Subscribe to Windows IT Pro

How Apple Can Beat the Kindle Fire


Posted @ 11/18/2011 3:47 PM By Paul Thurrott

 

Amazon's Kindle Fire tablet is a far better device than most reviewers would have you believe. And while my own review of this amazing media tablet is still a ways away, I did want to offer up one thought about this emerging two-way race beforehand. And that's how Apple could beat Amazon at its own game.

It all boils down to three simple points: Size, price, and choice.

Size. The first step would be for Apple to release a smaller iPad with a 7-inch screen but the same resolution as the first two iPad revisions. This product would be a bit smaller than the Fire, since it utilizes a 4:3 screen instead of a widescreen display, and I think we all know Apple could deliver a thinner and lighter device that gets better battery life.

Two points about this size. First, it's ideal: I've been asking for an iPad that was the size and shape of last year's Kindle (what's now called the Kindle Keyboard) since the original iPad was revealed. And second, it's impossible to look at an iPad and an iPod touch next to each other and not think there's plenty of room for a device that fits right in the middle.

Price. Amazon, of course, is seen as the low-cost offering, and it is: The Kindle Fire costs just $200, about one-third the cost of a mid-level iPad. But there's a weakness in that low price, too. And that's that Amazon has nowhere to go. You can't lower the price of the Fire much lower than $200 anytime soon. Perhaps $150 eventually, but even at that level the company would be taking a bath on each unit sold.

So what about the iPad? Obviously, Apple's going to have to lower prices. In fact, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. But let's think about a 7-inch device that sits comfortably in the middle ground between today's iPod touch and the iPad. Generally speaking, smaller is more expensive. But if you think of this device as a bigger iPod touch, there's no reason it couldn't cost the same as today's iPod touch models, plus a bit extra for the glass and a few other components. And what's an entry level iPod touch, with 8 GB of storage, cost? That's right. $200. Just like the Kindle Fire.

And let's be honest here, folks would pay a bit more for an Apple product anyway. So let's say $250 to $300 including the Apple tax. With a low-end 10-inch iPad costing a more reasonable $400, that price range starts to make plenty of sense.

Choice. There is a key difference between the Apple and Amazon business models here and I have to say, Apple is the company that emerges in the better position. Both companies now sell devices and have a vast supporting ecosystem of content and apps. But Apple's primary business is the devices, and it uses that ecosystem to the support hardware sales. Amazon's business model is the reverse: It sells content, and it uses the devices as a conduit for selling that content.

So why is this a problem for Amazon? Well, the Kindle Fire is currently a gateway to Amazon services only. Yes, you can access some third party services like Netflix. But only on the iPad/iOS do you get the full range of choice. So someone who buys an iPad could read Apple's iBooks eBooks. Or Amazon's, using the Kindle app. Or Barnes & Noble's, using that app. On the Kindle Fire, you only gain access to Amazon. There are exceptions on either side, but ultimate, I'd rather have a 7-inch iPad than a 7-inch Kindle Fire. And I bet many other people would too.

Choice takes other forms, and it's worth noting that this imaginary Apple device would also come in two colors, with Wi-Fi and 3G options on a variety of carriers, and would come with varying amounts of storage at different price points. Remember: Apple is about the devices. But with the Fire, you get one unit, and I hope 8 GB of storage (6.5 GB usage) is enough for you. It's not for me.

And that is how Apple can and should take on the Kindle Fire: Simply build a 7-inch iPad, price it aggressively, and provide the standard range of Apple choices for the device. Game over. 

Related Content:

Comments
  • Marc Wagner
    6 months ago
    Nov 21, 2011

    Apple has never been interested in competiting at commodity price-points. Why woud they start now? As long as they maintain a loyal customer-base, they just won't care.

    Apple simply cannot survive on commodity profit margins. They would jsut be another player in the game. That said ...

    I agree that a 7" iPad is a GOOD idea. With each iteration of Apple products, prices RARELY fall - instead, feature are added. The iPod Touch (4 gen) offers 8GB for $199. The iPad 2 offers 16GB for $500. Apple could offer a 7" iPad 3 @ $399 with 16GB and a 10" iPad 3 @ 599 with 32GB and follow their historical pattern of upgrading features rather that cutting prices. This would be a SMART move for Apple.

  • Wibble
    6 months ago
    Nov 20, 2011

    Apple have never competed at the low end; they only compete at the premium end.

    It'll be fun to see if Windows 8 will run on such low-end hardware! From what I've read, even the Kindle Fire doesn't run well on it's hardware.

    There's a reason an iPad costs what it does.

  • ModernDislocation
    6 months ago
    Nov 19, 2011

    While that certainly answers the how Apple can compete with the Fire, I leaves the bigger question of "Why would Apple want to compete with the Fire?"

  • John Sullivan
    6 months ago
    Nov 18, 2011

    I think the bigger question about a Windows 8 tablet is what apps will exist for it? Even at $200 with no apps it is useless. It makes no sense to me to have 250,000 apps for Windows phone at the time of the launch of the tablet but the 250,000 apps only work on the phone. Why MS doesn't just make a 7.5" or 10" phone is beyond me. This could have been in the market now. The Titan is half way there. The office hub is better than anything anyone else has for business productivity and it is "Metro" style now. The important things are in the phone now. It just needs more storage and a bigger screen.

    Why tick off all the corporate uses with a Metro interface on the desktop OS when you don't need to? Why start over to build up a decent number of Apps for tablets? Hell they could save Win 8 for a corporate solution and at least be in the consumer market NOW with a WP7 based tablet.

    I know everyone likes an underdog but the MS strategy is negligent and completely ignores the importance of time to market. It is a failure to acknowledge how far behind they are.

  • chuckb84
    6 months ago
    Nov 18, 2011

    I agreed with BananaJR over on Wininfo and I'll do the same here. Just as iOS and Android have left little space for Windows Phones, so now the Fire and iPads are taking up all the space in the tablet arena.

    Where does a Windows Tablet fit into this? I agree that a tablet-ized version of Office is about all I can see that provides any attraction to such a device and with all these devices now accessing Exchange and having the .docx, etc file read/write capabilities, the differentiation is small.

    We're then left with the notion that users will want "classic" Windows apps on a Windows tablet, and that's a farfetched notion since the interface on those programs is entirely different than what you get in a multitouch system.

    I agree that Apple can release a 7" iPad that will compete handily with the Fire, in fact probably blow it away. However, there are issues, notably screen resolution. Should in be a larger, pixelated iPhone resolution or a squished 10" iPad screen? Either of those has serious esthetic issues and SJ would NEVER have released such a thing. Whether that ethos still drives Apple is an interesting question.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.