@hm, Amazon is not worried about innovation because it will sell the hardware at very less price, they might sell those tablet's in loss but it will make money by selling the content for those tablets.
If the BOM cost is ~$143, incluing the overheads, the manufacturing cost of this product could be any where between $160 to $180. Looks like Amazon is selling it at a very low profit margin, betting on the volume?
I don't think Amazon's play here has anything to do with making money on the Kindle Fire tablet. It appears that the company has set things up so that it will break even on the sales, maybe make a couple of bucks. But the real motivation here is that Amazon saw what was happening with Apple and feared that as more people got their hands on iPads they would buy more books, music, apps, etc. from Apple. Amazon needed to get into customers' and potential customers' hands a device that would increase the chances that they would buy media directly from Amazon. You can say what you want about the design--I'm sure it's not as elegant as the iPad--but it's a brilliant move because the cost--less than half of an entry level iPad--will entice many a buyer and Amazon will at the very least put a speed bump in iPad's momentum.
iSuppli, who are usually more accurate, did a teardown of an actual Fire and placed BOM at ~$183, with a total cost to manufacture at ~$203, or about $4 OVER retail. Amazon's strategy is to be the Gillette of content and give away tablets to sell content. That's much is obvious, because you can't increase profits by selling more products you're losing money on.
But there is a Kindle apps for iPAD, I think people can still buy books from Amazon. I personally don't think this is a very nice idea to invest on developing another hardware that more or less is just a colorful ebook reader.
I'm not sure why you say that. It's a low-cost Android tablet. Yes, customized to make it easy for users to buy ebooks from Amazon, but still a tablet -- not just an eReader.
Personally, for reading books, I prefer the e-ink display of the regular Kindle. But I use a tablet for web browsing, email and general media consumption. For consumers who want just one device for all of that, they will want a tablet rather than a dedicated eReader. And for $199, the Fire is within reach of many more consumers than other tablets, especially the iPad.
Have you used one? It's not REALLY a tablet, so much as a content consumption device. It brings movies and (better supported) music to the Kindle environment. Its tablet functionality is severely limited. It's a Kindle, not really a tablet.
Kindle Fire appears to be much like the original iPad is a content consumption device. One of the key principles in the design of iPad 2 is that it be a content creation device as well. So you could say that the Fire is at least one gen behind Apple.
Another important consideration is that, as a Kindle, this qualifies for the new Lending Library. Frequent readers will easily recoup their investment if they use that feature, and it's not available to those using the free Kindle app. So... that $199 gets you a modestly powered but sufficient-for-many tablet that also has access to free books. I see it as being very appealing to a number of Amazon's customers.
I played with mine last night. It's a very capable tablet for the price. The Amazon UI is fairly intuitive. I had my parents up and running using it in minutes. It nicely played music I was streaming from my collection on the Amazon Cloud. While I was web browsing, scanning Facebook, playing Words with Friends, etc. I also streamed a movie from Amazon's library with little lag or any artifacts. Flash websites were also working nicely. Which was a pleasant surprise for an iPhone user like myself. And, the nice touch, it was already configured for me. I was connected to my Amazon account right out of the box. With links to all my digital property (music, Kindle books, etc.). For this price, it's tough to beat...
When everything is in the Cloud, yes. You only need enough to carry you over between WiFi connections. Storage is primarily used for apps, music, and books... and the FIre pulls those over the wire as needed. So... yes, 8GB is more than enough for most people. It's like comparing what you need to pack when you're going to spend a week at your parent's house vs what you need to pack if you're going to spend a week in a cave.
This is the first capacity reduction I've seen in a product, thanks to the cloud. Stocking for the cloud is going to be very different from stocking for consumer devices. You can market features to a consumer, but to the cloud?
Yes, I read at Amazon that it was 6 GB. So Amazon is effectively telling users they do not need to handle so much data for their sufficient satisfaction. By projection, they wouldn't even need so much on the cloud.
They should have marketed this as something strictly for kids, especially with the reading emphasis, instead of the average consumer.
In fact looking at it, it is quite a good strategy. Some people do not need so much space so users can have a choice of purchasing more storage from the cloud.
Amazon can do a lowcost phone for the next move.
The only value this first Amazon Kindle tablet has for me is to bring up whether more resources should be put in the hands of the consumer or in the cloud. A cheaper consumer device means a more expensive cloud. And since cloud resources need the most advanced cooling, it can never be cost effective.
