[kristofferR]

My mother or any other normal non-geeky people in my family doesn't care whether the problem lies in software or hardware. They care about the experience.

The Kindle Fire experience is terrible right now. That terrible experience is what they'll remember and associate the brand with.

[tghw]

"Terrible" is hyperbole at best. And while they may not care, my point is, Amazon can (and, I hope, will) improve it.

All of these complaints about a $200 tablet remind me of Louis CK's bit on airplanes and cellphones, "Everything's amazing, and nobody's happy."

[__float]

I really do have to agree. I got a Kindle Fire and I love it. I haven't really noticed any "terrible" aspects. It's not perfect but my experience has been good far more often than it has been bad.

[angstrom]

You have a right to bitch if you're told you'll be flying a DC-10 and they seat you in a single engine Cessna.

[dfxm12]

Where did you get the idea that the the Fire is a top of the line type device?

The Cessna costs a fraction of the price of the DC-10. The Fire is a fraction of the cost of an iPad...

Even if you have no idea how to compare tech specs, or if you are brain-dead to marketing tactics, anyone should be able to look at the price tag and think to themselves, Well, the Fire costs a lot less than the competition. It's probably not going to have all the bells and whistles, but it is going to get the job done.

[angstrom]

Honestly, I didn't even include the iPad in the analogy. I would say the iPad is the 767.

The Nook Tablet is borderline DC-10. Of course, I'm looking at these devices with a rooting perspective as well. The screen quality, RAM, and extra storage space giving the Nook the edge. I have no desire to listen to music on a tablet, so I really only care about web browsing and video. The e-ink devices are still superior for regular text IMO. Unfortunately, since the publishers adopted the agency pricing model, these devices won't decrease in cost as quickly as they would have under regular retail pricing that would've allowed the razor blade model to defer the costs.

[beatle]

You keep mentioning the price. The price is not an excuse to ship a crappy product.

The iPod Touch starts at $200 and it's a great product.

[phaus]

Most people these days don't want an MP3 player, they want a tablet. Many people also look at the iPad and think "I could buy a damn good laptop that suits my purposes for $500, why would I pay $500 for an iPad?" At the same time, these people still wanted a tablet, they just refuse to pay so much money for one.

Basically, the market demands a cheaper tablets. Unfortunately for consumers the average $500 tablet contains about $300 worth of parts and labor. This means that in order to meet the demand, sacrifices must be made.

Because most people would rather have a $200 tablet than no tablet at all, the Kindle Fire was born. Like it or not, the Kindle Fire represents the most advanced hardware you can get at that price. While it has its shortcomings, the device is well built and reasonably powerful.

The software, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. I think that Amazon shouldn't have tried to reinvent the wheel. Grid style interfaces are pretty much perfect so I don't understand why they thought they could do better. While I don't agree that the software experience is terrible, I do hope that they fix the responsiveness issues.

[easp]

I don't think the distinctions you are making between market segments really match the way "the market" actually approaches these purchases. The market for "MP3" players is dwarfed by the market for iPods, and recently, something like 50% of iPod sales are for the iTouch, which, in theory and practice is more than a music player. Up until this point the market for "tablets" has been dwarfed by the market for iPads.

It is undoubtable that there is a market for an iPad-like device that is cheaper than the iPad. As you note, such a thing isn't possible, which brings us to the Kindle fire. It is much cheaper, but it is cheaper in part because it is less "powerful," in part because the hardware is less "refined," but most of the reason it is cheaper comes down to the fact that it is smaller and sold for a loss. That it is smaller makes it, on the one hand, more portable, but on the other hand, less good for many types of reading and interaction.

How will people feel about those tradeoffs. You seem to think that a lot of people will find them compelling because, well, why? Because of price? Price is clearly not the only consideration for people, as the iPod's success demonstrates. Portability? The iPod Touch isn't just a music player, and at least part of the market understands that already, as Apple will likely sell ~7M this quarter. It is more portable than the Kindle fire, and used for many of the same tasks. Taking both price and portability into account leads one to look at another alternative: the smartphone the consumer either already has, or is likely to acquire in the next six months.

People were faced with a similar choice a few years ago. Should they buy a netbook, or a "real" laptop. Netbooks sold well, for a little while. Some people loved them, others wanted to love them, but found their compromises too limiting. I borrowed from work, but it ended up just being a curiosity, and when I got an iPad, I realized it was better for both reading, because I could rotate the screen, and writing, because the on-screen keyboard could compensate for errors introduced by its small size in a way the netbook's keyboard could not. The netbook market is now in decline, while the market for the iPad seems to exceed Apple's ability to supply them.

I don't pretend to know how this will turn out, other than to guess that Apple will continue to sell a lot of iPad's at a healthy profit. I also expect that Amazon will sell a healthy number of Kindle Fires, and its successors. Further, I expect that the gap between the capabilities of the Kindle Fire and the iPad will grow for the foreseeable future, as Amazon "spends" most advances in technology to lower costs, and selling prices, while Apple uses most to drive upgrades and maintain margins.

[phaus]

I mostly agree with you. I don't really think that Apple's technology gap will expand though. Over the next 6 months I can see it happening, but not for the long term. Amazon is supposedly planning on releasing an 8.9-10" tablet in the first quarter. If Apple releases a significantly improved iPad 3 on Steve Jobs' Birthday like the rumors suggest, then whatever Amazon releases around the same time couldn't possibly compete with it. However, Amazon has shows signs of trying to establish a regular release cycle just like apple has. If this is the case then eventually they should be able to catch up a little. Having said that, I think we have a long long time before Amazon makes a tablet that matches the overall experience delivered by the iPad.

[Kadrith]

How so? I ask because I received a Kindle Fire for Christmas from my parents because I had been debating whether to buy one. So far I have used it for reading books and some light web browsing.

The experience has been good so far, although I have not attempted to stress the device or perform an action it was not designed for. Every person I know, who has actually used a Kindle Fire, has had nothing but positive comments; most of them are non-technical.

[Kadrith]

A little late on the thread but I wanted to add this for anyone reading in the future. My sister purchased an iPad 2 about a month before Christmas; I talked her out of a Galaxy Tab.

She has since returned the iPad 2 and gotten a Kindle Fire. Her main reason was that the iPad was too big for her to carry around constantly and the Fire fits in all of her purses. Since she would use the device while waiting or at random times, it was more important to have the device with her than sitting at home.