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.
We're talking about tablets and there's only one Kindle tablet.
Quote:
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.
Yes, amazingly people DO compare items that do the same things (play games, movies, etc) with the same cost against each other.
People catch on pretty quick that you can't reasonably compare the Kindle with the iPad. The difference in cost and capabilities are too great. Folks looking for a $200 entertainment device have two popular choices: The Fire and the iPod Touch.
Quote:
Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.
You didn't read the link or the text did you? Still confused between shipped and sold are we?
Quote:
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.
The screen ratio means EVERYTHING. A 16:9 image in a 4:3 screen results in letterboxing. Meaning that extra screen real estate is nothing but black space and unused when watching a movie.
Not surfing the web or using apps or whatever but watching video. Video which is largely widescreen today and not 4:3 aspect ratio.
As you said, Android devices tend to be optimized for video and Apple devices for general purpose. This is the trade off. For wide screen content, whether games, TV or movies, the 16:9 Android tablet screens have much more usable screen real estate than the same sized 4:3 tablet.
Quote:
You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant.
The blank space is not used when viewing movies and therefore doesn't count in terms of usable viewing area. This should be pretty obvious as to why it is relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
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.
If the ppi makes no difference why did you bring up the iPad 3? The answer is that ppi IS relevant. The statement that the ppi difference makes little difference in viewing quality at these sizes is hilarious. Then that would imply that moving to the retina display on the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch "makes very little difference...pretty much none".
The Fire's PPI advantage allows you even further offset the iPad's size advantage. Between aspect ratio and being able to hold it closer I doubt there's all that much Field of View difference between the two devices for widescreen content.
The PPI difference is slight but again the difference in the 16:9 image size is about the same size of the kindle's bezel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
And as you can easily see, the movie on the iPad looks much larger than the one on the fire does.
It isn't even close!
.
This looks like a big difference? I'm sorry regarding your impairment.
Letterboxing is why the Kindle image (with little letterboxing) is not hugely smaller than the iPad which is normally twice as large screen wise but has large letterboxing. They are comparable in size...smaller but not the significant difference when using the entire panel.
In actual usage, the kindle is actually very nice when watching movies. But then I actually own and use one.
We're talking about tablets and there's only one Kindle tablet.
No one "confuses" the iPod Touch with the Fire.
Google Trends:
"iPad vs Kindle Fire"
"iPod Touch vs Kindle Fire"
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Seems like a common enough search term...</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Look at all those results...</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Yes, amazingly people DO compare items that do the same things (play games, movies, etc) with the same cost against each other.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">People catch on pretty quick that you can't reasonably compare the Kindle with the iPad. The difference in cost and capabilities are too great. Folks looking for a $200 entertainment device have two popular choices: The Fire and the iPod Touch.</p>
You didn't read the link or the text did you? Still confused between shipped and sold are we?
The screen ratio means EVERYTHING. A 16:9 image in a 4:3 screen results in letterboxing. Meaning that extra screen real estate is nothing but black space and unused when watching a movie.
Not surfing the web or using apps or whatever but watching video. Video which is largely widescreen today and not 4:3 aspect ratio.
As you said, Android devices tend to be optimized for video and Apple devices for general purpose. This is the trade off. For wide screen content, whether games, TV or movies, the 16:9 Android tablet screens have much more usable screen real estate than the same sized 4:3 tablet.
The blank space is not used when viewing movies and therefore doesn't count in terms of usable viewing area. This should be pretty obvious as to why it is relevant to the discussion.
If the ppi makes no difference why did you bring up the iPad 3? The answer is that ppi IS relevant. The statement that the ppi difference makes little difference in viewing quality at these sizes is hilarious. Then that would imply that moving to the retina display on the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch "makes very little difference...pretty much none".
The Fire's PPI advantage allows you even further offset the iPad's size advantage. Between aspect ratio and being able to hold it closer I doubt there's all that much Field of View difference between the two devices for widescreen content.
The PPI difference is slight but again the difference in the 16:9 image size is about the same size of the kindle's bezel.
.
This looks like a big difference? I'm sorry regarding your impairment.
Letterboxing is why the Kindle image (with little letterboxing) is not hugely smaller than the iPad which is normally twice as large screen wise but has large letterboxing. They are comparable in size...smaller but not the significant difference when using the entire panel.
In actual usage, the kindle is actually very nice when watching movies. But then I actually own and use one.
In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.
As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.
Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.
In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.
As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.
Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.
Kindle Fire SHIPMENTS were estimated to be 750K units. Kindle Fire SALES are estimated to be 1.8M according to NPD.
The SeekingAlpha article makes the exact same mistakes regarding the Fire. YOU DID NOT READ THE NPD ARTICLE.
Jesus. You'd think that on an Apple site everyone would be very aware of the differences between shipments and sales.
And I proved that the 16:9 video on the Fire's is only 20-25% smaller than on the iPad by providing a picture of the two superimposed on top of each other. I have no idea what more proof you require.
