kindle, but as no one else does that, why should you? Yes, it's confusing.
Price points don't make a good comparison. These are two very different devices, and it's not likely, even when including parents, that most people will confuse an iPod Touch with a Fire. Parents may prefer to but an Apple product like the Touch over the Fire for their kids, but not because the two are comparable, or because they cost the same. They would just rather buy them something small they can put in their pocket and runs iOS. I doubt they even consider the Fire as an alternative.
We all low that the iPhone is taking from the iPod, even the touch. So what? That's a gain for Apple, not a loss.
Either Brin or Paige stated recently that a total of 12 million Android tablets had been sold. That's well under the number of iPads. It isn't known if it included the approx 4 million Fires, or the much smaller number of Nook tablets.
Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.
Your discussion of height makes no sense at all. I can't believe you've really made the visual comparison. The screen ratio is meaningless when comparing two screens of such different sizes. The length of the image determines the height as well. The longer the image, the taller it will be. A 6" movie will be about 3.375" high, and one 7.75" long will be about 4.36" high, so I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.
You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant. And at these small sizes, the ppi difference makes very little difference in viewing quality. Pretty much none, in fact. If you are going to view the Fire movie at a more useful size, then you will have to bring it closer, which negates any supposed advantage the higher ppi has. If you don't, the the iPad movie will look better, because it's not likely you will see the higher ppi on the fire, but you will see the detail in the bigger image from the iPad. It's not comfortable to view a movie from less than a foot away which is what you will have to do in order to view it at the same size as you would the larger iPad.
Mel, here are the top games on the Android Play Store. Note the games that are free.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/category/GAME/collection/topselling_free?hl=en
Here are the top paid games in Apple's Appstore. Note the ones that also appear in the previous link for Android for FREE.
http://www.148apps.com/top-apps/top-paid-iphone-games/
Your argument that the most popular games on iOS aren't available for Android isn't true and one reason why I said it was a somewhat bogus article. Manyof the most popular paid games for iOS are free for the Androild platform.