51–60 of 100 posts
The only way I can see this making sense is if Amazon could buy the supply chain relationships that HP must have built for their tablets. Probably HP have options/exclusivity deals on display and chip production for the coming years.
The only way I can see this making sense is if Amazon could buy the supply chain relationships that HP must have built for their tablets. Probably HP have options/exclusivity deals on display and chip production for the coming years.
Off-topic, but is there a reason you say 'HP have' instead of 'HP has'? I was talking to a few British guys at work about this and they thought it sounded odd as well.
If we're referring to HP as a collective of things (i.e. individuals, such as the board) then it should be have ( - they have ....)
IMO I'd say it could be either really, though I would probably favour the singular.
The only way I can see this making sense is if Amazon could buy the supply chain relationships that HP must have built for their tablets. Probably HP have options/exclusivity deals on display and chip production for the coming years.
Off-topic, but is there a reason you say 'HP have' instead of 'HP has'? I was talking to a few British guys at work about this and they thought it sounded odd as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off-topic, but is there a reason you say 'HP have' instead of 'HP has'? I was talking to a few British guys at work about this and they thought it sounded odd as well.
If we're referring to HP as a single company it should be has ( - it has ...) If we're referring to HP as a collective of things (i.e. individuals, such as the board) then it should be have ( - they have ....) IMO I'd say it could be either really, though I would probably favour the singular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the Kindle Fire is supposed to be an appliance. It's supposed to Just Work. Adding a second tablet with a different OS would confuse Amazon's target audience.
So where are there 5 different Kindle products?
Kindle DX has a massive screen, Kindle Keyboard has a keyboard, Kindle Touch has a touch screen, Kindle has buttons, Kindle Fire is a tablet.
And then there's the 3G and Wi-Fi splits, but that's also an obvious feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does, but for devices that are clearly different. There is clear differentiation between the iOS app store and the OSX app store. There is also clear differentiation between the iPhone and iPad sections on the app store. The three forms are physically different enough to draw a cognitive line in the sand. I doubt many people who own an iPhone think it's an iPad or own an iPad and think its a Mac. If Amazon ulti…
That's a bit of a "true Scotsman". And misses the relevance of the app store for Amazon, who sell slates to sell book content. It also ignores the most common approach to app stores. The OS determines which app store one can visit. I.e. even my mom can't download Macapps to her iPhone. [Edit]Your argument also assumes that Amazon will not differentiate the tablets which seems contrary to their differentiation between…
I'm not sure I understand this. There is no issues with selling book content on any flavor of Amazon device, it's all the stuff. The issue is with Apps and having two or three tablet devices, all running different OS's with different app stores.
> The OS determines which app store one can visit.
Sort of. I have both an iPad and iPhone, but rarely use the AppStore built-in to either one, unless I know exactly what app I want to buy. I prefer discovery using iTunes. I'm sure some % of Amazon uses do something similar with the www.amazon.com app store front, though not having an Android device, I'm not entirely familiar with the options available and how they compare to Apple's AppStore.
> I.e. even my mom can't download Macapps to her iPhone.
She can't download them, but she could mistakenly purchase them. I think the separation is clear enough to avoid mistakes between Apple devices. I'm simply arguing that the potential is worse for Amazon should they roll out both Android and WebOS tablets. Again, the issue would only stem from an off-device app store, since an on-device store can obviously filter.
> Your argument also assumes that Amazon will not differentiate the tablets which seems contrary to their differentiation between the Fire and Kindle
The argument is not whether or not they will differentiate, but rather to what extent they will be differentiated. The differences between Fire and Kindle are obvious. The difference between Fire and (WebOS Tablet) is more of the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit of a "true Scotsman". And misses the relevance of the app store for Amazon, who sell slates to sell book content. It also ignores the most common approach to app stores. The OS determines which app store one can visit. I.e. even my mom can't download Macapps to her iPhone. [Edit]Your argument also assumes that Amazon will not differentiate the tablets which seems contrary to their differentiation between…
> And misses the relevance of the app store for Amazon, who sell slates to sell book content. I'm not sure I understand this. There is no issues with selling book content on any flavor of Amazon device, it's all the stuff. The issue is with Apps and having two or three tablet devices, all running different OS's with different app stores. > The OS determines which app store one can visit. Sort of. I have both an iPad…
I don't think they'll have 2 OSes but I don't think this is true. Buying an app requires an Amazon account, so they could obviously stop people from buying apps that are not compatible with their device.
Probably if they buy WebOS it will be for the Kindle Fire 2 which won't be for another year, at which point they can transition (slowly) away from Android. Buying WebOS on the cheap might be too good of an idea to pass up on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where are there 5 different Kindle products?
It's still very clear what you're getting with each Kindle product. Kindle DX has a massive screen, Kindle Keyboard has a keyboard, Kindle Touch has a touch screen, Kindle has buttons, Kindle Fire is a tablet. And then there's the 3G and Wi-Fi splits, but that's also an obvious feature.
What would Amazon do with WebOS when they have already invested so much in Android? Switching would require them to abandon the app store they built. The Silk browser seems at odds with how WebOS works. All their Android UI customizations would have to be rewritten.
My guess is a bunch of embedded Linux hackers and a large patent portfolio, which relative other vendors they're quite short on. Maybe webOS would be recycled as an OS for the ePaper products or something, but I wouldn't bet on its future even if it does go over to Amazon. Even so it's a hard deal for me to get my head around. Amazon is not an acquisition-happy company. There's usually very clear alignment and they'v…