161–170 of 213 posts
There's so much about this which is disingenuous. I'm not surprised by this, but it's worth pointing out some of the tricks Amazon are employing here: 1. Much More for Much Less. Much More is obviously the kindle fire HD, and Much Less is the iPad Mini. Heck, if you remove the 'f' of 'for' you get to the central point here which is to turn the choice into 'Much More or Much Less'. 2. Kindle Fire HD branding is used (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's strange that they can't continue to compete in this category, especially given the high price of their device. Given that Amazon posted a net loss this past quarter in part due to manufacturing expenses, I wouldn't call their strategy "effectively competing".
While I am sure Amazon stockholders and financial types care very much about a net loss, the consumer market does not. They are very effectively competing in the market for tablets. Whether the way they are competing is good for business is an entirely separate matter.
"They are very effectively competing in the market for tablets." Yep, it doesn't take a genius to sell anything at loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the slide from the Kindle HD announcement: http://www.androidcentral.com/amazon-hails-improved-mimo-wif... At the time it beat the iPad 3 but I don't know if the mini changes that.
Hmm…iPad 3 supports 802.11n (which has MIMO) as well. Perhaps the Fire HD is still faster, but it seems disingenuous to leave the iPad column blank.
In real world applications I think the real benefit is increased range. In an office setting, I could definitely see that being useful.
There's so much about this which is disingenuous. I'm not surprised by this, but it's worth pointing out some of the tricks Amazon are employing here: 1. Much More for Much Less. Much More is obviously the kindle fire HD, and Much Less is the iPad Mini. Heck, if you remove the 'f' of 'for' you get to the central point here which is to turn the choice into 'Much More or Much Less'. 2. Kindle Fire HD branding is used (…
Don't tell us about "false marketing" on amazons side. Did you notice how Phil Schiller showed the iMac on Stage? He always talked about how thin it is and how incredible but he never showed the thicker part of the iMac. Also noticed that Apple ALWAYS showed every iMac from the side on there website? Since the new iMac, there is only a 20° angle to the iMac, so you can only see the thin border, but not the thicker pa…
> Don't tell us about "false marketing" on amazons side.
Why not? I thought it was interesting.
> Did you notice how Phil Schiller showed the iMac on Stage?
Yep! I didn't think it was especially relevant in the discussion thread for a story about Amazon marketing the Kindle Fire, though...
> He always talked about how thin it is and how incredible but he never showed the thicker part of the iMac.
He did, but not for very long.
> Also noticed that Apple ALWAYS showed every iMac from the side on there website? Since the new iMac, there is only a 20° angle to the iMac, so you can only see the thin border, but not the thicker part behind it.
That is weird.
> Oh, btw: have fun with your iPad mini.
No plans to buy one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know where this "No HD movies or TV" thing is coming from? Can the iPad mini not play 720p content or something? A link to where this is stated would be helpful.
They're probably using 1080P as the definition of HD. The last time I looked at buying a movie in iTunes, the max resolution they sold was 720P.
iPad mini has 768 pixels, but the display is 4:3. It will not display 720 lines without distorting the video. Or cropping. To play 16:9, it will be displayed as 1024x576 with black bars at top and bottom. 576 happens to be SD PAL.
There's so much about this which is disingenuous. I'm not surprised by this, but it's worth pointing out some of the tricks Amazon are employing here: 1. Much More for Much Less. Much More is obviously the kindle fire HD, and Much Less is the iPad Mini. Heck, if you remove the 'f' of 'for' you get to the central point here which is to turn the choice into 'Much More or Much Less'. 2. Kindle Fire HD branding is used (…
I recently read an article on HN wherein a user posted asking all of us to be 'civil'. This is the reason why HN isn't so civil. You like a product, you try to support as if you created it and as if the company cares for you, while in reality the company doesn't care about you and you're just doing free marketing for them. Not to say that you can't defend what you like, but most of what you've written here is very ve…
I see none of the incivility that you saw in the parent comment.
>if I were to counter you, I would then say the entire of Apple's presentations and Marketing is just plain BS.
Countering somewhat negative observations about one company != attacking that company's rival. This isn't football.
Consumer chauvinism is weird.
