Did Amazon make a mistake calling the Fire a Kindle?
“I purchased the Kindle Fire because I thought it would have better or a few more features then the others. If I knew I Kindle Fire had less features for more money, I would have purchased the other Ink kindle”*
–Dean Johnson
Amazon Kindle community thread
As regular readers know, I expressed my hope that Amazon wouldn’t name a backlit Android tablet a “Kindle”. My concern as an educator and writer (I guess I could say I’m a “professional communicator”, but that sounds so high-faluting) was that it would be confusing for people.
A backlit Android device and a reflective screen device (like the other Kindles) are very different things. It isn’t that one is better than the other…they are different.
Let’s say that you were familiar with screwdrivers. You knew what a Phillips was and what a flat-head was.
Then, somebody hands you your first hammer.
However, instead of just calling it a hammer, they call it a “Hammer Screwdriver”.
You: “How do I drive in a screw with this?”
Them: “Well, it’s not really designed for screws. You use it on nails. Do you ever work with nails?”
You: “Sure, but I use a rock for that. Are you saying I can’t use this thing for screws?”
Them: “You could…you just whack it a few times, and it will be in there.”
You: “That sounds easy. How do I get the screw back out?”
Them: “You couldn’t without breaking the wood. It’s really good on nails, though.”
You: “That doesn’t sound like much of a screwdriver.”
Them: “It’s not.”
You: “So why did you call it a screwdriver?”
Them: “We thought you liked screwdrivers. We were afraid you wouldn’t try it if we just called it a hammer.”
You: “Yeah, well…I think I’ll stick with my rock.”
A Kindle Fire is no more a reflective screen Kindle (RSK) than a hammer is a screwdriver.
They both have their uses. The Fire does video, better web browsing, audio playlists, and Android apps. The RSKs have very long battery charge life and comfortably read well in bright sunlight.
I presume Amazon’s thinking was similar to “Them” in my above dialogue. They figured people would be more likely to try Amazon hardware if it was named a “Kindle”.
They could be right…I’m not convinced about how much market research Amazon does (there are virtually no leaks from the general public before something new is announced), but I’m sure they put a lot of thought into a decision like that.
My intuitive sense is that it would have been better to diversify the public’s concept of “Amazon” to include a variety of hardware, but I don’t have data to back that up.
However, I’m very confident about the confusion issue.
I searched the main Amazon Kindle community for posts with the words (not as a phrase)”
“why doesn’t fire other kindles”
and found 27 threads.
Certainly, some of those are probably false positives, but I’ve seen many threads where, like Dean Johnson above, the poster is surprised and confused that the Kindle Fire doesn’t do what the “other Kindles” do.
I know it’s too late to do anything about it. Amazon has solidly cemented the connection with their commercials…”From Kindle comes Fire”. They just shouldn’t be surprised when people are mad they can’t get the screws back out. 
* Used with permission
Update: I really appreciate the passion of the people who have been commenting on this post to defend the Kindle Fire and express their affection for the device. That convinced me I needed to come back and make this clear: I’m not knocking the device at all…after all, I’ve bought two of them. 
My only concern is the confusion that naming the tablet a “Kindle” causes some people. I think some people are also defending reading on the Fire…suggesting that it is a reading device that has a few extras. I do think it is interesting that Amazon puts the Newsstand and Books as the two most left tabs on the homescreen…since we read left to right in English, that’s a place of prominence. I’d love see use stats, as to how much people are using each of the features. That might be worth some polling…don’t worry, Fire Foregoers, it won’t be the next one.
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog.
January 16, 2012 at 1:00 am |
But but but–I can read this Kindle in bed in the dark–that is huge!
January 16, 2012 at 1:33 am |
Thanks for writing, Barbara!
Absolutely…the backlighting that enables that is a nail.
