Survey: iPad is Kindle Fire-proof

Before you think of getting a Kindle twinkle …err…Fire, here's some limitations of it that you need to consider:
- Kindle Fire doesn't have microSD slot that, for example, Nook Color has thus it is stuck with 6 GB usable internal storage unlike Nook Color that can get up to 32 GB card in. Kindles are made to be almost like a "dumb terminal" of the past to make sure you're tied up to Amazon's storage on the web (for which you need Wi-Fi connection to get to) and you can only store content you get from Amazon there, not other files. Quoting Amazon on Kindle Fire: "Free cloud storage for all Amazon content". Get it, Amazon content?
- The stats of how long the battery can last (Kindle Fire theory is 8 hours) are taken with Wi-Fi off. You can only imaging how much less Kindle Fire battery will last if you use it to access content from their Cloud storage over Wi-Fi.
- Amazon can spy on your web activity through their new cloud-integrated web browser of Kindle Fire.
- VERY IMPORTANT – lack of microSD slot means that if you decide to root your Kindle Fire, you’ll have to root the actual device thus there will be no coming back. On Nook Color, you can make it boot from a “rooted” microSD card and if you want to get back to the original Nook you can just take out the card and reboot.
- Kindle doesn't support eBooks in ePub format that is the most used format in the world.
- Kindle app store contains only Amazon approved apps and it does not include (and will not include) Netflix app that iPad has and Nook Color is getting thus again you're stuck with Amazon content only.
- Amazon confirmed that you cannot download anything to Kindle Fire when traveling abroad.
I'd recommend waiting for a couple of weeks as Nook Color 2 is rumored to be released by Barnes & Noble.

Not sure how the survey formed their questions but I'd wager that even though people may buy the Kindle Fire over the iPad because of price I'm sure what they really want is the iPad.

If ran a survey that had people choose between a Nissan Maxima or a Mercedes eClass, the majority of Americans would choose the least expensive of the two. Doesn't mean they don't WANT the Mercedes. They're probably just more realistic about what they can actually afford.

Lack of memory makes the Amazon tablet even more of a content delivery device than the iPad. Apple must also think thats the way of future devices as "connected" seems to be more and more a part of their device designs than "onboard memory" does. The two companies seem to have differing ideas of the sweet spot in onboard memory for their devices. That may be due more to Apple's need to bring their base in the direction (of having content delivery devices rather than storage dependant devices) without loosing them, Amazon is just starting out and can jump right to a device without memory. There is little doubt that they are both heading in that direction.

What's appalling is that 73% of people in the 0-25k income range want Ipads. For those people the Ipad is a non-trivial percentage of their ANNUAL income. Talk about economic problems.

Meanwhile, in reality, most people do not make over $100,000 a year. Which means the other figures of lower income people, where it's more split, are greater in quantity and, potentially, sales. I get that people who want an iPad are going to get an iPad, there's not much that's going to change their minds if their minds are set on one and they can afford it. However, there are plenty of (read: more) people who judge based on price and if it's "like" an iPad, they'll bite. It's one reason why Android has so much market share.

so 0-25k are college students and high school students who want to look cool. 25-100k are the realisitic and largest group AND THE NUMBERS ARE CLOSE, and the rich will get whatever is considered trendy. Surprise.

So from this we can conclude that for the majority people almost half would get the Kindle, therefore there is a little bit to worry about.

The statement that "Apple has always aimed for a higher price point anyway." is transparently false. Apple aims to make a profit, unlike all the Windows PC makers who are in a race to the bottom. Amazon doesn't make money from the Kindle; they make their money on books and all the other stuff they sell. The Kindle is a loss-leader: they sell one at a loss and it leads to more sales of ebooks and other consumable media.

Aside from that, the Kindle Fire isn't capable of the things that the iPad is, so it will naturally cost less. But it's a different market, so it's not competing with Apple or taking away sales of the iPad from them. Even worse, it's not out yet; nobody has tested or used one, so it's uncertain how it performs.

I'm actually quite impressed with the Fire's numbers in that survey. I don't think anyone expects that it will "prevail" over the iPad, but those numbers suggest it could put a good size dent in the iPad's future growth.

Not surprising... Seems to me the market has split, one for tablet -computers- and iPad still owns that market, and for media consumption devices, which Amazon is likely to dominate. In both cases, we see viable ecosystems that combine the end user device with content, cloud services and third party (media, applications, etc) add-ons. What will be interesting to watch is the growth of peripherals and gadgets for the Fire. So far the Kindle hasn't created the 3rd party market the same way the iPad has. (And by the way, that's an answer to those who have said that Steve Jobs 'shipped jobs to China and didn't contribute to the US economy.')