There's so much about this which is disingenuous. I'm not surprised by this, but it's worth pointing out some of the tricks Amazon are employing here: 1. Much More for Much Less. Much More is obviously the kindle fire HD, and Much Less is the iPad Mini. Heck, if you remove the 'f' of 'for' you get to the central point here which is to turn the choice into 'Much More or Much Less'. 2. Kindle Fire HD branding is used (…
You're overthinking it. Amazon is basically saying the iPad Mini is underpowered and more expensive. Yeah, what else is new? If Apple competed on tech specs and price, they wouldn't have sold a single Mac in the last 15 years. Price and specs is not why people will be buying the mini.
The iPad Mini has a bigger screen, and is lighter than the Nexus 7 or Fire HD by a fair margin.
The press seems to be all about resolution and techie specs, but I just sold my iPad2 (to upgrade to a 4th gen), and a shrunk down iPad2, at half the weight, lighter than the competition by a decent margin seems like a slam dunk to me.
I guess time will tell, but if the primary use is as a reader, then the device with the biggest screen and the lightest weight seems like the obvious winner unless there's something horribly wrong with it. And there's certainly nothing horribly wrong with an iPad2.
There's so much about this which is disingenuous. I'm not surprised by this, but it's worth pointing out some of the tricks Amazon are employing here: 1. Much More for Much Less. Much More is obviously the kindle fire HD, and Much Less is the iPad Mini. Heck, if you remove the 'f' of 'for' you get to the central point here which is to turn the choice into 'Much More or Much Less'. 2. Kindle Fire HD branding is used (…
You're overthinking it. Amazon is basically saying the iPad Mini is underpowered and more expensive. Yeah, what else is new? If Apple competed on tech specs and price, they wouldn't have sold a single Mac in the last 15 years. Price and specs is not why people will be buying the mini.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apple would never even show a competitor on their site, because they are the market leader.." - One thing that struck me from the iPad Mini announcement was just how much time they spent comparing it to the competition - a sure sign that they really do think there is competition now. Then they disappoint on the iPad numbers in their latest earnings - chalk that up to people waiting for iPad Mini's but that seems lik…
The "brilliant" part was convincing people it was $199, whereas in fact it's pretty close to $250 after shipping. I ended up buying a 16GB model ($275 including shipping) because the price difference was so small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's Apple. People know Apple, they know how it will perform, they know it will run the Apps their friends talk about, they know the Apple stores are there if they need service, etc. The iPad Mini, instead of being a bold play to kill the 7" tablet competitors is (unsurprisingly, perhaps) merely a smaller iPad. Maybe a somewhat cheaper iPad, but not an appreciably cheaper tablet at it's size. And instead of s…
Don't most smartphone users have an Android phone? And wouldn't they therefore want to reuse the apps they've already paid for when they switch to a tablet?
No-one really seemed interested in Android tablets regardless, until Amazon dipped their toes in with a tablet that didn't make a strong 'keep your apps' case [1]. Google got some recent interest with a tablet offering potential cross-device support that's relevant to many more people, but absent sales figures it'd be a stretch to project either of those as evidence of an android halo.
Particularly given Android's particularly strong penetration overseas and Amazon/Google's notably US-centric introductions.
Beyond that, you're assuming Android users have lots of paid apps and notable numbers of those paid apps have tablet versions or still make sense on a tablet [2]. I'm pretty certain most Android users don't have such large libraries of paid apps that they'd present any meaningful consideration when choosing a tablet.
Particularly these days when every app outside of games and multimedia editing apps is just a front end to a web service that offers both iOS and Android clients.
[1] An offering where you could probably get some existing android apps to run, but not through methods non-tinkers are likely to suffer. (Installing a second store? Sideloading?)
[2] e.g. if we're still talking kindle fire/nexus 7, there's no cell data. GPS info is limited compared to a phone. Camera apps may not be worth it with lesser sensors. etc.
Even on iOS I would be surprised if many people used the exact same apps on their phone and their tablet. Aside from some 'universal' games -- things tend to make sense or not largely based on form factor. And the outliers people do use on both, anecdotally at least, are overwhelmingly 'consuming web service' types of apps. (instapaper, facebook, etc)