davidconnell.net

Robert Scoble just posted to Facebook that, “many people will be disappointed to learn that [the Kindle Fire] will not run all applications.” Anyone who would be disappointed by this should not buy a Kindle Fire — it’s not a device for them. It’s for people like my wife who want to read their magazines, an occasional book, check Facebook, play Angry Birds and watch Mad Men on the airplane without lugging around a laptop. (Oh, and order all of that FROM AMAZON.)

In short, the Kindle Fire is for people who have never read TechCrunch or heard of Robert Scoble. It is for people who don’t give a shit about Android or iOS or what’s open or not open. It is for people who want to consume content on a mobile device larger than a phone in an easy-to-use, controlled, instant access environment. That’s exactly what the Kindle Fire will do and that’s exactly why it’s going to be a massive seller.

Reading, the comment string on Scoble’s piece, a lot of people seem to get that. But a lot of people also seem to think — and I’ve read this in a lot of places — that the Fire is not going to compete with the iPad for marketshare. I’m not so sure. While the iPad is certainly a larger, more powerful device, it has more in common with the Kindle than many people like to admit. Mostly, the ease of use, walled garden, “it just works” approach.

Without the option of the Fire, a lot of the people I described above would likely be getting iPads this holiday season because they want a tablet that allows them to consume content in a safe and simple way. Before the introduction of the Fire, they’re only option was the iPad. The Fire now offers them that ease-of-use at a price point that undercuts the iPad. It will certainly eat into the “casual user” marketshare of the iPad.

Android tablets are simply not ready for this type of casual user. The various flavors, brands and lack of a regulated app store are too confusing for widespread adoption.

With the introduction of the Fire, the tablet market is solidifying pretty nicely. Here’s how I see it breaking down:

iPad: For those who want a powerful device that “just works,” allows them to consume content and can serve as a laptop replacement for many use cases. Appeals to tech people and non-tech people. Widest audience.

Fire: For those who want a device that “just works” and simply want to consumer content with minimal creation that doesn’t go much beyond posting to Facebook. Mostly appeals to non-tech people. Pretty wide audience.

Android tablet: For those who want the widest choice possible when it comes to applications and hackability. Consuming content and even creating it aren’t their primary concern. What they want is a device that’s uber-flexible, and they don’t mind trying to figure shit out. Mostly appeals to tech-people who resent Apple’s walled-garden approach. Pretty narrow audience at the end of the day.

PS: Yes, I know that the Fire is technically an Android device. But it’s so far from the intent of Android as to make it a completely different thing. It’s pretty genius actually.

Image via Geeky Gadgets.

Via paidContent: Look Out, Flipboard And Zite: Google Said To Be Working On News Reader App

According to Robert Scoble, Google is working on an app for iOS and Android that would be like Flipboard, except, you know, from Google. The project is called Google Propeller.

A lot of hay has been made over Comscore’s release of mobile market share on Friday. The numbers show:

• really good news for Google, whose Android platform now controls 33 percent of the mobile market,
• really bad news for RIM which lost 5 percent of market share and is down to 29 percent and
• just OK news for Apple, which is holding steady at 25 percent market share despite the Verizon iPhone being the most acquired handset in the month of February.

The prevailing view among those who get paid to think about these things, seems to be that these stats point to trouble for Apple. They see Apple’s sales leveling off and Android continuing to show strong gains. Henry Blodget’s take, in which he calls iPhone “dead in the water,” is pretty typical:

The Android gains matter because technology platform markets tend to standardize around a single dominant platform (see Windows in PCs, Facebook in social, Google in search). And the more dominant the platform becomes, the more valuable it becomes and the harder it becomes to dislodge. The network effect kicks in, and developers building products designed to work with the platform devote more and more of their energy to the platform. The reward for building and working with other platforms, meanwhile, drops, and gradually developers stop developing for them.

Importantly, it’s not a question of which platform is “better.” (This is irrelevant.) It’s a question of which platform everyone else uses. And increasingly, in the smartphone market, barring a radical change in trend, that’s Android.

Fred Wilson made a similar, if not more succinct, argument saying, “I believe the mobile OS market will play out very similarly to Windows and Macintosh, with Android in the role of Windows. And so if you want to be in front of the largest number of users, you need to be on Android.”