I was trying to be careful not to say that one was better than the other…maybe I could have said that better. Your “triple but” suggests you are contradicting something I said, but I think we agree.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that I can read my Kindle Touch in the dark for weeks without recharging…with a little clip on light I have. “Ah,” you say, “but that’s not in the dark”. Right…it’s not dark in a room with the Kindle Fire beaming out light, either.
I’m with you…there are a lot of pluses to the Kindle Fire. I find that I’m personally much more likely to want to read in bright light than I am to want to read in the dark (without using an external light, like a lamp), but we may just have different use patterns on that.
January 16, 2012 at 1:33 am |
So he should return it and get what he would rather have. I don’t have much sympathy for people that don’t do their research before they buy something. At least Amazon is a good enough company to allow you to return it pretty hassle free – especially at the holidays with their long return period (end of Jan.?)
January 16, 2012 at 3:03 am |
Thanks for writing, Pam!
The Kindle Fire was one of the most gifted items of the holiday season, so many people got it with (reasonably) having done no research. On the outside of the box, and as it booted up, it said it was a Kindle. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that someone who knows about a Kindle would expect it to be one.
Yes, people have the option to return it…one of the great things about Amazon’s customer service with Kindles.
Edited to add: I should also mention that people returning things to Amazon is inefficient for the company…and not great PR. If not naming it a Fire could have saved them significant returns, I think that would have been a good thing.
January 16, 2012 at 1:37 am |
Everything was spelled out all they had to do was read it. If they chose not to let them suffer the consequences. If you are buying a reading product you should be able to read.
January 16, 2012 at 3:10 am |
Thanks for writing, Jerry!
My preference would be that people not suffer…that’s the educator in me, I guess. People who can read perfectly well, and do it frequently with an RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle…anything but a Kindle Fire) could have easily gotten it as a gift. That wasn’t the case for the one person I quoted, of course…I was just using that to illustrate the idea that a “Kindle should do what Kindles do” is out there. I’m sure many of the people who are commenting about it did get it as a gift, though.
Also, I do think it’s fascinating: I’m sure you’ve read the Kindle Fire product page. It doesn’t ever use the term “backlighting” (or a variation of that). The ability to read doesn’t translate into the ability to understand specific jargon. That’s back to the “Hammer Screwdriver” story. Would a product page for a hammer say, “…can not be used to unscrew screws”? Maybe…
January 16, 2012 at 5:48 am |
I agree that the reflective screen Kindles are the best for reading standard books, but for books with illustrations or photos, the Fire is so much nicer. Also, I like to read comics and magazines on the Fire, which didn’t work very well at all on the RSKs.
So in a way I see this as a reader with extras, but in a way I do wish they hadn’t muddied the waters of understanding by calling it a Kindle. It’s a difficult thing for a company to develop a product which has a name that becomes synonymous with the entire class of products (like Kleenex, Xerox, etc); most people I talk to about eReaders call them all Kindles, then specify further that they have the nook or whatever. With the Fire, they have diluted that strength of name somewhat.
But I’m still very happy with mine!
January 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
Thanks for writing, Liz!
Oh, I’m very happy with mine, too! Yours is the second reply that suggests to me that something in my post made people think I thought the Kindle Fire was “less than” an RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle). That’s not the case at all…I just think they are different. I’ve been sick for a few days (I’m under treatment, but at home…shouldn’t be serious), and the Kindle Fire has been marvelous to have. It’s so much easier to pick up the Fire and check my e-mail for lab results and communications from my doctors than it would be to do it on a laptop. I’ve been able to read some, and I did need to make a couple of phone calls after looking up phone numbers. I could look up the numbers on my Fire, and then used my cordless phone (I’m not in a good place for my cellphone) to make the calls. I’m getting ready to go back to bed soon, but I did want to check in here first.
I agree with you that “Kindle” had been the generic name for EBR (E-Book Reader). I’m sure I’ve heard people refer to the NOOK as Barnes & Noble’s Kindle. Similarly, many writers have referred to the Fire as being like Amazon’s iPad. Maybe that was the thought behind the “Kindle” part of the name…to deflect that comparison.
