comScore: Kindle Fire over half of Android tablet sales

[MaxFusion16]

.. and I'm also correct.

People buy the Kindle Fire because the up-front cost is considerably lower than the iPad and it doesn't suck. They're largely unaware of the other Android tablets.

let me just get this out of the way, nope, you are incorrect.

why are you even mentioning the ipad? this article is about kindle sales dominating the android tablet market. This is not a discussion regarding the ipad.

I'll concede that people are buying the kindle fire as opposed to the other android tablets partly on price, but primarily because it's not a tablet.

let's not forget that amazon is marketing the kindle fire as an ebook reader, it's not a full fledged tablet, it doesn't do everything a tablet does, it's this simplicity, amazon eco-system, and user friendliness that's winning market share.

The majority of kindle fire buyers are probably upgrading from their old kindle devices, and to be able to sync their entire ebook library over effortlessly is a great asset.

This is a point that I can't stress enough and it's something that google fails to grasp; a device needs to have a purpose, and amazon understands, the kindle fire has a purpose, it's designed for a core audience, it's an eReader first and foremost. The rest is just fluff.

replaceable battery? nope
SD card slot? nope
HDMI output? nope
Camera? nope
GPS? nope

amazing something so crippled can still manage to sell eh?

someone mentioned that it's because you can hack it into an ICS tablet, I'm willing to bet that accounts for a tiny tiny slice of the sales. How many people in your family even knows what ICS stands for aside from a frozen dairy treat? Geeks are so out of touch with reality.

Price alone doesn't sell,
people want quality,
people want integration,
people want a pleasing experience.

 

[NaOH]

Somehow I don't think "scaling" is better than apps which have a UI designed for a 10" screen: http://android-gripes.tumblr.com/post/19009042368/tim-cooks-gripes-about-ui-ux-of-android-tablets

Also, there were over 3000 tablet apps for the iPad when it launched before most developers had ever tested their app on a real device. But, please tell me what is wrong with Objective C, XCode, and the "hoops" needed to jump to test code?

Android development is a bigger pain in the ass given the meh sdk and the fragmentation that you have to account for when designing a piece of software. To people trying to make money, it's not even worth the time....

 

[cronos]

let me just get this out of the way, nope, you are incorrect.

why are you even mentioning the ipad? this article is about kindle sales dominating the android tablet market. This is not a discussion regarding the ipad.

I'll concede that people are buying the kindle fire as opposed to the other android tablets partly on price, but primarily because it's not a tablet.

let's not forget that amazon is marketing the kindle fire as an ebook reader, it's not a full fledged tablet, it doesn't do everything a tablet does, it's this simplicity, amazon eco-system, and user friendliness that's winning market share.

The majority of kindle fire buyers are probably upgrading from their old kindle devices, and to be able to sync their entire ebook library over effortlessly is a great asset.

This is a point that I can't stress enough and it's something that google fails to grasp; a device needs to have a purpose, and amazon understands, the kindle fire has a purpose, it's designed for a core audience, it's an eReader first and foremost. The rest is just fluff.

replaceable battery? nope
SD card slot? nope
HDMI output? nope
Camera? nope
GPS? nope

amazing something so crippled can still manage to sell eh?

someone mentioned that it's because you can hack it into an ICS tablet, I'm willing to bet that accounts for a tiny tiny slice of the sales. How many people in your family even knows what ICS stands for aside from a frozen dairy treat? Geeks are so out of touch with reality.

Price alone doesn't sell,
people want quality,
people want integration,
people want a pleasing experience.

And what he's saying is that it sold well because it's only $200

Sorry Max but I'm with zsd on this one. People don't really care about 'the purpose' either. All they know is that the thing is damn trendy because Amazon marketed it very well, and it's cheap compared to 'other tablets' (i.e. all those other similar things they aren't really familiar with either).

There's a reason why Amazon did not put all the fancy features you mentioned above. They wanted to cut cost, and it worked!

