The premise upon which this depends requires construing the Fire as Amazon's ground zero entry into the segment and dogmatic acceptance of the standard narrative in which the market segment for tablets or slates did not exist prior to the introduction of touchscreen devices in the form of Apple's iPad.
But neither is the case, just as smartphones were available for years before the introduction of the iPhone, likewise, the Fire is an extension of Amazon's well established product line - an extension which given the naming convention Amazon has employed (Kindle -> Fire), one may reasonably suspect has been on the drawing board for quite some time.
Another way to look at the potential for disruption which the Fire may hold is to consider it as an extension of the disruption Android caused in the smartphone market; i.e. making touchscreen smartphones ubiquitous commodity devices. Indeed, Amazon's agenda with the Fire (and Kindle) is more analogous to Google's with Android than to Apple's for the iPad.
One of the other relevant details is that any subsidies that are provided are done so by the wireless carriers, not Apple. Apple gets paid in full for each iOS device sold, either by the carrier (iPhones), or by the customer direct (the other iOS devices). By being immediately profitable on each iOS device, Apple has no "subsidy variables" to factor into its profitability -v- product lifecycle calculations.
Estimate from iSuppli (yes, the infamous iSuppli) claiming loss: http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Amazon-Sells-Kin...
Make of that what you will.
that said, maybe it will be amazon's bing, but bing buys microsoft insurance that may be much less costly to them than the risk of a google owned future.
my take with the fire is that amazon wants people to move from physical goods to electronic goods—they know that not everyone who owns a fire will consume their goods, but they also know that the more accessible the means to consume those goods, the more business for their core business—the one that makes them money, even if just for 20 days.
The future opportunities in controlling digital content and mostly e-commerce are huge.Wal-mart size huge.New prime customers really help amazon fight for those opportunities. Losing a bit of money on tablets is just small investment, nothing more.
1. I want the larger screen. The ipod's is too small for comfortable reading.
2. I want to be able to transfer books to the device without having to go through itunes. Isn't it mysterious that I can copy pictures from the ipod using a usb cable, but cannot copy anything to it?
3. I'm hoping Fire's browser will be able to see shared files on my LAN. Safari on the ipod mysteriously won't, although Safari on the Mac will. This limitation severely limits the usefulness of the ipod, as it cannot see my local shared books, pictures, or music.
I have an older Kindle, which I like very much, but it won't see shared files either. But at least they labeled it's browser as "experimental", so I had no expectations. And I can transfer books to it via usb from my desktop without needing to install anything on the desktop.
Don't get me wrong, I like the ipod a lot. But I want a fire, too [stamps feet].
Amazon is presenting this as a win for users. Perhaps, but not only so. It’s also a win for people who build complicated web applications. Such as... Drum roll... Amazon.com.
What the Kindle claims to have going for it is that I as a consumer can buy a low-end device but enjoy a high-end experience when I use a non-trivial web application such as online shopping.