If Amazon does release, say, a “Kindle phone”, that identification as the generic for EBR will fade a bit. I still think they would have been better off with extending the Amazon brand.
January 19, 2012 at 12:23 am
I guess the reason a couple of us reacted to what you wrote earlier is that you seemed to discount the Fire completely as an e-reader, when you said it’s like calling a hammer a screwdriver. Well, yes, you can’t use a hammer as a screwdriver, but I’d use a different analogy.
It’s as though a manufacturer known for its screwdrivers (let’s call it a Stumley Screwdriver) added a multi-tool and called it a Stumley Screwdriver Widget. Sure you can retract the screwdriver stub from the multi-tool and use it to drive one or two screws, but if you were building a cabinet, you’d rather use a “real” screwdriver.
In the same way, when I’m reading a lot, I’d rather have one of my RSKs, but the Fire is handy for so many things, it’s more likely to be close by for a quick read.
January 19, 2012 at 12:51 am
Thanks for writing, liz!
You know, I have been thinking about that. I never want to discourage anybody from reading on anything. I do read on my Fire…much more than I expected to do. It’s better for reading than a hammer is for driving screws.
Your analogy is good. I also like the “Bronco car” analogy I used in an earlier comment.
January 16, 2012 at 6:58 am |
I’ve mentioned before that from a technical perspective the KF has little history with the RSKs — so to that extent I agree with you. I do suspect that the vast majority of KF purchasers had no prior experience with the RSK feature set — they were going on the reputational aspects of the “kindle” name — and I’m sure that factored significantly in Amazon’s naming decision.
As to the comment that the KF offers less for more money, it depends where you stand I guess. If all you wanted was an eReader, then maybe so, but the only significant deficit (from my own personal usage case with my KDX) is the absence of collections (or some reasonable facsimile). Absent that, I use my KF much less as a reader. Luckily, I still have my KDX and also I got a KT which has become my main reading machine
.
I expect collections functionality to appear on the KF at some point.
January 16, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
Thanks for writing, Edward!
For me, the lack of Collection is less important than the lack of text-to-speech (TTS). I suspect we’ll get those both addressed in the future.
January 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
The Kindle brand is a very well known brand. Amazon would have been nuts NOT to call it a Kindle. It’s obvious from the picture that it’s not e-ink, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last 5 years this would be a really hard mistake to make. I can see people receiving one as a gift and not wanting it. Returns are pretty easy on Amazon. What I don’t get is people complaining in a forum instead of returning it.
If they want a touch e-reader, the Kindle Touch is $100 less (and awesome). They can get that and $100 bucks worth of books just by returning the Fire and getting credit.
January 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
Thanks for writing, Wild!
I would argue that Amazon is a better known brand than “Kindle”…and could have further widened that recognition by starting another hardware line with that brand (Amazon). Let’s say, as has been rumored, that Amazon releases a SmartPhone. Should it be called a “Kindle phone”? It could be…but Apple didn’t call the iPad an “iPod tablet”. iPods are associated with music (even though the iPod touch does a lot more). Instead, everybody knows it is an Apple iPad, which extends the brand. That doesn’t seem like a “nuts” strategy to me.
In the same way, Excel wasn’t the “Word Spreadsheet”. They switched from the name “Multiplan”, but really extended the Microsoft brand by having “Microsoft Excel”, “Microsoft Word”, “Microsoft Windows”, and so on.
As to E Ink: let’s say I asked 100 people on the street to explain what E Ink means (or reflective screen technology…E Ink is, of course, a brand name). While perhaps one of them has been living under a rock for five years
, I still think the vast majority of them wouldn’t understand it. The argument could be made that serious readers who would purchase an EBR (E-Book Reader) for themselves are far more likely to understand it, this holiday clearly saw the EBR expand more into the mainstream market…where there is less of that specialized knowledge.
