Have Amazon priced other Android manufacturers out of the tablet market?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Stormchild

I must remember to tell her they are a figment of her imagination then. Must be the beer.

If you could give a specific example it would serve to clarify your point.

[Stormchild]

See above Harry.

[HarryT]

Thanks - we posted at the same time!

The general problem with these low-cost no-name Chinese tablets, in my experience is that they tend to have a poor battery life, and extremely poor build quality. If you read the reviews for the one you linked to, you'll note that there are a number of complaints about poor quality and reliability. There really is a reason why that tablet costs £69 and the Nexus costs £199. You get what you pay for.

[kennyc]

Have Amazon priced other Android manufacturers out of the tablet market?

No, because Kindle Fire is not a generic tablet.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks - we posted at the same time!

The general problem with these low-cost no-name Chinese tablets, in my experience is that they tend to have a poor battery life, and extremely poor build quality. If you read the reviews for the one you linked to, you'll note that there are a number of complaints about poor quality and reliability. There really is a reason why that tablet costs £69 and the Nexus costs £199. You get what you pay for.

Yes, there is much more to it that just the specs. Yes, basically you get what you pay for (based on the reputation and support of the seller).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No, because Kindle Fire is not a generic tablet.

Exactly!

It may look like a generic tablet but it is a harbinger of an entirely different business.

There is a bigger disruption going on here than meets the casual eye.
This isn't just about Amazon dropping prices; it is about shifting where the consumer finds the value and monetizing it.
The problem for Google and (some of) the OEMs is that Amazon is turning tablets into a services play, not a pure hardware play. In hardware-only business, you make'em, ship'em, and contract somebody to service'em if they break. They buy and you're done. And they buy based on the checklist of features.
In a services gadget business, the user expects that at least part of the value of the device comes from the services they can access with the device, not the features of the hardware. (Who care about the inner specs of a TiVo or a Roku? Or a plain old feature phone? As long as they do what they promise, *how* services devices work is largely irrelevant.) This is *dangerous* to the established gadget vendors. Disruptive.

Think of the XBOX (so we don't have to go to Kindle or iPad); it took Sony years and Nintendo a whole console generation to get it through their heads that people really were buying XBOXes to access the LIVE gaming network. That the matchmaking and social-gaming aspects weren't just features but they were the *product*. That back-end services mattered. By then, MS had moved on to add more services and lately a horde of competing/complementary services and we've reached a point you can buy an XBOX and get your money's worth out of it without ever playing a game on it or caring what the specs are.
As long as the hardware is good enough to connect them to the desired services and offer a top-rate experience consumers don't care that the core architecture is 7 years old; the buyers don't care what the CPU and GPU architectures are like. All they care is they can get fast and pristine streaming video from Hulu or Vudu or NBCNEWS or Today. Or clear audio from Last.FM or I (Heart) Radio, or whatever.
Services devices may use computer hardware but they dont sell like computers sell. And applying computer business models may lead to...issues...

Android tablets aren't anywhere close to that, but that is where Bezos sees things going. And with his track record, it is worth considering he may be right. Especially when he is helping te disruption along.

When the value of a gadget lies in the services, the hardware only has to be good enough to get you the services. Having a quadcore laser-blasting slate means nothing if the consumer can't even get to the video streaming store they want. Or if they have to jump through hoops istead of just turning it on and using it.

Look to the Bezos presentation and his obscure comment about not wanting customers on an "upgrade treadmill". It might have been just a hint that the original FIRE will be updated with most of the new software and services. Or it might be a warning to the industry that they intend to standardize on a design and ride it down the price curve for several years the way gaming consoles do, so that the current FireHD9 might be sold not just for a year and replaced by "hotter" hardware but stay around with minor tweaks and updates but at a lower price. Like they did with the original Fire. Imagine that $299 HD9 going for $249 next year. And $199 in 2014. Or the FireHD7 at $159 and the original Fire at $129 next year.
Google's business model is for others to ship the hardware, deal with the upgrade treadmill of having to constantly one-up each other to stay relevant, while *they* get the services revenue through Play and the search ads and what-not. Without *sharing* one red cent with the OEMs.

Amazon playing the tablet game as a rogue android vendor with their own competing services is a "bad example" and a threat to Google because they are shifting the devices' profits from an upfront lump sum to a continuing trickle. (Yes, as in the ereader market.) If the market shifts that way (not a given by any means, not yet) Google would be getting the bulk of the android tablet revenue and the OEMs little or nothing. If it goes that way, how soon before the OEMs start asking for a share of those revenues?

Right now, OEMs bend over to carry Google's PLAY app store because it adds value to the hardware. But what share of those sales do they get? What happens to Google's android business when the major OEMs demand a slice of Play revenues from their devices? Worse, what if the carriers start demanding changes to the licensing terms?

Even worse, what if Amazon shares some of their Appstore revenue with some of the OEMs or gets into the Phone business and offers carriers a sweeter deal? There are actual grumblings that carriers want a bigger share of Apple's monster iPhone profits. And Apple isn't even primarily a services player; they're still primarily a vendor of high-margin hardware. And the carriers want some of that margin because their services revenue trickle isn't trickling enough.

And, of course, even in the staid PC world, the old balance between OEM and tech provider is shifting too. MS is getting into the flagship hardware game *and* beefing up their not-inconsiderable Windows services business. There is disruption to come there, too.

