Amazon Set to Compete Against the iPad

Cult of Mac reported recently that Jeff Bezos told Consumer Reports that there will be news coming about an Amazon branded "multipurpose tablet device".


Amazon already has the Kindle hardware eBook reader.


At the moment, Android tablets aren't a big threat to Apple. At the moment. Feature-wise, they are as good or superior. Where they suffer is that they don't have a library built over the past year of "HD" tablet optimized apps. That one year head start and a rabidly loyal fan base is what is keeping Apple with 80% of the tablet market.

My guess is that Android tablets will be a much bigger threat to the iPad a year from now. After all, most of the name-brand Android tablets are already on a par with the new iPad 2 as far as CPU, graphics, memory, camera and price are concerned. Add in things like USB ports, memory card support, spare battery capability, etc. and they are actually ahead of Apple.

Now, give the developers a year to write tablet optimized applications and all bets are off.

After all, just a year or so ago, Steve Jobs was smirking about how the Apple iPhone OWNED the smart phone market and that Android wasn't a threat. Mr. Jobs no longer says that. Multiple sources determined that Android now has about 30% of the smartphone market. Gartner and other industry forecasters predict a 50% market share next year.

So, if Android tablets follow the same path, the iPad is in for a rough time.

If the marketing powerhouse, Amazon.com, releases their own tablet, there is a VERY good chance that they will leap to the forefront of Android tablet sales and challenge Apple on their own turf.

Amazon has the marketing muscle, content connections and data infrastructure to go toe-to-toe with Apple and score a TKO.

p.s. Wiping off my crystal ball, here's a prediction. With the loss of being the exclusive USA iPhone carrier, watch for AT&T to partner with Amazon as the exclusive data network for the Amazon tablet. OK, that was obvious, since the Kindle's Whispernet is carried by AT&T.

So... look for the Amazon Android 4G phone on AT&T as well.

Why Are the Feds Even Involved In The First Place? Union Welfare?

Top Republicans demand Obama weigh in on Boeing dispute – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs:

In a nutshell

• Boeing has almost finished another huge plant in South Carolina to build their new 787 Dreamliner planes.
• South Carolina is a "Right to Work" state (Right to work means employees can't be forced to join a union).
• One of the unions representing employees at Boeing's Washington plants went to the National Labor Relations Board. complaining that Boeing put the new plant in South Carolina as retaliation for all the times that the union called for a strike against Boeing.
• Now the National Labor Relations Board is telling Boeing that they can't have their plant in South Carolina.

So we have a Federal agency basically telling a company that they may only have plants in the 38 states that force employees to join a union.

Why?

Is the NLRB concerned the Boeing will treat South Carolina employees poorly?  Boeing already has at least one plant in South Carolina making and assembling portions of the 787.  Do they have a poor record at those plants?

Perhaps the NRLB is concerned that corporations run amok in right to work states.

South Carolina has aerospace plants owned by General Electric, Honeywell, 3D Systems and Lockheed Martin.  They have BMW's only North American factory as well as plants owned by Daimler, Bosch, Bridgestone and more.  The list of factories and plants in South Carolina is a virtual who's-who of big industry.

So why can't Boeing have another plant there?

Is it to protect South Carolina works from slave driver corporations?

Is it to protect Boeing competitors who're in South Carolina?

Or is it to protect this particular union?

Note: Unions aren't banned in right to work states.  Nevada is a right to work state yet the two most powerful lobbying groups in this state are the teacher's and culinary unions.  Right to work means that employees can't be forced to join the union, it doesn't prevent them from joining.

Obviously, if membership in the union in question is a benefit to their members, then employees in South Carolina would be flocking to join. If the South Carolina Boeing employees aren't joining the union, then perhaps they have a good reason.

And to repeat, why is the NRLB even involved?  Since when does the Federal government have authority to tell a corporation that it can't have another plant in a state where they already have one?  Since when does the Federal government have authority to tell a company where they may have facilities?

Unions don't have this authority, nor should they.  For a union to get the NRLB to restrain Boeing is simply and purely union pandering by the NRLB and yet another intrusion on States Rights, an example of anti-business practices and union welfare.

 

Disclaimer: This blog post was created using MarsEdit on my MacBook Pro. I love the combination of quality hardware and software that is stable and functional while making things easy to get things done. All original content is copyright ©2008-2011 by Rick Cross, all rights reserved.