Kindle Fire SHIPMENTS were estimated to be 750K units. Kindle Fire SALES are estimated to be 1.8M according to NPD.
The SeekingAlpha article makes the exact same mistakes regarding the Fire. YOU DID NOT READ THE NPD ARTICLE.
Jesus. You'd think that on an Apple site everyone would be very aware of the differences between shipments and sales.
And I proved that the 16:9 video on the Fire's is only 20-25% smaller than on the iPad by providing a picture of the two superimposed on top of each other. I have no idea what more proof you require.
So yeah...run away. That seems typical for you.
Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.
There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.
And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.
I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.
Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.
There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.
And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.
I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.
1) Santos has zero visibility into Kindle Fire sales. All he has is eInk financial reports that stated that their #1 client ordered nearly no panels from them because they bought too many in Q4 for Christmas.
2) He has no idea of the number of panels purchased in Q4 other than guesstimates based on iSuppli estimates of the cost of panels.
3) His assumption that Amazon strives for stable inventory is wrong given that Amazon kindle sales are seasonal and they increased purchases for Christmas. Monthly Kindle sales are unlikely to have averaged 7M/qtr.
4) His logic is wrong. If average quarterly sales were 3M/qtr and Amazon bought 7M panels in Q4 expecting to see 6M in sales over the holidays but it only hit 4M in sales because of the Fire it would have an extra 3M readers on hand. More than enough for the expected lower Q1 sales without the Kindle eBook reader sales collapse. The fact that Q1 eInk sales cratered does NOT mean that Amazon Kindle sales cratered in Q1. It only means that Amazon bought too many panels in Q4.
5) His assertion that Kindle Fire sales declined by 75% are completely based on the same IDC report regarding Fire shipments. He got this completely wrong and confused sales with shipments...which for Android tablets you can never do.
So there's a whole mass of unsubstantiated conjecture he uses to begin his financial analysis of Amazon gross margins. Given that Amazon is far more opaque than even Apple he has zero idea what could be impacting Amazon's gross margins.
His conclusion is highly fanciful:
"The imminent failure of Amazon.com's strategy to dominate the e-reader space, as illustrated by an estimated 75%+ drop on Kindle eReader sales, was what brought about Amazon.com's much celebrated gross margin improvement."
Finally: It is very dubious to trust negative Amazon analysis from someone who is short Amazon.
The same thing happened to Fire shipments that happened to Kindle eBook shipments: namely Amazon expected a better Christmas season than they got and they had enough inventory on hand for Q1. Q1 sales are normally lower.
You know exactly where NPD got their numbers...from their own Consumer Tracking Service, not someone else. Why on earth would you take IDC numbers as gospel and then claim that NPD numbers must be completely wrong?
Regarding the screen size we have to disagree. The Fire including bezel, is 7.75" so the difference in image size is the width and height of the bezel. The iPad image is 60% larger but not double the size as when using the full surface area.
Comments
And as you can easily see, the movie on the iPad looks much larger than the one on the fire does.
It isn't even close!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
We're talking about tablets and there's only one Kindle tablet.
Quote:
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.
No one "confuses" the iPod Touch with the Fire.
Google Trends:
"iPad vs Kindle Fire"
"iPod Touch vs Kindle Fire"
Seems like a common enough search term...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kindle+Fire+vs+iPod+Touch
Look at all those results...
Yes, amazingly people DO compare items that do the same things (play games, movies, etc) with the same cost against each other.
People catch on pretty quick that you can't reasonably compare the Kindle with the iPad. The difference in cost and capabilities are too great. Folks looking for a $200 entertainment device have two popular choices: The Fire and the iPod Touch.
Quote:
Actually, the number estimated for Fire sales last quarter were between 700 and 750 thousand Fires sold. Not very good at all.
You didn't read the link or the text did you? Still confused between shipped and sold are we?
Quote:
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.
The screen ratio means EVERYTHING. A 16:9 image in a 4:3 screen results in letterboxing. Meaning that extra screen real estate is nothing but black space and unused when watching a movie.
Not surfing the web or using apps or whatever but watching video. Video which is largely widescreen today and not 4:3 aspect ratio.
As you said, Android devices tend to be optimized for video and Apple devices for general purpose. This is the trade off. For wide screen content, whether games, TV or movies, the 16:9 Android tablet screens have much more usable screen real estate than the same sized 4:3 tablet.
Quote:
You are making a major error in thinking that blank space has anything to do with viewing size. It's totally irrelevant.
The blank space is not used when viewing movies and therefore doesn't count in terms of usable viewing area. This should be pretty obvious as to why it is relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
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.
If the ppi makes no difference why did you bring up the iPad 3? The answer is that ppi IS relevant. The statement that the ppi difference makes little difference in viewing quality at these sizes is hilarious. Then that would imply that moving to the retina display on the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch "makes very little difference...pretty much none".
The Fire's PPI advantage allows you even further offset the iPad's size advantage. Between aspect ratio and being able to hold it closer I doubt there's all that much Field of View difference between the two devices for widescreen content.
