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.

(Found Via Uncrate: PlugBug.)

The PlugBug from Apple accessory shop TwelveSouth is simple, yet ingenious. It snaps onto the standard MaBook power adaptor and gives you an extra USB port to charge up your iPad or iPhone leaving the USBs on the MacBook free for external drives or other devices. Simple genius.

Via Business Insider: Here’s The New iPad Ad:
“Unlike many tech companies, Apple understands that consumers don’t buy “technology.” They buy products that makes their lives easier and better. They buy products that look beautiful, are simple to figure out how to use, and then “just work.” They buy products they love.”