Kindle Fire has 36% of Android tablet market after three months; single best-selling model

[Mitlov]

The argument isn't that's an ereader instead of an android tablet, but that it's an Amazon tablet instead of an android tablet. The argument is a practical one. Regardless of what you *can* do with it, what the vast majority of Amazon's considerable user base is doing with it is largely blind to Google's content markets.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning. If I buy a Samsung Galaxy Nexus but only use it for facebook, text-messaging, and voice calls, is the phone itself still an Android smartphone? Of course it is. It's just an Android smartphone with a user who isn't taking advantage of its full capabilities. Same argument with driving a Corvette to the grocery store instead of taking it to the racetrack--it's still a sports car, whether or not I'm really capitalizing on its abilities.

Blocking out Google Play is an interesting issue. It's definitely not a Google Play-friendly tablet. But I don't think access to Google Play is what defines something as an Android tablet. It's still running Android OS and Android apps, purchased and distributed from Amazon's "Appstore for Android," an app store that services Android devices besides just the Fire (people with Samsung and HTC phones often post reviews of apps in the Amazon Appstore for Android).

[Ed Hardy]

Google gives Android away for free and get its money back by selling you content from the Google ecosystem: that means apps, books, movies, etc. from Google Play.

The Kindle Fire cannot access Google Play. Instead it ties in to Amazon's ecosystem. So Google has gone to the expense of creating an operating system, then Amazon has put a custom skin on top of it, and is now making all the money. That's why the Kindle Fire is a disaster for Google.

I tend to agree with the argument that the Kindle Fire is not an Android tablet. It doesn't look like it's running Google operating system, and it doesn't act like it's running it either. It's only similarities to other Android tablets are buried where the user can never see them. If it doesn't look like a duck or quack like a duck is it really a duck?
-

[Mitlov]

Biologically speaking, a disfigured-and-mute duck is most certainly still a duck

[Varjak]

I think there are true elements to both sides of this debate. Google (I think), from the very beginning said that they didn't care what people put Android on (refrigerators, washing machines, phones, tablets, etc.). I wouldn't call Amazon's use of Android as a disaster; but it's certainly not the outcome Google envisioned. But I think they probably do get some benefit from it. I wonder if blocking Google Play abrogates any part of the open license?

[Mi An]

The fact that Barnes and Noble and Amazon tablets run on Android doesn't make them Android tablets in the same way that the fact that tons of public terminals run on stripped down versions of windows doesn't make them Windows PCs. The lack of the google ecosystem is a sign of the shift, not the source of the shift. The focus and emphasis on the B&N/Amazon ecosystems to the later's exclusion is another sign of the shift. When you put all the pieces together, you don't have a disfigured mallard, you have a fully functional loon.

I'm not really invested in the argument, despite appearances, but it has plenty of merit and I do enjoy arguing.

Google gives Android away for free and get its money back by selling you content from the Google ecosystem: that means apps, books, movies, etc. from Google Play.

Errr, they make their money back by showing you ads. How much of the "google cut" for phone* content actually goes to carriers?

Indeed, Google makes a lot of money off other platforms through ads, some even say they make more off iOS than off Android. One of the big motivations for Android's very existence was to make sure MS and then Apple didn't cut google out of the mobile ecosphere. As long as there was a competitive platform that had full unfettered access to the internet and all its services, so the reasoning went, all major platforms would have a serious incentive to retain that level of openness at least, and in that environment, Google - the advertising company - would thrive. Android isn't simply a razor to sell blades -- it's a lever to move the entire industry and protect their ability to sell ads to a 3rd party that doesn't need razors or blades.

*Certainly on tablets the situation is different and new opportunities present, but the Google model is still very different from the Amazon model which is more what you described above. Content is a developing revenue stream for Google, not the main one.

[Mitlov]

I personally would classify this as a "really interesting debate" instead of an "argument."

I do think an interesting question is being raised whether a tablet is defined by its operating system or its ecosystem. While I understand better now the argument defining it by ecosystem (and thus the Fire isn't an "Android tablet" as it's not connected to the Google Play marketplace), I don't agree that it makes sense to define tablets by the ecosystem instead of the operating system.

If you purchase Android apps and media from Amazon's app store and electronic media store and put them on, say, a Samsung you bought from Verizon (and people can and do do this), does that transform your smartphone into an Amazon device?

Conversely, even though you can't directly access Google Play on the Fire, you CAN side-load apps (you need to switch one setting to enable the running of Android apps from non-Amazon sources, but it's one simple toggle switch in settings. It's not like you need to root the device). If you fill a Fire with side-loaded apps from non-Amazon sources, including Google Play, is it no longer an Amazon tablet?

And I would agree with Mi An that Google primarily makes money from ads (particularly targeted ads based on your internet history and Google account usages); they're not like Amazon or BN that primarily makes money from selling media.

[Varjak]

Mitlov, some people don't like vigorous debates and tone can can be a problem on the web in general. Trust me, I know, I've gotten myself into trouble before.

I do think you raise fair, reasonable issues myself. And yes, I wondered about the ad thing, but assumed Ed was right, because he's very knowledgeable; but we all make mistakes. I thought Google saw Android as a way to sell their panoply of services, which boosts their ad business.