The PPI difference is slight but again the difference in the 16:9 image size is about the same size of the kindle's bezel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
And as you can easily see, the movie on the iPad looks much larger than the one on the fire does.
It isn't even close!
.
This looks like a big difference? I'm sorry regarding your impairment.
Letterboxing is why the Kindle image (with little letterboxing) is not hugely smaller than the iPad which is normally twice as large screen wise but has large letterboxing. They are comparable in size...smaller but not the significant difference when using the entire panel.
In actual usage, the kindle is actually very nice when watching movies. But then I actually own and use one.
In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.
As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.
Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/557151-kindle-sales-plunge-made-amazon-com-s-gross-margin-look-better?source=yahoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In all of that long long post, pretty much nothing is correct. You just give your impressions, which is fine as it goes, but not really proving anything.
As far as Fire sales go, you've got that totally. Ixed up, as do a couple of articles on it. Kindle reader sales last quarter are estimated at about 1.75 million units. kindle Fure sales are estimate at about 70-750 thousand units. It's interesting at how writers read articles with numbers and get confused.
Here's one that straightens this out. Though I'm sure you won't agree. But that's all right, as I don't care whether you do or not, as this is my last post on this. I'll let the others to continue disagreeing with you, privately or otherwise.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/557151-kindle-sales-plunge-made-amazon-com-s-gross-margin-look-better?source=yahoo
Kindle Fire SHIPMENTS were estimated to be 750K units. Kindle Fire SALES are estimated to be 1.8M according to NPD.
The SeekingAlpha article makes the exact same mistakes regarding the Fire. YOU DID NOT READ THE NPD ARTICLE.
Jesus. You'd think that on an Apple site everyone would be very aware of the differences between shipments and sales.
And I proved that the 16:9 video on the Fire's is only 20-25% smaller than on the iPad by providing a picture of the two superimposed on top of each other. I have no idea what more proof you require.
So yeah...run away. That seems typical for you.
Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.
There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.
And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.
I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Ok, so one last time. kindle reader shipments were about 1.75 million units, and Fire units were about 725 thousand. I did read the NPD article, and I'm not impressed. At Seeking Alpha, he did the math. We don't know what NPD did. They got their nu bets from someone else. I trust the one that did the actual work of tracking panel shipments among other things, and looked at Amazon's financials.
There are a lot of assumptions about Amazon's sales, which can't be proven because Amazon refuses to say.
And you didn't prove anything with the video. The image in the Fire is much smaller than the one on the iPad. Visual differences are pretty big. The movie on the iPad will have 1.67 times the area, or put another way, the Fire's image will be just 60% of that of the iPad. Pretty big difference.
I don't run away. It's just that your num num arguments aren't worth responding to anymore.
1) Santos has zero visibility into Kindle Fire sales. All he has is eInk financial reports that stated that their #1 client ordered nearly no panels from them because they bought too many in Q4 for Christmas.
2) He has no idea of the number of panels purchased in Q4 other than guesstimates based on iSuppli estimates of the cost of panels.
3) His assumption that Amazon strives for stable inventory is wrong given that Amazon kindle sales are seasonal and they increased purchases for Christmas. Monthly Kindle sales are unlikely to have averaged 7M/qtr.
4) His logic is wrong. If average quarterly sales were 3M/qtr and Amazon bought 7M panels in Q4 expecting to see 6M in sales over the holidays but it only hit 4M in sales because of the Fire it would have an extra 3M readers on hand. More than enough for the expected lower Q1 sales without the Kindle eBook reader sales collapse. The fact that Q1 eInk sales cratered does NOT mean that Amazon Kindle sales cratered in Q1. It only means that Amazon bought too many panels in Q4.
5) His assertion that Kindle Fire sales declined by 75% are completely based on the same IDC report regarding Fire shipments. He got this completely wrong and confused sales with shipments...which for Android tablets you can never do.
So there's a whole mass of unsubstantiated conjecture he uses to begin his financial analysis of Amazon gross margins. Given that Amazon is far more opaque than even Apple he has zero idea what could be impacting Amazon's gross margins.
His conclusion is highly fanciful:
"The imminent failure of Amazon.com's strategy to dominate the e-reader space, as illustrated by an estimated 75%+ drop on Kindle eReader sales, was what brought about Amazon.com's much celebrated gross margin improvement."
Finally: It is very dubious to trust negative Amazon analysis from someone who is short Amazon.
The same thing happened to Fire shipments that happened to Kindle eBook shipments: namely Amazon expected a better Christmas season than they got and they had enough inventory on hand for Q1. Q1 sales are normally lower.
You know exactly where NPD got their numbers...from their own Consumer Tracking Service, not someone else. Why on earth would you take IDC numbers as gospel and then claim that NPD numbers must be completely wrong?
Regarding the screen size we have to disagree. The Fire including bezel, is 7.75" so the difference in image size is the width and height of the bezel. The iPad image is 60% larger but not double the size as when using the full surface area.