Amazon has published developer details for the Kindle Fire. Most notably they support apps up to API level 10 (Gingerbread 2.3.4+).

This is fantastic news as it discounts all rumors that the device was running ancient versions of Android. That's important as it ensures the device comes out of the gate with the many foundational improvements that Google has added to the OS. It also amply demonstrates that Amazon's fork is minimalist, and is likely limited to the shell.

The hardware itself is missing a few features. It doesn't have a gyroscope, for instance, however such is a hardware facet that has gone almost entirely unused in the few products that feature it (some are confusing a gyroscope for an accelerometer. The device does have full motion sensing, just not of the gyroscope variety). The target itself is generally locked down, but that's okay -- for Android developers you can choose to participate in that curated garden or not, with ample alternatives if you decide not to.

Like most in the technology field, I hold tremendous respect for Steve Jobs the man: I look forward to his autobiography, and look in awe at his accomplishments, especially considering the adversities that he overcame. That he grew Apple by a magnitude in such a short period demonstrates how great an impact he had on the industry.

Has capitalism ever seen such a rapid accumulation of corporate wealth before?

I'm less enthused about Steve Jobs the legend, created in the wake of his death. While I appreciate that there's the "too soon" period, during which mass ignorance and rewriting of history are more excusable, the canonization of Jobs, and the overstating of his and his organization's contribution, has reached intolerable levels.

Like most greats, Steve Jobs stood on the shoulders of others. He rightly believed that good artists borrow, great artists steal.

He was but a real human being, with all the limitations and failings that come along with such a reality.

Amazon unveiled the Kindle Fire yesterday to great excitement: They have the content chain foundation to make it an end-to-end device in a manner similar to how Apple succeeded on their iTunes franchise. Better still, they've made it ridiculously inexpensive for what is a fairly decent bit of gear.

And it runs Android.

"But the Android part doesn't really matter" so many pundits are busy stating, trying to convince each other that this device falls in the "other" category.

Utter nonsense. The Android part is critical.

Instantly the device has countless available applications. Those apps are built on a matured, evolved, well understood coding platform.

They went the curation route, hooking it into the Amazon App Store (not sure about side-loading), however that is an almost irrelevant bit of fluff, as anyone building apps for Gingerbread or lower is now heavily motivated to go through the trivial process to get their app in that catalog.

No special coding necessary. If you've built an app for Android, including copious use of the NDK, submit it to Amazon's App Store and voila, you're rolling on the Fire, and can benefit from its success.

I think Amazon's "forking" is a tad overstated. Given that they have the entire runtime platform to support the very, very broad functionality of third-party applications, it seems more likely that they essentially replaced the shell while hooking in some media programs. If it's true that they're running 2.3.5, as rumor has it -- and the version really matters because with the version come the many improvements that have happened in the code chain -- then such a superficial variance is proven as it would be unlikely they could merge from the trunk so quickly otherwise.

Barely a day goes by that I don't see another dire warning that-

If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer, but instead are the product being sold.

While there is an element of truth there, it's a dangerously simplistic, naive way of viewing customer-business relationships.

Consider that I paid GM a lot of money for a big, Earth-destroying SUV. Further, I pay their OnStar division a not-insignificant monthly fee for their services. In return OnStar recently revised their user agreement in such a manner that make me one of the products they sell.

This is hardly a new behaviour for businesses collecting lots of data. Tom Tom, as one of countless examples, sold user data to police departments, among others, allowing them to more appropriately place speed traps.

Modern businesses comprise many divisions, each of which seeks to maximize revenue however possible. If they can package their customers as products and sell them, in many cases they do. Assuming that the transfer of money makes the relationship more pure or singular is pure sophistry.

Aside: Updates are infrequent right now as we're in the process of making a move to a home in the countryside. While technically still within city borders, it will be quite a tremendous lifestyle move for the better: We love nature, and we love space, and either are in ample proportions at our upcoming home, so we're incredibly excited, though it occupies too much of my conscious right now.

In an entry a few weeks back I opined that Apple's success with the iPhone presents an incredible risk to Microsoft: There is a tremendous overlap between people who already owned an iPhone and those who bought an iPad, and now we're seeing the same thing playing out in the PC market (where PC includes Macs).

It's the iPhone halo-effect. People who love their iPhone tend to love the brand, and from that the other products (not discounting that the quality that Apple put into their iPhone is in their other products as well, so it isn't an entirely undeserved carry-over).

I have a Galaxy S II. I absolutely love it. It is a top grade, gorgeous device.

Those things I don't love, however, can be traced back to Samsung's infatuation with all things Apple.

A lack of a notification light, for instance. This makes a 10 out of 10 device a 9 out of 10, in my opinion. I have absolutely no doubt that when Samsung rationalized this decision they looked to the iPhone as their model: It doesn't have one, so better without, right? Not even close. It makes it a major nuisance knowing if there are notifications pending, reducing the utility and value of the device.

The Galaxy S II also lacks a trackball of any sort. This makes editing text a PITA as you try to move the cursor around awkwardly by poking at positions on the screen. Track "balls" (preferrably optical) also help for on the go phone use, allowing you to scroll emails, etc, with the phone in one hand.

Both are failings of the iPhone, not features or redeeming qualities. Copying such brokenness doesn't help the platform. Learn to ignore those who will invariably herald whatever Apple does because their rhetoric is not evidence based, it's simply an indoctrination to follow and champion.

Even iOS' rubber-band scrolling (where it lets you exceed the bounds of a list but then bounces back) makes an appearance on the GS II, as it does on HTC's Sense. Why? This is not an intuitive interface element, and is deficient compared to Gingerbread's stock behavior. There is no real life metaphor that correlates with this broken usability.

Stop copying the iPhone. Seriously, just stop. You don't need to, and when you do it makes your products worse.

And just to get this in the wild to avoid the inevitable patents, start thinking up better input techniques. I would like a small touch sensor on the back of the device, for instance (hold your device and you can immediately imagine hundreds of uses). The possibilities are endless. Don't wait for Apple to prove that it can be done.

Update 2011-09-17- Samsung has a simply incredible manufacturing process: They seem to make a million variations of everything, specifically targeting niches, carriers, and industries (amply disproving the garbage "make one that is not quite right for everyone and that will be the best" mantra). For the Sprint variation of the Galaxy S II they did away with the large, rectangular iPhone button and went for the four capacitive buttons, added a notification light, among other not-like-an-iPhone changes. The result is a much better device. Hopefully they learn from this.

Per the article in Vanity Fair several years back (which I commented on), that property can now be yours for just $809,000.