Just thought I'd chime in here.

I work in online advertising for one of the 3 major TV providers in canada. We have an app which lets you stream all the shows to your iOS device. We also have a weather app, food recipe app and an upcoming news app...all for iOS.

I while back I raised a question about why we don't invest in an Android app and Windows phone 7 app that do the same things and the answer I got from the devs was-

Andorid - too much fragmentation. Dozens of screen resolutions need to be supported, phone specs differ like crazy, OS versions and features are all over the place...and finally according to research, In Canada Android apps don't get nearly the traction and downloads iOS devices do. There really would be no way to monetize the apps properly and provide a good user experience for everyone while keeping the advertisers happy with ad performance.

WP7 - "Whats that?"...Canada for the most part really doesn't know this OS exists. We had 4 gen 1 phones for sale and are not getting a single Mango device.

I am not saying this is the rule, or the exception to it...just that there are cases where fragmentation is still an issue for Android

Played Darksiders on my Captivate just before and it looked and ran great.

Plus I got Lego Batman free just for signing up for a free account.

Some droid phones make good gaming handhelds..others don't..The problem is some droids have slower processors, and then screen sizes vary greatly.. It's fragmented.. Unlike iOS 5 (Apple) ..Everyone of the many companies selling a droid phone are all in direct competition with each other.. Which is why even with all the droid phones out there Apple reaps 60% of total profits of all ( yes, ALL ) phone makers ( not just droid phones, but windows phones, blackberry, etc ) .. People out there don't get that if I'm HTC selling a droid I'm just getting a small piece of the profit because I'm trying to beat Samsung, motorola, and everyone else making a phone using android OS.. Because the android market is so fragmented you end up with either a good phone.. A so-so phone.. Or a junker.. Then on any smart phone you have to worry about poor battery life.  To me this makes any smartphone an average option for gaming.  Most of the world won't choose a smartphone as a main gaming option based on battery life itself.. If you're going to buy a 'high end' android phone to play games and keep it plugged in the wall all day to play a game you might as well play on a huge tv with a gaming console or use a gaming handheld designed purely for gaming like a DS.. Sony can't stand that Nintendo is beating them ( only two console generations after that decided to disband the Sony/Nintendo venture console and go at it alone with the PS1) .. And now that they can barely stay with MS's console ( and unlike MS .. Sony is losing money this generation so it doesnt even matter if they surpass them in consoles sold) they are hoping this lamo idea will help them whip Nintendo's ass again.. Smartphones have many functions so gaming on a phone is nice, but not that nice.. Sony must be truely desperate.  Yeah some kids get a high end Sony Certified Droid phone, but the masses won't .. BAttery life is too much of an issue for most of us on even lower spec phones.. You can only imagine a higher spec phone with the big screen ( well, big for a phone ) .. For crying out loud Sony just make a good handheld so you won't have to sell old games for too much money on new smartphones

Facebook is an entirely different entity. They weave advertising into every piece of the site and have made their billions from farming customer information and applying that to target ads better than anyone else in the business. That's completely different than plastering a gaudy ad that blocks part of the screen and annoys the user while they're trying to play a game or use an app. When you click on an "ad" on Facebook, a lot of the time you don't even know that someone is paying for that space and the ad is so well targeted that it genuinely appeals to the end user. That's how well Zuckerberg & Co. has integrated advertising into the platform.

Note that I said "upgrade" to an iPad. If Amazon makes a Kindle with a faster processor, more RAM, a bigger screen, etc., then a user might upgrade to a better Kindle. But they don't. The Fire, while a great device, is still not a top-shelf tablet and isn't nearly as capable as an iPad.

Bingo. Hell, the Fire isn't even Android 3.0. It's still running 2.3. Google can't even get tablet manufacturers to use their tablet OS consistently. Add in the dozens of possible resolutions, the myriad of hardware options, and Android is fragmented all over the place. It's still a very real problem and Google is going to have to do something about it if they ever expect to truly challenge Apple on user experience.

Agree with you mostly, but on the bolded.. its not trying to be. It also doesn't need to be to be a tablet. I don't think tablets need to compete with laptops and I think the mass consumer will agree in the long run as KF becomes increasingly more popular and other major Android tablet makers realize this and also down grade their offerings to hit these lower price points. But, that's an entirely different thread.

I agree whole-heartedly. I'm just saying that if a consumer wants a laptop replacement tablet (and here is where I think the tablet market becomes divergent), they won't get it from Amazon and there's a good chance they'll turn to Apple for it.

Even Apple has admitted that they probably need to offer a mid-market tablet some time in the future. Some tablets will be laptop replacements, others will complement them.

If we're talking about pre2012, yes mass majority who want high end would snag iPad. However, as Honeycomb finally offered a real Android tablet OS and ICS will continue that push in 2012.... we'll see Android tablets rise in popularity real quick.

I can't relate to that at all. I have a LG, my eldest boy and my wife have Motorolas (different varieties) and my other son has a Samsung. I have no problem using any of them.

Possibly (maybe even probably in the future) but right now, Honeycomb is still lagging behind the iPad and Android tablets have not sold very well. When I went to buy a tablet two months ago, I was leaning toward a Honeycomb tablet (the Xoom and Tab, to be specific).

Then I used them. Despite containing "superior" hardware, having a lower price point, and offering more options, they paled in comparison to the iPad when I actually used the thing. The 16:9 screens are too top-heavy to hold in portrait mode for long periods of time, the GUI lagged (completely unacceptable for a dual core proc with 1gb of RAM), and the OS was just a... mess, honestly. And I'm an Android phone owner.

Google has second place all but locked up at this point but they have a long road ahead of them if they're going to pass Apple. When the tablet market saturates I'm sure they'll have a hefty portion of it but, again, Apple may be the one making all the money... again.