 

[MaxFusion16]

And what he's saying is that it sold well because it's only $200

Sorry Max but I'm with zsd on this one. People don't really care about 'the purpose' either. All they know is that the thing is damn trendy because Amazon marketed it very well, and it's cheap compared to 'other tablets' (i.e. all those other similar things they aren't really familiar with either).

There's a reason why Amazon did not put all the fancy features you mentioned above. They wanted to cut cost, and it worked!

this may change your mind, there is another $200 tablet that comes to mind with very capable specs, even more so than the kindle fire, yet it's hardly selling.

does the playbook ring a bell?

 

[zsdersw]

let me just get this out of the way, nope, you are incorrect.

That's incorrect.

why are you even mentioning the ipad? this article is about kindle sales dominating the android tablet market. This is not a discussion regarding the ipad.

I'll concede that people are buying the kindle fire as opposed to the other android tablets partly on price, but primarily because it's not a tablet.

let's not forget that amazon is marketing the kindle fire as an ebook reader, it's not a full fledged tablet, it doesn't do everything a tablet does, it's this simplicity, amazon eco-system, and user friendliness that's winning market share.

The iPad is the yardstick by which everything else in the tablet form factor is measured. When Amazon gave their "eReaders" things like color touch screens, apps, and Internet accessibility comparisons to the iPad and other tablets are, rightly, going to be made.

This is a point that I can't stress enough and it's something that google fails to grasp; a device needs to have a purpose, and amazon understands, the kindle fire has a purpose, it's designed for a core audience, it's an eReader first and foremost. The rest is just fluff.

replaceable battery? nope
SD card slot? nope
HDMI output? nope
Camera? nope
GPS? nope

amazing something so crippled can still manage to sell eh?

Wifi? yup
Internet access? yup
App "store"? yup
Download/play media? yup

Sorry it conflicts with your incorrect view of the world, but Amazon is trying to make the Kindle Fire more than just an eReader... and is succeeding.

Here's a pic directly from Amazon's website:

So Amazon is marketing the Kindle Fire as just an eReader, huh? Sure doesn't look like it.

 

[zsdersw]

this may change your mind, there is another $200 tablet that comes to mind with very capable specs, even more so than the kindle fire, yet it's hardly selling.

does the playbook ring a bell?

There are many reasons the Playbook isn't selling well... most of them being RIM's fault.

 

[MaxFusion16]

That's incorrect.



The iPad is the device by which everything else in the tablet form factor is measured. When Amazon gave their "eReaders" things like color touch screens, apps, and Internet accessibility comparisons to the iPad and other tablets are, rightly, going to be made.



Wifi? yup
Internet access? yup
App "store"? yup
Download/play media? yup

Sorry it conflicts with your incorrect view of the world, but Amazon is trying to make the Kindle Fire more than just an eReader.

I never claimed that amazon's not trying to get into the tablet space, they certainly are, but they are smart enough to realize the kindle fire is not ready yet, hence it's marketed as an eReader; it would've failed had they tried to push it as a tablet, because it's missing a lot of essential features.

google pushed tablets to do everything before the software was ready, honeycomb failed, simple as that.

 

[MaxFusion16]

There are many reasons the Playbook isn't selling well... most of them being RIM's fault.

so wait, you are saying that price alone isn't the reason kindle is selling well?

oh my gosh, could it be that you are actually agreeing with me?

I think I just saw a pig fly.

 

[zsdersw]

so wait, you are saying that price alone isn't the reason kindle is selling well?

oh my gosh, could it be that you are actually agreeing with me?

I think I just saw a pig fly.

No one ever said price was the only reason anything is sold. The Playbook was missing some key features and was marketed poorly. It was also overpriced for what it was, IIRC.

So no.. I'm not agreeing with you.

 

[Red Storm]

Marketing > everything else.

Price is just one aspect, what makes the Fire such a big seller is Amazon slapping it across their homepage and spending a lot of time marketing it.

 

[zsdersw]

I never claimed that amazon's not trying to get into the tablet space, they certainly are, but they are smart enough to realize the kindle fire is not ready yet, hence it's marketed as an eReader; it would've failed had they tried to push it as a tablet, because it's missing a lot of essential features.

google pushed tablets to do everything before the software was ready, honeycomb failed, simple as that.

