I've never understood why Apple hasn't released iTunes for Android yet. They make it for Windows, why not Android? Imagine being able to watch iTunes video on a Kindle Fire.
Easy, because it's a bitch to do and wouldn't make them nearly enough money to be worthwhile.
iTunes for Windows does not exist to sell iTunes Store Content to Windows users; it exists solely and only to let Windows users support iOS devices (and iPods, but that's increasingly irrelevant).
Which version of Droid would you like? There are many still being released in the zillions of cheap phones available.
Also, why would they? As many have pointed out, there's no margin in the Droid platform.
I'm unclear as to why you think Kindles are restricted to buying & viewing books from Amazon. (Assuming that's what you meant, that sentence is somehow deeply wrong...) Every Kindle, since day 1, has been able to read DRM-free files in a variety of formats, bolstered by Amazon's free document conversion service. ePub requires a separate reader app on the Fire (there are many), and there is at least one desktop program, Calibre, that can convert ePub for e-ink Kindles.
It's a specific statement I'm making (which I can tweak to make clearer) in response to what Bezos said. On the hardware device you may only purchase books from Amazon. Viewing, no, but it requires conversion and sideloading, even though it's not restricted (same with Apple's iBooks). I'll make this more accurate and clearer!
However iBooks will read any ePub or PDF without any trouble at all as I get dozens of such docs every month from publisher for review. What I can't read in iBooks is anything from Amazon or BN!
Not exactly true. Many third party booksellers (and book-givers) will let you deliver books directly to your Kindle through downloads, emails, or other methods. This even works on older e-ink Kindle's janky "experimental" browser. For that matter, so does iBooks, using the "Open In..." option.
Try to buy a book from Barnes & Noble on the Kindle.
Bezos is being disingenuous in talking about open and closed systems. He freely admits the Amazon business plan is to sell Kindles at break-even to make money off the sales of content. Amazon has designed the Kindles (and the Fire) to push Amazon content over everything else. It is obviously possible to access the internet and other vendor sites but Amazon tries to control the experience as much as possible. I understand the reasoning but just because the fences can be jumped over doesn't mean they don't exist.
What is the break even point for Amazon then. If they sell hardware at a loss and expect to make it up on content sales, how much does a user have to buy throughout the device's lifetime for Amazon to profit?
It seems like they don't want people to upgrade annually because the subsidy is essentially compounded with multiple devices (since content bought for a previous device went to pay for that subsidy).
Good question. I'll bet it's not like a cell phone contract, where you're locked into a contract and you repay the value of the phone plus profit over time. Instead, the profit for Kindles comes out of the entire pool. You might not personally buy enough media to fulfill the cost of the hardware (although Amazon's claims about increased reading/purchases among Kindle owners seems valid), but there are no doubt other people who buy many more books/videos/games. You get a few million devices in the market, and it all adds up. Plus, since Amazon has been doing this for a while now, they probably get good pricing on components and manufacturing; maybe not Apple-good, but still good.
"how much does a user have to buy throughout the device's lifetime for Amazon to profit?"
The real question is how much will people buy through the Kindle Fire that they would not have bought otherwise--i.e., ADDITIONAl sales. If Amazon only sells what it would have sold without the Kindle, they'll lose. (Actually, they are pretty much losing right now. Their profit margin and earnings are minuscule. Wal-Mart and Target beat Amazon in that respect.)
There is yet another crucial question:
How much content people is buying through the Kindle Fire that they would have bought somewhere else otherwise - i.e., avoiding loss of sales and raising of competiting platforms and channels.
The game is about mantaining strong control of the channel and owning the platform in the long term, rather than profiting with a blades&razors model in the short term.
It may take a big hit on the balance sheet now, but eventually the cost of low-end reading and media consumption hardware will become negligible, while on the high-end they could break-even or even make a profit; due to scale, improved design and manufacturing ability, and user satisfaction/brand recognition of the Kindle platform - as you can see, they've already started marketing high-end models with price points much closer to Apple's offering.
I'm not completely sold on Amazon's, no profit on the razor, we pray we'll make it up in razor blade sales, strategy. With the hardware specs that they have released (still waiting on battery usage on the KF HD 8.9) and the price point they have stated, I'm not sure they are selling them at cost. Add in the low cost 4G service and they are basically buying customers . People are going to have to buy an awful lot of content to offset the hardware and 4G plan subsidies. Since Amazon has also been known (particularly with books) to sell content below normal (maybe acceptable) prices it will take even longer to achieve profits with this strategy. And people like me that have a lot of content already aren't going to help them get to profitability any sooner.
If you look at Amazon's revenue vs costs (to yield true profit margin) their margins are razor thin by typical standards. Their P/E ratio is insanely high (315!! vs GE at 18.7, Microsoft at 15 and Apple at 16). The market believes (presumably) that Amazon is building territory and that profits will come. Bezo's claimed that they make money when people use their device, not when they buy it (unlike Apple). Are you suggesting he is lying?
I would never accuse Jeff Bezos of lying. To lie he would have to have knowledge and intent other than what he has stated, and I have no way of verifying that he has contrary knowledge or intent. He may, however, be overestimating the expected result. This is a time honored tradition of salesmen.