Similarly, many people have found returning items an unpleasant procedure. They don’t necessarily have the personal experience with Amazon that (presumably) you and I have. I’ve written before about the idea that the Kindle Fire may be many people’s first interaction with Amazon…so they aren’t used to the #1 rated customer service. I find it more…saddening for me that people talk about having been frustrated with something for hours when they could have just contacted Kindle Support at
http://www.amazon.com/kindlesupport
and gotten it resolved in minutes.
In the case of the particular quotation I cited (and I was just using it to be representative), it was in the context of a discussion about text-to-speech. The lack of TTS that works with Kindle store books on the Fire is the number one disadvantage of the device for me, compared to an RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle). I can understand someone guessing that any Kindle product (since the introduction of TTS into the line in the Kindle 2) would have the feature. I do think we may get it in the future (Vocalizer, the software from Nuance that is used on the Kindle Keyboard and Kindle Touch has been in an Android app before)…
January 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
I have to disagree with your analogy. Ford, for example, makes little cars lIke the Focus and big honkin’ pickups like the F-350 but the are all Fords. When I got the Kindle Fire I regarded it as a reader that can do other things — like let me read in a dimly lighted room or stream a Star Trek episode. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with the naming and although I agree with you much of the time in this case, with the screwdriver you were really reaching.
January 16, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
Thanks for writing, Jeff!
I think your statement that they are all Fords fits my idea that they should be all be called Amazon. That’s the equivalency: the company name.
Let’s say the Focus was called the “Focus truck” as opposed to the “Ford Focus”. That’s like the screwdriver/hammer thing to me. My feeling is that the Kindle brand was associated with reading devices…and the Kindle Fire is no more that than a laptop is or a SmartPhone is. You can read on both of those…and in fact, can have a similar experience to reading on a Kindle Fire (except for the size).
I would argue that it’s a “thing that can do other things”…and a reader, rather than your hierarchy of making it a reader first.
That’s just my opinion of it, though. I think your perception of it being an EBR (E-Book Reader) is being influenced by it being called a Kindle. If it had been called the “Amazon Current”, and was “Kindle-powered” or “Kindle enabled”, my guess is that many people wouldn’t think of it as an EBR, but as what it is…a multi-function tablet.
Edited to add: Actually, I thought about it, and “Focus truck” isn’t exactly what I want to say. Let’s take the Bronco line. I have feelings about the Bronco…a tough truck. Let’s take that as the big hit line, like the Kindle. If Ford named the Focus the “Bronco Focus”, it would have diluted my concept of the Bronco, and wouldn’t have told me much about the Focus (which has some very attractive features that don’t fit a Bronco, although it can do some of the same things). I think that’s a better analogy.
January 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
I love the name Kindle FIRE, and think it makes sense from the fact that “kindle” is used to make “fire”… The fact that “kindle” was in the name of the new Amazon tablet was a definite plus for me, because I have such loyalty and positive experiences with Amazon and Kindle. I purchased the Fire the minute it was announced for these reasons, and since owning it since November, I can tell you I absolutely LOVE the Kindle Fire.
January 16, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
Thanks for writing, Janice!
Yes, no question they used the name Fire to say that it came from Kindling…they actually use that in the ads (“From Kindle comes Fire”). My guess is that they wouldn’t have named it a “fire” if it wasn’t also named a “Kindle”…although I can see “Amazon Fire” having been an effective name.
You say you have “…such loyalty and positive experiences with Amazon and Kindle.” I absolutely do as well (I’m clearly going to have to re-read the post to see why people think they need to defend the Fire to me…I don’t recall saying anything negative about it at all. I think people may be associating me with the person I quoted).