You couldn't be more wrong about the part in bold. Right on their website... as the pic shows and a quick trip to the site will reveal... it tells you what the Fire is intended as; a tablet that can also be an eReader, not an eReader that can also do tablet stuff.

There's even an offer to, in Amazon's words, Get Both: Kindle Fire and a Kindle e-Reader for the low price of $278.

No, the Kindle Fire is marketed as more than just an eReader... it's marketed more for the tablet-ish things it can do and they make no effort to hide the fact that it can do all of these things for less than half of what an iPad costs.

 

[zsdersw]

Marketing > everything else.

Price is just one aspect, what makes the Fire such a big seller is Amazon slapping it across their homepage and spending a lot of time marketing it.

Yes, they're marketing it as giving people access to "apps" (a popular buzzword), the Internet, and to use it to buy/download/stream/play all the media they want. Those aren't eReader functions... they're tablet functions. They're also what Apple markets the iPad to do.

 

[MaxFusion16]

You couldn't be more wrong about the part in bold. Right on their website... as the pic shows and a quick trip to the site will reveal... it tells you what the Fire is intended as; a tablet that can also be an eReader, not an eReader that can also do tablet stuff.

There's even an offer to, in Amazon's words, Get Both: Kindle Fire and a Kindle e-Reader for the low price of $278.

No, the Kindle Fire is marketed as more than just an eReader... it's marketed more for the tablet-ish things it can do and they make no effort to hide the fact that it can do all of these things for less than half of what an iPad costs.

it's succeeding as an ereader, not as a tablet. The tablet functions aren't that great, browser sucks for instance, no built in GPS, no built in webcam.

amazon can try marketing it as a tablet, but they'll fail.

how many ipad users have switched to the kindle fire?

last i checked, the ipad's selling well.

 

[zsdersw]

it's succeeding as an ereader, not as a tablet. The tablet functions aren't that great, browser sucks for instance, no built in GPS, no built in webcam.

amazon can try marketing it as a tablet, but they'll fail.

how many ipad users have switched to the kindle fire?

last i checked, the ipad's selling well.

You initially said Amazon isn't marketing it first and foremost as an eReader. I've shown that to be wrong. Now you want to talk about the merits of the Fire itself? That's another thread.

 

[MaxFusion16]

You initially said Amazon isn't marketing it first and foremost as an eReader. I've shown that to be wrong. Now you want to talk about the merits of the Fire itself? That's another thread.

it's called the kindle fire, so it's in the kindle family, hence logically it's marketed as an ereader.

problem?

my assertion is that people are not buying it for the tablet features, it's winning against android tablets because it's not a tablet, there are plenty of other capable $200 tablets, why aren't they selling?

It works best as an ereader, the other features are not essential, it's still a work in progress at the moment.

 

[cronos]

this may change your mind, there is another $200 tablet that comes to mind with very capable specs, even more so than the kindle fire, yet it's hardly selling.

does the playbook ring a bell?

You really don't see the flaw in your argument there by comparing a $200 'fire sale price' of Blackberry Playbook (that was originally $499) with a brand new, original release price of the Kindle Fire?

Not sure why it's not clear to you, but price+marketing are clearly what made the Kindle Fire so hot(!). Sure, user interface and familiarity with Kindle name helped as well, but those aren't nearly as significant as the way it's marketed, and the extremely reasonable price point it is released on, considering the capability of the hardware (which is why you can't really compare it to the cheap, resistive screen, chinese tablets).

Speaking of which, over there in Asia these generic, resistive screen $100-$150 android tablets do sell a lot. It's a little tough to track their numbers down because they come out under different brand names. The reason is because they can run ICS and they're cheap. And there's that price factor again.

 

[MaxFusion16]

You really don't see the flaw in your argument there by comparing a $200 'fire sale price' of Blackberry Playbook (that was originally $499) with a brand new, original release price of the Kindle Fire?

