3 ms·
I'm concerned that the Fire is getting a little too close to the iPad. It shouldn't be. That's a strategically scary place to go. To your point, the Fire needs
by jonnathanson 15y ago
I'm concerned that the Fire is getting a little too close to the iPad. It shouldn't be. That's a strategically scary place to go.
To your point, the Fire needs to be sufficiently different from the iPad. So different that consumers don't look at it and simply say "So...it's an iPad without native email?" Or some other rhetorical question to that effect. If people look at this device and think "iPad, but...", then the game's already lost.
- jrockway 15y agoAren't Macs "PCs, but without a replaceable battery"? They still seem to sell pretty well.
- technoslut 15y agoI think the difference separating the two will be price. I think the customer will understand that if you're paying only $250-300 you're going to get a lot less features than the iPad. I could also see the iPad 2 getting a price reduction eventually. The Fire (lousy name) strikes me as the first true media tablet. I don't think Apple views the iPad as just a media device though it has been classified as such by analysts. The problem for the Fire may be competing against the Kindle. Many people use an iPad along with the Kindle because of the e-ink display. Would a customer spend extra money just so they can play music and video?