While Amazon makes sales when users make purchases through the Kindle Fires, that is not a guarantee that Amazon makes money. And I can think of a number of ways to use the Kindle Fire, mostly for its intended purpose, without making any purchases, at which point even when I am using the device, they are not making money from me.
The true test of apple's "long-term" support will come after next week, when we see how long they will support the 3GS after they stop selling it.
My bet, if you buy one on a 2 year contract _today_, the full support will be shorter than your contract...
If "support" means how many new versions of the OS you can upgrade to, then the time of your purchase is irrelevant : either the 3GS will take iOS 6, or it won't. Apple seems to be saying it will.
Likely, the 3GS won't take iOS 7, no matter when you bought it or buy it in the future.
If "support" means telephone and warranty type support, then you get the same as any other purchase. Again, time of your purchase is irrelevant.
If "support" means Genius support at an Apple Store, then you get forever, as with any other purchase. Again, time of your purchase is irrelevant.
Buying it today, your 3GS will function the same or better over the whole two years as day one (you will get the iOS 6 update). You will be able to download iOS 6 on day one even though the 3GS is like 3+ years old. That is long term support in anyone's book.
The true test of a reasonable person is to understand the simple facts above. No need to entertain some idea that Apple isn't holding up its end.
That's an interesting point. I was looking at the point of view of buying a phone model introduced three years ago (with relatively skimpy specs) that can run a new update to the operating system.
Yeah, I was thinking mostly software (OS, cloud and other) support from Apple.
And no, you are wrong, to the consumer, the time of release doesn't matter, what matters is when they buy it. If it is that bad and old to not update it 6 months later, then they shouldn't sell it, it's that simple.
Isn't that what we say about all the low-end android phones (high end is mostly released with the newest and/or gets updates)?
For another example of Apple's "long-term" support: if you bought an original iPad 2 years ago, it's already unsupported (won't run iOS 6). Bezos might be referring to this specific example, and targeting iPad 1 customers who feel slighted at the lack of support.
I found that disappointing, too, and it's one of the few lapses (along with not providing iCloud support or something for at least Snow Leopard users) in a long record. It's these lapses that are more pronounced, you know, because Apple generally avoids being irritating in this way.
That's an even better example. You can also buy iPad 2 _today_, and a week from now, it will stop getting updates.
Actually, iPad 2 will be able to run iOS 6 according to the Apple page here: http://www.apple.com/ios/ios6/
(scroll to the bottom)
So the iPad 2 will be getting updates a week from now...or whenever iOS 6 is actually available.
What do you mean by not getting updates. I own both an iPad 2 and the 3rd year iPad. It appears that overall I am getting updates on both with the exception of things that are particular to the newer device.
A little confusion here. The original iPad can run iOS 5, but cannot be upgraded to iOS 6. The iPad 2 (2011) and 3rd-generation iPad (2012), all versions, may be upgraded to iOS 6 when it ships as a free update in the next few weeks.
After spending the last six months trying to get my music collection onto the Amazon Cloud Drive that I paid for (and not succeeding) and realizing their tech support department is inept and useless (and their software is awful - it just doesn't work), why would I buy anything else from Amazon?
Most owners of Kindles and Fire must be completely different customers than my wife and I. We've owned a couple kindles for years and have never purchased through the Amazon ecosystem. We get our books elsewhere and convert them via Calibre.
I disagree. I think Apple is very much 'guilty' of doing these things.
treadmill -- They make most of their money from the high margins of their hardware sales and they understandably want people to buy new devices. When I look at Siri for the 4S and not the 4, or iMessage for Mountain Lion but not for the one year older version, I can't help but think that this is very intentional to differentiate the new products from the old ones and make them more attractive.
openness -- When you use Amazon's services, you are not locked into only buying Amazon devices. You can read those books from any device. Apple on the other hand, tries to maximize the lock-in to their ecosystem. For example, Facetime is only available on Apple devices. If someone uses Facetime, he probably won't consider a non-apple device for his next purchase. Now compare that to Skype.
Are you suggesting that Apple stop releasing improved products? Stupid idea, no? New models aren't necessarily targeted at owners of last year's model, but no hardware company (nor Amazon, apparently) can afford to stop putting out new models. Bezos is playing the FUD card.
Of course they should release new products and if those are enough of an improvement, people certainly can upgrade. However, on the software side Apple tends to focus increasingly on the newer models. If I'm informed correctly the beta version of iMessage ran on Lion, but for the final one you need Mountain Lion. To me that suggest that they hold it back from people with a one year old OS to focus on the new one.
With a service-oriented business model like amazon's, the company wouldn't care which version the customer uses and would try to support every version they can (with a reasonable amount of effort).
Seems to me like they've extended the treadmill through yearly OS releases.
Has Amazon announced that last years Kindle Fire will be updated to this years OS (since the original was forked from Android 2.2 and the new OS is forked from Android 4.0)?