Not sure why it's not clear to you, but price+marketing are clearly what made the Kindle Fire so hot(!). Sure, user interface and familiarity with Kindle name helped as well, but those aren't nearly as significant as the way it's marketed, and the extremely reasonable price point it is released on, considering the capability of the hardware (which is why you can't really compare it to the cheap, resistive screen, chinese tablets).

Speaking of which, over there in Asia these generic, resistive screen $100-$150 android tablets do sell a lot. It's a little tough to track their numbers down because they come out under different brand names. The reason is because they can run ICS and they're cheap. And there's that price factor again.

sorry, I'm not seeing your argument.

amazon marketing definitely helped, but you can't polish a turd, so if the kindle really sucked, no amount of marketing would've helped.

 

[cronos]

sorry, I'm not seeing your argument.

amazon marketing definitely helped, but you can't polish a turd, so if the kindle really sucked, no amount of marketing would've helped.

I never said that the Kindle Fire is a turd. where the hell did you get that impression?

All I was saying (several different ways already) is that the price is a major impact on how many Kindle Fire that got sold.

Kindle Fire is a great device in and of itself, but the reason it sold so many is because of its price point. If it's priced at $300 or more it won't sell as much, no matter how crazy the marketing is or how great the user experience or 'sense of purpose' is. It is priced very smartly by Amazon at this very reasonable point considering its hardware capability.

 

[MaxFusion16]

I never said that the Kindle Fire is a turd. where the hell did you get that impression?

All I was saying (several different ways already) is that the price is a major impact on how many Kindle Fire that got sold.

Kindle Fire is a great device in and of itself, but the reason it sold so many is because of its price point. If it's priced at $300 or more it won't sell as much, no matter how crazy the marketing is or how great the user experience or 'sense of purpose' is. It is priced very smartly by Amazon at this very reasonable point considering its hardware capability.

and i'm saying price is not an important factor, it matters, yes, but it's not the end all be all factor.

Amazon sold lots of kindles, big deal, apple sold even more ipads at a minimal of $500 each.

and the playbook is available at the same $200 price point, but it's barely registering on the charts.

some more food for thought, the original kindle ereader debuted for $399, and it sold out, went on to become a huge success.

as long as the price is within reason, it doesn't matter. People will pay for quality, I certainly would pay $500, $600, or even $1000 for a fantastic tablet.

 

[dagamer34]

I'd be happy to share what I think is wrong with them.

Objective-C : basically everything. The only languages that I have used that I would consider worse than it are Fortran and Lisp.

Xcode: Runs like crap, seriously I've seen people run Visual Studio 2010 on single core netbooks and have it perform better than Xcode on a Core 2 Duo. It seems fine at first but once you start dealing with a decent sized project it just crawls along.

Have you ever tested code on an iPad? You have to request a development certificate just to be able to load the app on an iPad.

Sure, I've got an app on the App Store and it was pretty easy to get a development certificate. I'm not sure what issues you may be having on your Mac, but Xcode ran fine on my late 2006 MacBook Pro for several years before I upgraded it last year. As for Objective-C, any competent developer should be able to adapt to a variety of languages. Just be glad the average programmer doesn't have to deal with assembly anymore. Now, THAT is tedious.

By the way "basically everything" is not an argument. Give specifics, not generalizations.

 

[cronos]

as long as the price is within reason, it doesn't matter.

Either you finally see the light or it was me who was confused of what we're arguing about, because right there you were repeating exactly what I have been saying

And what he's saying is that it sold well because it's only $200

Sure, user interface and familiarity with Kindle name helped as well, but those aren't nearly as significant as the way it's marketed, and the extremely reasonable price point it is released on, considering the capability of the hardware

It is priced very smartly by Amazon at this very reasonable point considering its hardware capability.

 

[zsdersw]

it's called the kindle fire, so it's in the kindle family, hence logically it's marketed as an ereader.

problem?

Logic fail. Calling it the Kindle Fire has more to do with drawing people in with the Kindle name than describing the essential function of the device.

Their wording from their website says: Web, movies, apps, games, reading, and more with built-in wifi. Notice where on the list "reading" is.