You said “Amazon and Kindle”, though, not just “Kindle”. So, would you have not gotten it if it was called, say, the “Amazon Current” or the “Amazon Fire” rather than the “Kindle Fire”? My guess it that isn’t the case. Like you, I ordered it right away, and have actually purchased two since November. It wouldn’t have made me less likely to do that if “Kindle” wasn’t part of the name…and I think that’s true for most Amazon fans like us. It’s the confusion factor with the name that concerns me, for those who aren’t as familiar with the technology.
January 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
Yes, the name is a tough one, Bufo! I agree that Amazon Fire would have been a great name, but they probably wanted to capitalize on the great Kindle product name they already had. And you CAN read books on it – just inside.
P.S. Hope you feel better soon!
January 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
Thanks for writing, Pam!
I do find myself reading books on my Fire far more than I expected to do. I don’t usually carry both Amazon devices (and my laptop) with me at work, and syncing isn’t always as convenient as it could be.
Thanks for the concern! I really don’t get sick that often, but this has a definite diagnosis. Besides, it’s giving me a chance to practice using my stylus for typing in bed.
January 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
[...] http://ilmk.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/did-amazon-make-a-mistake-calling-the-fire-a-kindle/ This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Free Kindle Books (Jan [...]
January 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
I see your point, but I think the Kindle name makes sense for a few reasons:
* This isn’t the only non-reflective Kindle-branded way to read your books. There are Kindle apps for phones, PCs, tablets, and web browsers.
* The Fire works within the same Kindle ecosystem as the apps and reflective hardware.
* The confusion is temporary, and maybe not all that widespread. Many stores (like Target) have all the Kindles side-by-side where people can see the difference.
* We may yet see new screen technologies that blur the difference.
January 16, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
Thanks for writing, MikeOnBike!
Excellent points! Well done!
You are correct that the reader apps are named “Kindle for…” and are for backlit devices. In my mind, I separate Kindle content and Kindle hardware, but that may be too subtle a distinction. I can access the Kindle store on my netbook, but I don’t think of the netbook as a Kindle. I can read Kindle content on my Samsung Captivate SmartPhone…but I don’t think of the phone as a Kindle. If the device was the Amazon Fire, and it had a Kindle app on it, I’d have no problem with that…I wouldn’t even need it to be named “Kindle for Fire”…or “Kindle on Fire”, which might be worse.
The point about it being temporary may be right…and that’s one reason it surprises me. Amazon is famous for thinking in the long term. I think cementing the Kindle name for hardware like that is more short term. If they had named it the Amazon Fire, would the difference at Target have been that it was next to the iPad and other Android tablets rather than next to the RSKs (Reflective Screen Kindles)? I’m a former brick-and-mortar retailer…I would have probably put it both places, with a super-hot item like that. That would probably have benefited the sales, in my opinion. The Fire compares favorably to other tablets, when looking strongly at the price (as people do when shopping for others at the holidays). Having an item that’s twice as much in a line can benefit the one that’s one step down, so having it with the other Kindles might have helped Kindle Touch 3g & Wi-fi sales, I suppose (unless we count the DX). That’s an old marketer’s trick. I think the story goes that home breadmakers didn’t sell until they introduced a fancy-dancy high end model that people didn’t buy much…but that greatly increased the sales of the “middle-priced” unit.
I agree about the blurring technologies! I’ve written before about what I call “dualume” devices (that have switchable backlighting and reflective screen), and I’ve written about Apple patenting one (which may never be released, of course). I’d be okay with that being called a Kindle, I think, but I have to consider it more. My first thought is that a Kindle is primarily for reading…and while I don’t have the data, I doubt that’s the case for the Fire.
Thanks for a thoughtful comment!
January 19, 2012 at 1:14 am
I suspect the Kindle ecosystem would have gotten messier if the Fire wasn’t a “Kindle”. The Fire works with the Kindle Owners Lending Library, the Manage Your Kindle pages, etc. The Fire has a kindle.com address for sending personal documents. Modifying all that stuff to say “Kindle or Tablet” is probably a lot messier than having the Fire be part of the Kindle family.