I'm amazed some people can turn the truth on its head so completely and find fault with even one of the world's most innovative companies, when their criticism essentially amounts to "Damn you Apple for continually improving your products at such a breakneck pace and making me regret buying the earlier model when the new one comes out a year later."
The fact is, one of the things that Apple "gets", and most of its competitors do not, about selling products that involve a sophisticated mixture of hardware and software, is that the way to maximize the value (and hence satisfaction) the customers derive from their hardware purchases is to ensure 1. Backward compatibility of software updates with as wide a range of past hardware as possible, and
2. Control of the software update mechanism to ensure that they are available to all eligible devices immediately on release and that the update is done as easily as possible.
Apple gets it. Android notoriously doesn't. I don't know about Kindle.
You stated "The fact is, one of the things that Apple "gets", and most of its competitors do not, about selling products that involve a sophisticated mixture of hardware and software, is that the way to maximize the value (and hence satisfaction) the customers derive from their hardware purchases is to ensure 1. Backward compatibility of software updates with as wide a range of past hardware as possible,"
However this is not always the case with Apple. As an example the iPhone 3GS will be able to upgrade to iOS 6, but the first generation iPad (which has the same or better hardware specs) will not be able to upgrade. The main thought on this is that the 3GS is still an active product, while the 1st Gen iPad is not, but still, that isn't allowing backwards compatibility with the widest range of past hardware as possible in my book.
That's a plausible argument: the 3GS will be for sale, one expects, until the day that iOS 6 ships and perhaps dropped (in favor of 4/4S/5) thereafter.
By making the 3GS qualify for iOS 6, Apple is being fairer to people who purchased a 2010 model phone in 2012. The original iPad went off sale only early this year, however, and it has a more advanced processor and other features than a 3GS.
James, as an owner of an embarrassing number of iPhones, iPads and Macs (including a 3GS and a first-gen iPad) I am fully aware that "this is not always the case". Just the other day I tried to update my 2006 iMac to OS X Mountain Lion, only to discover it is not supported. However, having been an Apple watcher, customer an investor since that first iMac purchase in 2006, I have learned to appreciate that Apple's philosophy truly is to try to maintain backward compatibility of their software with as many products, and to as large an extent (i.e. supporting as many new features), as possible. The only other value they will not sacrifice in the name of backward compatibility is that the user experience must remain up to their famously high standards. I.e., when a software release is not compatible with an older product, it is always for (what Apple deems to be) a good technical reason. People always find a reason to complain, but the fact is the "upgrade treadmill" simply doesn't exist.
Regarding media streaming. Apple may make iTunes for both OSX and Windows, but iTunes is a piss-poor video playback program feature-wise. And let's not forget Amazon's Instant Video streaming available on all those third-party Bluray players. With Apple the only way to watch iTunes videos on you big screen is by hooking your Mac, your iPhone/iPod, or your AppleTV to your HDTV -- a much smaller number of devices and all "coincidentally" made by Apple.
I'm still surprised that Apple still doesn't allow iBooks to be read on a Mac. I get why they are pushing it as iOS only, but I'm thinking of the education market, where students just want, or can only afford one device - a MacBook Air say - and want to read text books on it as well as write/code/draw whatever. I'd like to see their analysis that not having iBooks on Mac (or even Windows) is a net loss...
Finding that our 2009 iMac wont airplay with 10.8 is a bit sad but maybe not surprising. But our two 2011 MBPro's cant use it either and that feels somewhat abandoned as a customer. I accept there are technical reasons, but read that 3rd party solutions can jump these fences - but maybe with a level of quality that Apple decides not to associate itself with(?)
Overall, an interesting article. I feel that issues of ownership, control, privacy, along with freedom of communication and exchange of information are at the root of human identity and therefore consciousness. This is being brought to the surface with our externalized and outsourced mind - aka 'The Net' or the Grid.
I recall Tolkien's story when it comes to the link between technos and power/control. Acting anonymously (privately) offers a free reign to explore one's thoughts and cultivate a persona thereby. But even a tyrant must needs a functional structure to persist. Conflicted thought loops/crashes.
No room to ramble on!
Here's another way to look at it:
Apple makes money when they sell what they manufacture. They do not make money (or at least as much) when they sell what other people make.
Amazon does not make money on what they manufacture. They only make small margins on what other people make.
The endgame is what happens when the studios and the labels stop using Apple or Amazon as middlemen.
It's a good point. Amazon doesn't want to be in the razor blade business, but sort of is. Apple makes money from the razors and the blades. It takes a 30% cut from apps, in-app purchases, magazine subscriptions, iBookstore sales, and movies and music purchased from the iTunes Store. That does amount to real cash, but it's tiny in comparison to the hardware profits.
Amazon is and has been always more like a supermarket. A deep discounter, it makes a few percentage points and has to sell a lot. Apple has high margins, and is more like an old-fashioned stereo store. It doesn't have to move as much to make as much (even though it's moving a lot).
And while Apple doesn't make that much money on the content, they work very hard to keep the content locked into Apple platforms (some of that's technical - iOS apps won't run elsewhere, for instance, but other aspects are handled through DRM - movies and books, in particular). For Apple, the content is about making the hardware more attractive as an overall platform.