What's your reasoning for it being 'ridiculous'?

It seems reasonably that the fire could outsell all the other Android tablets combined by 2x, possibly even in its first quarter of existence. Amazon has a great brand and distribution channel, and the Fire is very good value for money.

It also seems quite reasonable to suggest that Fire owners may well purchase apps at a significantly higher rater than other Android tablet owners or even Android phone owners. Why? Because the Fire is all about buying content, and the apps are presented in the same context. Also, Amazon's store may work better than the Google's one.

These aren't foregone conclusions, but they seem quite reasonable.

If these two things work out, then Amazon's app store could easily end up being the channel for most Android app revenue.

Then, it would be an easy decision for app developers to target the Amazon store first.

Yours is an even more ridiculous prediction. In October the total estimated number of Android tablets sold was 6 million. I'm not sure if this figure includes the Nook color but if it doesn't then that would take it over 9 million. I don't think it is at all reasonable to suggest that the Kindle Fire might sell 12-18 million units in it's first quarter.

Due to the rumors that Amazon has two more Kindle Tablets coming out in 2012, I'd say there's a better chance that the Kindle Fire will never sell 12-18 million before people lose interest in the original model.

I didn't make a prediction so save the insults.

Where do you get that 6 million figure from?

The nook doesn't include the Google app store, so if 6 million includes it then the relevant figure is much smaller, and if it doesn't then you're 9 million number is irrelevant.

And you're supporting Marco's argument by suggesting that Amazon will soon produce some even more compelling tablets.

The only point here is whether Marco's prediction that Amazon may end up in control of Android App distribuition is 'ridiculous'. It clearly isn't, and you haven't shown otherwise.

"It seems reasonably that the fire could outsell all the other Android tablets combined by 2x, possibly even in its first quarter of existence. Amazon has a great brand and distribution channel, and the Fire is very good value for money."

I was referring to this statement. I rather like Amazon and the Kindle Fire, I just don't see them selling 2x the total amount of Android tablets that have been sold thus far.

If you weren't including all other android tablets when you made your comment, then you shouldn't have used the phrase "all the other android tablets combined."

The 6 million tablet figure is an estimate from Andy Rubin.

http://www.androidauthority.com/there-are-over-6-million-and...

As far as Amazon taking over app distribution, I don't think that it will happen. As stated elsewhere, there are many more phones than tablets, and that isn't going to change. While Amazon's alleged Kindle Phone may be as big of a success as their tablet, it still won't represent a large enough market to matter to Google.

Fair enough, neither of us were particularly precise. The rubin figure will undoubtedly count anything that can possible be called an Android tablet, including the nook.

That said, what matters is not how many devices are sold. It's how many app buying customers adhere to each store, and how much they spend. The vast majority of android phone owners are not buying apps.

"That said, what matters is not how many devices are sold. It's how many app buying customers adhere to each store, and how much they spend. The vast majority of android phone owners are not buying apps."

This is true. I have been using android since the G1 launched, yet I have probably only spent about 50 dollars total on apps. When I see an app that I want or need, I purchase it. I've purchased 4 different PDF readers in order to find the best one. (not including the PDF reader that came with docs to go) Unfortunately there just isn't much that I would need even on Google's own market.I would probably buy a lot of games, but there's only a couple on the market that are worth playing.

The Kindle Fire could outsell other Android tablets combined by 10x, and it'd still be outsold 10x by Android phones, and that's what makes it fairly ridiculous.

It's not that the Kindle Fire isn't a great product, it's that it's not relevant to the primary Android market - cheaper smart phones for the 99% of people around the world who can't afford an iPhone.

It would be interesting to see what proportion of apps are bought by people who buy the low end Android phones that are actually cheaper than iPhones. I suspect the answer is not many.

True, and that's where the "missing leg" of Amazon's current Android strategy comes in - they don't have an ad network to support free apps, unlike Google.

There's definitely going to be people who don't buy apps, and who don't install many in the first place, but for those who don't want to buy them (or don't have a credit card, quite common in most of the world), free ad-supported apps need to be in place.

I'm a bit uncertain about this.

If people can't afford to buy apps, can they afford a data plan, or to buy the advertised products?

I certainly think there's a necessity for free apps. I'm just not sure that there's any necessity for ad-supported apps.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certain that there are a lot of people who like to choose advertising supported products. I'm just skeptical that it's out of economic necessity.

It's not necessarily that they can't afford to buy apps, but that they live in an economy where credit/debit cards (and even bank accounts) aren't that common.

Most of Africa's like this, same with a lot of Asia - Visa and Mastercard have very little footprint there. Instead people use cash to buy pre-paid access from their mobile carrier.

You're right there's a question around what kind of adverts you'd display to them though.