And this will all be moot soon enough if a future Kindle has a color reflective screen.
January 19, 2012 at 1:28 am
Thanks for writing, MikeonBike!
It’s all going to get messier.
I think saying “Kindles or the Fire” on the KOLL wouldn’t be too confusing. My Kindle reader apps are on my Manage Your Kindle page. I suspect the personal document service is going to go to the reader apps eventually, particularly since we now have SendToKindle (just because it involves PCs in the PDS in a way).
I would suggest that the few overlaps you mention are outweighed by the dissimilarities between a Fire and an RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle).
I’m curious: why would a color RSK render moot the Fire having a different operating system and nature than an RSK? I think we may have a color RSK by the end of this year, but I would expect it to otherwise work like the existing RSKs (use Linux, for one thing). Oh, it would likely be more expensive, slower, and probably take more battery charge, but I think it wouldn’t show video or do the other things the Fire does that puts it in a different division of hardware.
January 19, 2012 at 1:57 am
“My Kindle reader apps are on my Manage Your Kindle page.”
Even if your Fire wasn’t called a “Kindle”, it would still use all the Kindle-branded support. Modifying all those web pages to say “Kindle or Fire” is a lot more trouble than just calling the Fire a Kindle.
Exactly. They’re called “Kindle” apps. And SendToKindle can send to your Fire. To Amazon, everything that works with the Kindle store is a Kindle.
What I mean about reflective color screens is that a future “Fire” may have a color screen that’s as good for reading as our current Pearl-screen Kindles. And still fast enough for games and video. When that happens, the Fire’s LCD will be seen as a temporary quirk in the history of Kindle.
January 19, 2012 at 2:29 am
Thanks for writing, MikeOnBike!
You express your points clearly, but I disagree that everything works with the Kindle store is a Kindle. What’s registered there is my app (installation), not my device. To get to my apps, I don’t click something that says, “Manage Your Kindles”…it says, “Manage Your Devices”.
There are two sections: “Registered Kindles” and “Registered Kindle Reading Apps”…ergo, Amazon doesn’t consider them the same. Don’t you just love ergo? However, I’ve always noticed when people are using it…if you just take that “r” away… 
Oh, and on the
http://www.amazon.com/kindlesupport
page, they have three categories:
Kindles
Kindle Fire
Kindle Touch
Kindle
Kindle Keyboard
Kindle DX
Kindle 2nd Generation
Kindle 1st Generation
Free Kindle Reading Apps
Kindle for PC
Kindle for Mac
Kindle Cloud Reader
Kindle for Mobile Devices
Kindle Content
Kindle Book Gifts
Public Library Books for Kindle
Returning Kindle Books
Kindle Owners’ Lending Library
Kindle Book Availability
I don’t think they’d have had that much modification to do if it was the “Amazon Fire” with “Kindle for Fire” on it.
The Fire’s LCD will be a footnote in the history of Kindles only because they call it a Kindle.
It will be quite some time, in my opinion, before a color reflective screen that is as fast as an LCD is on the market at the same price point. At that point, they might largely replace LCDs everywhere…especially in SmartPhones, where I could really, really use a reflective screen in the sunlight.
I think one could reasonably hypothesize that our current RSKs will be seen as a footnote in the evolution of interface devices, just as desktops may eventually be. We need to overcome that image is tied to a set device morphology, and then phone/TV/computer will all be one. I can see a couple of paths there.
January 20, 2012 at 6:51 am
I thought I’d jump in here again — not over the use of the “kindle” name (for better or worse Amazon has chosen to use the “kindle” moniker — so my interest now turns to how the product evolution (using that name) proceeds in the months and years ahead.
Instead I thought I’d comment on color full motion RSK displays. If you had asked me up until fairly recently, I would have said that the arrival of color RSK’s was almost a certainty. However, the technology has not proceeded as rapidly as expected. At the recently concluded CES the Qualcomm CEO mentioned that one small EBR using a Mirasol RS display is coming to market in China.
