Why is the Kindle Fire even called a Kindle?

[Ann in Arlington]

People said "iPad" was a terrible name also.  Look how that worked out.

I still think iPad is a goofy name.  But I though the same about iPhone and iPod. . . .but it's clearly a brand so it works for them.

And Amazon's brand is Kindle. . . Fire is a good extension of that.

[monkeyluis]

I think some of you are reading way too much into this. Amazon is branding it a Kindle because of brand recognition, plain and simple. In the past the Kindle has represented only e-books, but that doesn't mean Amazon can't use the brand to expand the "Kindle Family" to include this tablet and possibly a future one. It's just plain smart marketing IMO, and wasn't expecting anything else. If anything i'm glad they gave it the name Fire instead of simply just calling it the Kindle Tablet, Kindle Color, etc.

Agreed. Kindle is a brand, not just a specific device.

[history_lover]

Yes, a brand of ereaders.

[Ann in Arlington]

And Fire is an ereader that's not eInk and handles more types of content in addition to books.

[history_lover]

And Fire is an ereader that's not eInk and handles more types of content in addition to books.

Nah, it's a tablet which, like any other tablet, supports ereading apps as one of many features. I don't consider it an ereader.

[fancynancy]

I was also thinking the exact same thing.  Glad to see I'm not the only one.  "Amazon Fire" or some such would have made soooo much more sense.  

[QuantumIguana]

I really think that some people feel forced to buy the Kindle Fire just because it has the name "Kindle" on it. Kindle is a brand of e-readers, and Amazon naturally would want to leverage that brand to sell their new product. Remember, we have Kindle apps for the PC, and the PC isn't an e-ink device. The e-ink Kindles are essentially tablet computers too, it's just that their main use is as an e-reader, while the Kindle Fire makes it more practical to use for purposes other than just e-books.

[mooshie78]

It's just for name recognition.

Plus, once they have screens that can do an e-ink type mode for reading and an lcd type mode for video and other things, we probably won't see dedicated readers any more.  We'll see things like the Fire that can do it all and switch back and forth between screen mode.

But that tech is probably a ways off, and especially a ways off from being out and cheap enough to through in a $200 7" tablet.

[LaraAmber]

Maybe they named it Kindle Fire thinking that when a really good color eink is finally available, they will be able to switch to it?  So they didn't want to drop the Kindle name? 

[QuantumIguana]

Hybrid e-ink/LCD screens would be cool, but I don't think they would kill off dedicated e-readers. There are still to many advantages of the dedicated e-reader. Price is a big one, I expect the price of the dedicated e-reader to continue to drop.

[gatehouseauthor]

Nah, it's a tablet which, like any other tablet, supports ereading apps as one of many features. I don't consider it an ereader.

Perhaps you don't, but much like Barnes and Noble with their Nook Color (which is a stripped down Android tablet with a custom overlay... exactly what the Fire is), Amazon considers it part of their e-reader/media consumption line.  They're marketing it that way.  I don't think it's a bad idea from a marketing standpoint.  For their price point, which is not a whole lot higher than the former cost of the most expensive non-DX Kindle, they'll get the attention of those looking primarily for an e-reader, who will suddenly get all warm and fuzzy that they can watch movies and browse the web on it.

(Sorry, I'm late to the conversation... lol)

While I agree the extra ppi will be welcome, I don't find anything as good to read on as an e-ink display. It's that simple. You can give me 330-ish ppi like my iPhone 4, and while it's very sharp and gorgeous  (even aside from the fact that it's small!), it's simply not e-ink!

As a side-note, the Blackberry Playbook (which the Fire essentially is a cutdown version of) is on sale at Staples this week and is the better deal if you want a 7" eReader tablet, especially given you have to wait almost 2 months for the Fire anyway....

$249 after rebate IN STORE gets you:

1GB RAM vs 512MB on the Fire
16GB storage vs 8GB on the Fire
HDMI and Bluetooth vs neither on the Fire
Front and rear cameras + mic vs none of these on the Fire
GPS vs no GPS on the Fire.

So right NOW, I'd get the Playbook.

The Blackberry Playbook has an anemic app store and is losing the support of many of its proponents.  Even with the extra RAM and larger storage, the absence of a good cloud solution and the ability to only (at some time in the nebulous future) use certain select Android apps that will NOT support in-app purchases, or anything that requires access to the actual processor/system (since Android apps will only run in an emulator), even for $50 more than the Fire, I don't want a playbook.

Now, the $299 Archos 80 g9 is kind of intriguing.  I believe I'm going to be ordering the Fire, but may move to the Archos and pass the Fire along to my son after a while.

[Elk]

Yes, a brand of ereaders.

Now if you can just convince Amazon. 

[balaspa]

Honestly, you hit the nail on the head with your first sentence.  It is all name recognition and branding.  Kindle is the hottest selling item at Amazon.  They could have called it the Amazon Tablet, but it just doesn't sound as good.  Associate it with Kindle, get Kindle owners thinking THEY need to upgrade, and attract new people by promoting the tablet aspect and affordable price.

[mooshie78]

Hybrid e-ink/LCD screens would be cool, but I don't think they would kill off dedicated e-readers. There are still to many advantages of the dedicated e-reader. Price is a big one, I expect the price of the dedicated e-reader to continue to drop.

True.  Dedicated readers will probably stick around.  But once those hybrid screens are out and affordable dedicated readers will become a very niche item.  Like portable cd players today in the MP3 era.  You can buy them still, but very few do.

[Luvmy4brats]

Nah, it's a tablet which, like any other tablet, supports ereading apps as one of many features. I don't consider it an ereader.

You might not consider it an ereader, but obviously Amazon does. It's part of Amazon's eReader family. It just happens to do more than the other ones.

I have an iPad, which I consider a tablet, I don't consider the Fire as a tablet because it doesn't do quite as much as a full blown tablet.

[history_lover]

Perhaps you don't, but much like Barnes and Noble with their Nook Color (which is a stripped down Android tablet with a custom overlay... exactly what the Fire is), Amazon considers it part of their e-reader/media consumption line.  They're marketing it that way.

Obviously. I'm still entitled to dislike it.