It's being marketed primarily as a tablet to access Amazon's array of apps/games/media.

my assertion is that people are not buying it for the tablet features, it's winning against android tablets because it's not a tablet, there are plenty of other capable $200 tablets, why aren't they selling?

Your assertion has no evidence, let alone proof. There are two other 7" tablets at the $200 price point; the Nook Color and the Playbook... and neither of their parent companies are as well known to the average consumer as Amazon is, and the Playbook is only at $200 because RIM couldn't sell it at all for any more money.

The marketing is the marketing.. and the marketing is that it is a tablet that, for $200, can give you access to the Internet, apps, games, media, and ebooks. That is a direct stab at the iPad and Android tablet markets.

What it can do for the price is what sells the Kindle Fire against things like the iPad and other Android tablets. Brand recognition is what sells the Fire against B&N and RIM's $200 tablets.

It works best as an ereader, the other features are not essential, it's still a work in progress at the moment.

That's a merit argument, not a marketing argument. We've been discussing marketing.

Even on the merits, though, your argument doesn't work when discussing the average consumer. Does the Fire offer as good of a tablet experience in general as the iPad or other Android tablets? No, but for $200 it does.

If it's just about having an eReader, Amazon already has other products that function well. What sells the Fire is the extra things it can do for $200 that Apple, Motorola, Samsung, etc. charge a lot more money for.

 

[Eug]

It's strange, but even in 2012, some geeks and engineers still can't fully understand that ease of use actually matters.

I'll admit that I haven't used the Kindle Fire (because it's not available in Canada), but reviews have it that it's extremely easy to use.

For Android ICS, it's OK, but it needs work in terms of ease-of-use IMO. It's easier to use than Windows on a PC in many ways, but that's not saying much. I'm thinking of buying an Android 7" ICS machine myself, but I'm aware of the limitations and and willing to deal with them, only because I specifically want a 7" tablet, and because the only way I could get the functionality I want on iOS is to jailbreak which I'd prefer not to do.

---

I remember a buddy of mine hired a web programmer to build his small business's website. I told him it was a mistake. I told him to hire a web designer and forget about a programmer completely because his website only had simple needs. Or else hire both a designer and a programmer. He ignored my advice, and the web programmer built this complex website with all sorts of features. It sucked, because it had no sense of UI consistency, because the content was not well laid out, and because it had just had some really bad design and esthetics choices. However, my friend thought it was pretty cool because of the extra features... but his business contacts and clients clearly didn't agree.

Luckily, he ended up hooking up with a business partner who happened to be an ad exec in a former life, and she helped guide the programmer as to how to build the website. Basically all the extra features were removed and the website was way, way, way easier to use, with direct and easy access to all the content necessary.

If the reviews are accurate, it sounds like that's what Amazon achieved with the Fire, while at the same time reducing price, and backed it with excellent content. That sounds like a winner to me.

 

[alent1234]

geeks don't get that people use tablets/ereaders for reading, lite surfring, email, music, tv/video and apps. not rooting, not surfing the file system, not sending arcane commands via command line and getting a hard on when the command line returns some arcane text, transferring files is way down on the feature wish list

make these features easy and you have a winner. make users spend 2 hours searching through music folders to copy a few select songs via windows explorer and you have a dud

and there is trust. customers have to trust you that the features will work as advertised. apple and amazon have the trust. most people have no intention of buying 20 different products with different implementations of the same feature or standard until they find something that works right

 

[zsdersw]

geeks don't get that people use tablets/ereaders for reading, lite surfring, email, music, tv/video and apps. not rooting, not surfing the file system, not sending arcane commands via command line and getting a hard on when the command line returns some arcane text, transferring files is way down on the feature wish list

make these features easy and you have a winner. make users spend 2 hours searching through music folders to copy a few select songs via windows explorer and you have a dud

and there is trust. customers have to trust you that the features will work as advertised. apple and amazon have the trust. most people have no intention of buying 20 different products with different implementations of the same feature or standard until they find something that works right

Your understanding of Android is poor, at best. All of the things you mentioned are not at all difficult to do on Android... whether it's stock or rooted.