[Macworld]

Post your comments for Kindle sales soar but Amazon mum on actual numbers here

[bastion]

"Some observers were likely also disappointed that Amazon didn’t disclose unit sales figures for its popular Kindle e-readers. It said only that during the last nine weeks of 2011, Kindle unit sales, including the Fire tablet, increased 177 percent compared to the same period in 2010."

What makes this problematic is that it has become very common for people to make the error of saying "unit sales increased 177%" when what actually happened is that unit sales were 177% of what they were in the reference quarter. Without actual numbers, we have no way of knowing what was really meant.

[Inkling]

With books Amazon has an advantage over physical bookstores, particularly in states where it refuses to pay sales tax. But with tablets, most of the advantages lie with Apple, particularly the iPhone/iPad's enormously rich variety of apps. Steve Jobs may have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into offering full-featured apps (not just web apps) on his iDevices, but today's Apple knows their value.

As best I can tell, Amazon simply doesn't 'get' apps. The apps selection for epaper Kindles is pitiful. I've purchased about 250 apps for my iPhone. I've yet to find even a single free app for my Kindle 3 that's worth downloading. Attracted by the price, I thought about getting a Kindle Fire, but changed my mind when I realized the quality of apps was unlikely to be as good as that on an iPad. I'd be paying $200 for a gadget whose sole reason for existing is to consume Amazon content. I'd be better off waiting and putting that $200 toward a second-hand iPad. Used ones go for about $250 in Seattle.

Of course, Apple doesn't make any money when people buy used, so if they really want to give Steve Bezos some sleepless nights, they need iPads with competitive prices. Keeping the iPhone 3GS available at a better price when the iPhone 4 was released was a good move. That's why I was able to afford one.

Apple needs to do the same thing when the iPad 3 comes out. Keeping a 16 GB iPad 2 available for $350 would have Amazon scrambling to keep their Kindle Fire sales numbers up. And it'd come at a time when consumers are starting to grasp the limitations of the Kindle Fire.

[charles Wood]

I own two Mac Pros, iPod Touch and a Kindle Fire, wife owns an iMac and and iPad. We've also got a couple of PCs including a new ASUS laptop. So, we're middle of the road consumers. We don't lean extremely one way or the other in the PC & Apple worlds. I considered an iPad but for my purposes (surfing, email, reading, watching streaming video) the Kindle Fire performs perfectly well at far less expense than an iPad. I also have the ability to surf websites that incorporate Adobe Flash. You can't do that with an iPad. I get 7-8 hours of battery life from the Fire. The video looks just as good as that on the iPad. I find it rather amusing how easily some Apple fans summarily dismiss the Fire. For many such as myself, the Fire is all that is needed for consuming. If I want to create I use something a bit more serious than the Fire or an iPad.

[bastion]

Inkling, on 01 February 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

With books Amazon has an advantage over physical bookstores, particularly in states where it refuses to pay sales tax. But with tablets, most of the advantages lie with Apple, particularly the iPhone/iPad's enormously rich variety of apps. Steve Jobs may have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into offering full-featured apps (not just web apps) on his iDevices, but today's Apple knows their value.

Yesterday's Apple did, too. The release of the iOS SDK (specifically including documentation suitable for external developers, which is a very time-intensive task) was far too quick for it to have been a reaction to feedback rather than a planned event that simply wasn't ready in time for the release of the phone.

Quote

Of course, Apple doesn't make any money when people buy used, so if they really want to give Steve Bezos some sleepless nights, they need iPads with competitive prices. Keeping the iPhone 3GS available at a better price when the iPhone 4 was released was a good move. That's why I was able to afford one.

Apple doesn't make money *directly* when people buy a used iPad from someone other than Apple, but they still benefit indirectly. That said, I certainly agree that keeping a cheaper iPad 2 around when/if the iPad 3 is released at the traditional price points would be a major concern for *all* potential competitors. Apple's in the catbird seat as far as control over a lot of the necessary components. The prices other tablet makers are paying for those basic pieces are really squeezing their profit margins if they're also trying to stay price competitive today.