For years we've heard the tech industry talk of moving into services but the meaning of it has always been nebulous. Now that they are actually doing it, though, it is starting to take shape. And the shape it is taking on is a familiar one to the ebook business: it is the long tail of long-term recurring sales. Products that can't survive on short-term upfront revenue can do nicely with a long tail attached, whether they be gadgets or non-Bestseller midlister novels.

[fjtorres]

Some people see tablets as computers and measure them by PC guidelines; CPU. GPU, RAM, storage.
But Bezos made it clear right up front: Fire isn't a product, (or a computer) but instead a service conduit.
People who buy Fire's are buying the services and access to the content those services offer.
(Just as XBOX buyers are buying XBOX live and all it brings to the living room. And Kindle reader buyers are buying access to the Kindle store, Whispernet, etc)

If the hardware is all you care about, then...
"Move along, move along... There is nothing to see here."

Or as James Bond would say, "Live and let die."

[Stormchild]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks - we posted at the same time!

The general problem with these low-cost no-name Chinese tablets, in my experience is that they tend to have a poor battery life, and extremely poor build quality. If you read the reviews for the one you linked to, you'll note that there are a number of complaints about poor quality and reliability. There really is a reason why that tablet costs £69 and the Nexus costs £199. You get what you pay for.

In most cases I would agree wholeheartedly. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, my daughter has 3 tablets, similar but not quite the same, which have performed flawlessly for over 6 months now. I can only speak as I see and I don't think perceived quality should detract from original point. Amazon can not price other manufacturers out of the market because of many factors, one being the huge number of cheap tablets out there. I am not attacking Amazon here, as I use them almost weekly, quite happily.

Oh and thanks for a reasonable response unlike the earlier poster who unfortunately seems rather typical of Mobileread at the moment.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by GrantCostello

The new HD 8.6 inch tablet is supposedly more powerful too, but I'm not convinced until I've seen benchmarks.

I'm not convinced about that either. Both the OMAP4470 and the Tegra3 are based on ARM A9, but the OMAP is a dual-core whereas the Tegra3 is a quad-core. The only advantage I see on the OMAP is the dual-channel RAM.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Stormchild

Oh and thanks for a reasonable response unlike the earlier poster who unfortunately seems rather typical of Mobileread at the moment.

Sorry for the tone. But your statement is factually not true. It is a ludicrous claim. There is a huge difference between a table that people are happy with, and a tablet that has the same specs at twice the price.

The tablet you linked to, for example, has a screen resolution of 800x480. That is far worse than even last year's Kindle fire, which had 1024 x 600, or the Nexus 7 or new Kindle Fire with 1280x800, or the new Fire.

The KF has a battery life of 8.5 hours. The KF HD has a battery life of 11 hours. The Nexus has a battery life of over 9 hours. From the reviews, the battery life on this is 3-4 hours.

(And of course many of the reviews are extremely critical of the device, claiming that the speed is really 800 mhz, that the charger doesn't work, etc.).

Again, this might be an option for someone who is budget conscious. But it is not at all the same, spec-wise or quality-wise, with a year-old KF, much less the Nexus 7 or new KF HD.

[Crowl]

For smaller tablets the nexus7 is probably a bigger issue for oems than the kindle fire, you have a device that is not hampered by a reduced application range with a good level of specs and reliable updates so the others need ways to stand out or to get by on low margins, the new kindle fires add to that pressure but don't overwhelm things.

For those who tout the overall amazon ecosystem as being a defining advantage, most if not all of it is available on the normal tablets without an inadequate AppStore being their only option. (for a device ideal for reading, just try to find a good comic app on the amazon one)

One thing that amazon have done this time which might help other tablet makers is their larger model, it is a nice size that has almost all the advantages of the 9.7" & 10.1" models but you save a fair bit of weight due to the smaller screen needing a smaller battery and thus you get closer to the comfortable to use one-handed situation of eink readers and the 7" tablets. If somebody can bring out a good one globally before amazon gets round to shipping outside the states they could really take advantage of the interest amazon have genereated in the form factor.

[vxf]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

Amazon: break-even on hardware is okay

Samsung + Acer + others: We are a hard-ware company so We need to make money on hardware.

The exception might be Google Nexus line. But I see trouble ahead for Samsung/Acer/etc...in the tablet market.

Yes. Isn't that wonderful? We get a good product at break-even price!
If the higher prices of Samsung and Acer were compensated for by their better hardware, people would have paid. As it is, apparently the demand was not there.
I mean... if I go out there and build the ultimate supercar that can hit 600 mph and makes coffee but costs two gazillion dollars, should I blame Ford for providing a cheaper product that is pricing me out of the market? Or should I recognize that no-one needs, or wants, a car that does 600 mph?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by vxf

If the higher prices of Samsung and Acer were compensated for by their better hardware, people would have paid. As it is, apparently the demand was not there.

Samsung tablets are outselling Amazon tablets by about 2 to 1.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/2/321...nation-q2-2012

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vxf

Yes. Isn't that wonderful? We get a good product at break-even price!
If the higher prices of Samsung and Acer were compensated for by their better hardware, people would have paid. As it is, apparently the demand was not there.

People are paying. Samsung are the best-selling maker of Android tablets world-wide.

[morriss003]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No there aren't; that's ridiculous.

What about these?

http://www.pandawill.com/notebook-ta...d-os-c306.html