To be honest, though I have stuff stored on the cloud, I hardly look at them, because of the additional login. Even Facebook photos will pass into oblivion. So I don't think purchasing cloud storage will work, unless maybe it is insured to be highly maintained (better than myself) and guaranteed backup.
But why I won't buy any Amazon screen is I thought general advice was not to stare at a screen for more than a half-hour at a time. That's why paper books will always be healthier.
There is a belief that demand of low cost tablet exists. Personally, I think there is because not everyone can afford a $500 iPad. Not everyone needs an iPad. If you are looking for browsing web, reading eBook or magazine, watching your photo album and enjoying videos, Kindle Fire might just be right for you. 8MB may look a bit small. Yet it should be able to hold 2 to 3 100 minutes movies, thousand of phones and, some books and magazines. Plus, if the first release of Kindle fire results in good sales, a 32G or 64G might be available really soon.
Actually, laptops that are cheaper than even the Kindle Fire are available right now. The only attraction that a tablet additionally provides is the portability. If one is satisfied with using a laptop (or netbook), then there should be no additional incentive in buying a tablet.
Don't underestimate the allure of that portability, though. This tablet is one you can stick in a coat pocket and can use on a crowded train. There is nowhere you can use a laptop that you couldn't or wouldn't use this, but there are many places and situations where you could not or would not use a laptop but could use this.
I think the real reason for Amazon to sell this tablet is because it is totally Amazon cloud dependent. Even for web browsing, all the html is rendered on the Amazon servers, and only presentation images are sent to the Kindle Fire. That means all your web browsing activity, even on secure web pages, is ripe for Amazon to mine for their own use (and to sell to advertisers). If you think you are doing secure browsing, forget it. You give all your Kindle Fire activity data to Amazon, they resell it, use it for their own marketing, and probably sell your passwords as well.
No thanks, No Kindle Fire.
"...and probably sell your passwords as well." Yes, exactly. I mean, what could Amazon possibly stand to lose by selling passwords? Surely nothing, right? Do you have any proof that https-accessed sites are preloaded anyway?
You can disable the pre-loading if you're paranoid.
From Amazon's description of how Silk on the Fire handles SSL:
"What about handling secure (https) connections?
"Amazon Silk routes secure (SSL) web page requests directly from the Kindle Fire to origin servers so they do not pass through AWS servers. As an additional security measure, Amazon Silk encrypts all web traffic between the Kindle Fire and our AWS infrastructure, even where traditional browsers would not encrypt."
NOTE: They "DO NOT PASS THROUGH AWS SERVERS."
Oct 26, 2011 Bloomberg : "The company is taking on Apple in the market for tablet computers and sales of digital songs, books and movies. To gain an edge in tablets, Amazon is selling its new Kindle Fire device for as low as $199 -- less than half the price of Apple’s cheapest iPad. At that price, the company will lose $10 per device, research firm IHS Inc. (IHS) estimates. "
Kindle Fire is furthering the visionary change, and driving the technology in to more hands. Who can live without touch screen now?
Now we need free WIFI everywhere. I prefer the IPOD but I bought 4 Kindle Fires - they are spectacular performance, and my 2 year old granddaughter is using hers now!
Netflix & Yo Gabba Gabba! I sure hope the component suppliers reliability holds up. OMAP is kinda out of the mainstream lately.
This is great, and yes the touch screen is here and we love it. But the price of $199 will never reach the digital divide community; they are still trying to get a laptop. We are blessed to have access to all of this wonderful technology…what about the others who cannot afford this technology? It would be great to provide a discount to some people based on their income for Kindle Fire...The goal is to get everyone to start reading again...Right? I hope Kindle Fire representatives are reading this post.
Amazon entered into tablet market that also seems with a lowest profit. Will he be able to provide free services efficiently during the warranty period? Are their plans are strong enough to service tablets after warranty period? we need to watch the future.
Forgive me for chuckling at the notion of servicing tablets in this price range. For a top end iPad with 64GB and 3G at $999, yes, I can see paying to replace the battery when it wears out. But for a $199 tablet like Kindle Fire? I think that in this price range, I think if anything goes bad after the warranty period -- even something as innocuous as a worn-out battery -- you recycle it and buy a new one...by then it will be Kindle Fire 2, which most users of the first version would rather have anyway.
I wished to see more detailed descriptions of the tear down rather than these dumb pictures. I feel amazons strategy is right to sell the hardware at the less price to increase the sales of services in future.
I think it is a good device at that price point. No use comparing it with the iPad since it doesn't tout to be one but heck, it can do 90% of what the iPad can do for a lot lot less and of course with the distinct advantage of access to the huge Amazon store of music and books.