Now, I’m not so sure about whether we will ever see an RSK color display no matter how the technology might develop (whether a successful technology will be accepted in the marketplace is hard to predict). The physics of reflective displays means that they will always appear a bit dull more muted than emissive displays. That’s not to say that they are inferior merely different. That difference is precisely what you would see looking at a page from say Scientific American on a good LCD screen versus the same page printed using the very best 4-color offset or rotogravure press process (which results in a reflective presentation).
The public has become so accustomed to the vibrancy and saturation of the very best LCD displays, that they may find a color reflective display lackluster.
The stars at CES were the 55″ OLED TVs that Samsung and LG will be selling later this year (at astronomical prices to be sure
). The significance is not the TVs per se, but that the MFRS have figured out how to make large sized OLEDs. OLEDs address almost all of the problems of LCDs and Plasmas: lower power consumption, brighter colors, blacker blacks, really thin(the LG TV is 4mm thick), and the display and computer circuitry can be printed on flexible plastic substrates. Finally these displays can achieve pixel densities that are beyond the resolving power of the human visual system. We may see an OLED display in the upcoming iPad3.
Given all this, I suspect that the window for color reflective screens may have passed
January 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for writing, Edward!
Good analysis!
I think that the market that may drive color reflective screens is SmartPhones. You practically have to throw a blanket over your head to enter a phone number sometimes. If it’s developed there, it might take it beyond what I would think would first be a niche market for color readers.
However, I’m not the person to talk about how good color looks…I never really care about it, probably due in part to my partial color vision deficiency.
Oh, and I wouldn’t leave the app Aurasma out of CES’s effects. We’ve had a billboard up for it for a while, but this sort of augmented reality, object recognition is going to be big.
EBRs (E-Book Readers) were definitely “so last year” at this one, though.
January 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm
The Kindle Fire product page at Amazon has this section:
Get Both: Kindle Fire and a Kindle e-Reader
Movies, apps, games, reading and more
Vibrant color touchscreen
Web browsing and email
+
Reads like real paper – no eye strain
No glare, read in bright sunlight
Up to 1 month battery life
If a display technology comes along that can do all those things in one device, Amazon will almost certainly use that display in a future Kindle.
January 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for writing, MikeOnBike!
I agree.
In the beginning, it might be a higher end version that combines both, and lower priced ones might separate the two…until the price comes down.
January 17, 2012 at 1:33 am |
[...] couple of posts ago, I wrote about the idea that Amazon calling the Fire a [...]
January 17, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
Here are the names I suggested before the Fire was released: Kinzon & Kandle. (Unfortunately the latter is trademarked by the maker of a clip-on light. But Amazon could have bought the name from them. It has a hint of color in the name.) Those two names suggest a link to Amazon and the Kindle, but also distance themselves from the kurrent Kindles.
Another good suggestion, which was an informal term in common use, was “Kindroid.”
A wordier choice would have been to use B&N’s convention, which was well understood, and call it the “Color Kindle.” Or the “Kindle Tablet” “Color” implies backlighting.
January 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
My sis-in-law and dad-in-law are both avid readers and were given Fires for Christmas. Neither of them gives a flip about movies, music, or apps. Oh, and my FiL doesn’t even have wifi at home. The gift givers in both cases were buying them as a reading device. I tried to tell them that it’s a great device, but not the greatest for reading. In both cases I was told it’s a Kindle so it’s great for reading. I’m pretty sure my FiL’s will end up collecting dust, and my SiL’s will be given to the kids as a tablet while she continues to read paper books. In other words, yes, I believe Amazon made a mistake.
January 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
Thanks for writing, Mal!
Excellent anecdote…and not just because it supports my hypothesis.