I’m an Apple guy, and I agree with this basic premise — in the mobile phone space, Android will probably always be bigger than iOS. However, as Gruber points out, Apple has two other mobile devices that are market share leaders. They’re called the iPad and the iPod Touch.

But let’s put Apple’s diversified strategy aside for a moment. Let’s pretend all Apple has is 25 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers. What does it really matter? The subtext of Blodget and Wilson’s argument seems to be that developers should shift focus from the iOS to Android.

Fortunately, developers are too smart for that. If the Windows vs Mac war has taught us anything it’s that having two platforms is great for consumers and developers. If you view your computer as a utilitarian machine — something to get work done — you can buy a PC. If you view your laptop as something you use for self expression, you buy a Mac. Similarly, if you want to develop something utilitarian and plain, you develop for PC. If you want to develop something smart and beautiful, you develop for Mac. If you want to develop something for the mass market, you develop for both the PC and the Mac.

Blodget claims that as platforms become dominant “gradually developers stop developing for them.” The Mac OS has 5 percent of the market and the developer community is so strong Apple just opened the App store.

The same thing goes for Android vs. iOS. Developers will work on platforms based on the audiences they want to reach and the apps they want to create. Some will be appropriate for iOS, some will be appropriate for Android and some will be appropriate for both. Fortunately for all of us, the best developers have never decided what they make based on market share alone and they never will.

Photo: The raging battle between Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android by Flickr user Tsahi Levent-Levi. Used under a Creative Commons license.

The always sexy Yanko Design notes the futuristic Cityline concept bus.

TechCrunch has a running list of all the April Fools Day crap jokes on the interwebs. My favorite: maybe the LinkedIn connections, it’s fairly cute.

Don’t fuck with Android … anymore. BusinessWeek reports that the great Google Gods have started telling mobile carriers and device makers that tweaks to Android and outside partnerships must meet Googleplex approval. The big if: If you want to have early access to Google’s most recent builds. My guess is that the carriers will value their NASCAR partnerships more than the latest version of Google’s tasty deserts. A clamp down on Android overlays would actually be good for users, IMHO. Every version if Android I’ve seen — except for the pure version — pretty much sucks. John Gruber fires a hot daring fireball at the Google brass over their “open” pledge.

Sticking with  BusinessWeek (kicking it old school this morning), they’ve got an analysis of Amazon’s Cloud Player and how you actually get your music up there from iTunes. In a word: aaaaawkwaaard. Music in the cloud is coming — Apple and Google are also working on it. Amazon got there first, but its system is imperfect. Apple will get there next and kick everyone’s ass for ease of use — my guess is one-button upload from iTunes into the company’s North Carolina server farm. Google will come up with something convoluted and the geeks will love it because it’s “open” and not Apple.

Pixar’s next film is, predictably, Cars 2 but after that the genius factory is rolling to the Scottish highlands for Brave, an epic adventure that features a young archer going up against some “mythical beasts.” I am Rogue has some early concept art for the film. Epic indeed.

Breaking News from CNN: Americans don’t know shit about what the government spends their money on, but they’re mad as hell about it!

President Obama gave a speech on domestic drilling for oil and natural gas energy policy this week that was widely panned by enviros and tepidly praised by policy thinkers. Time’s incomparable Bryan Walsh has the easily digestible details.

ReadWriteWeb and HubSpot answer the age-old question: When should I tweet for maximum firepower? The Answer: when people are bored at work. In other words, late in the morning and late in the day. In other news: Don’t spam your Facebook followers if you want them to still “like” you.

There’s a lot of dead wood in the tweet stream. BusinessInsider and aprogrammer with a full Twitter API account found that of Twitter’s 175 million registered users, 56 million accounts have no followers and 90 million have zero followers. That last number means that over half of Twitter’s users have no one following them — that’s a serious problem for a social network.

Want to create viral content? BuzzFeed and Huffington Post co-founder Jonah Peretti tells you how on TechCrunch. Well, not really, but there are some interesting tidbits here on creating viral lift, designing content to be shared and mixing advertising, user-generated content and in-house content to maximum effect. The dude knows of what he speaks.