In your story, I doubt either relative would have returned it to get an RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle), and would probably now take more convincing to get one…
January 17, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
I’m a dedicated, satisfied “Reader Only” user of the Kindle which does not require CO2 or Halogen nearby in case of “Fire.” ILMK’s laterly concentration on the Fire is somewhat disconcerting. If one does not care for the name, perhaps a new ILMKF is in order?
January 17, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
Thanks for writing, capnlouie!
As you probably have seen, I’ve asked my readers about separating the Fire into a different blog, but the general response that I’ve gotten is that two blogs would be worse…since many people want to hear about both, and they obviously wouldn’t want to subscribe twice.
The “concentration” is a bit of an illusion, I think. I try very hard not to do two posts in a row on any subject, although it happens sometimes. I don’t do two fiction pieces in a row, two reviews in a row, two Fire posts in a row, that sort of thing. I’m trying to make sure everybody who subscribes gets their ninety-nine cents a month worth…and I like things to be eclectic.
I do check this from time to time…let’s see, here are the recent posts:
* Update 5.0.3 available for the Kindle Touch (not Fire) (I jokingly considered putting “Now you Fire users feel left out” at the beginning of that one)
* How do you use your Kindle Fire? (Fire)
* Amazon advertises to authors (not Fire)
* Did Amazon make a mistake calling the Fire a Kindle? (Fire)
* Review: Catching Fire (The Hunger Games #2) (not Fire) (the name is a coincidence…so unless you don’t want any mention of combustion…)
* Amazon makes updated version of Love Your Kindle Fire available to early purchasers (I’d argue that this isn’t about the Fire, since it’s about my book about the Fire…but I won’t count it either way in these calculations)
* Amazon adds Send to Kindle feature for Windows (not Fire)
* 295,000 borrows from KDP Select in December (not Fire)
* How do you view reviews? (not Fire)
* Round up #63: Firestorm #2 (Fire) (I intentionally put several Fire stories into one post, so that people like you who are uninterested could skip them more easily)
* Understanding Whispersync (not Fire)
That only gets me back to January 10? I do write a lot.
As you can see, the majority of posts are not about the Fire (skipping the one about the book which I consider ambiguous, seven out of the last ten are not). Even if the blog was primarily about the Fire, since Amazon chose to name it a Kindle, the current title of the blog would still stand.
I have no doubt that over time, there will be another new RSK (Reflective Screen Kindle…anything but a Kindle Fire) or a new service that gets some extra posts from me, again, within the mix.
I really appreciate you taking the time to give me the feedback! I poll my readers from time to time on what they like to see in ILMK…I’ll do that again later.
January 18, 2012 at 2:16 am |
I agree with you completely, but I have no idea what they should have named it instead. Amazon Fire doesn’t roll of my tongue and I am already pretty attached to the name, Fire, in general. Non-kindle users expected to be able to read/use it in the sun like the ads they had seen for years and current e-ink Kindle users expected it to have all of the features that their kindles had. Wrong on both points.
The forum users and the general public are constantly busy comparing it to either the e-inks or the dern iPad and….it isn’t like any of those!
The big problem I see is the hits that Amazon’s reputation is taking because the Fire isn’t living up to all of these crazy expectations. It isn’t their fault, but those disgruntled owners are sure not going to take responsibility for their own inability to read product pages. And these days, when people are pissed off about something they share their frustration with everybody and anybody.
January 18, 2012 at 2:54 am |
Thanks for writing, Gwen!
Some people seem to share their frustration even when they are happy about something.
I wasn’t happy with Amazon’s “pool ad”, where the Kindle owner seemed to lord it over the i, Pad user, because of the glare by the side of the pool. It seemed like a knock on the competitor, rather than talking about your own product. Now, Amazon has a product with the same issue…how does that make them look?
When I’ve trained people about training, I let them know that setting expectations is probably half of what will affect people’s feelings about the class. Hmm…what could Amazon have done to manage those expectations? Maybe not name it a Kindle…?