Blog Post

Yo Amazon: Please don’t hijack the web on Kindle Fire

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

Amazon’s(s amzn) Kindle Fire, arguably considered a successful 7-inch tablet, is locked down more than people might think. When trying to browse the Google(s goog) Android Market website in the Fire’s web browser, the device instead opens up Amazon’s Kindle Fire application store. Since the Fire doesn’t officially have access to the Android Market, I can understand the device highlighting its own app store. But to specifically hijack a browser URL and redirect it is disturbing and sets an ugly precedent.

This specific situation isn’t new; it was first reported on Reddit back on Nov. 22, not long after the Kindle Fire began shipping. I only just heard about it this weekend via TheVerge and I tested our Kindle Fire to verify the reports. The browser does redirect any Android Market requests to the Kindle app store; even if you turn off the accelerated browsing feature that routes traffic through Amazon’s servers. That means this hijacking isn’t done via the cloud, but instead is hard-coded into every Kindle Fire. TheVerge reports a file called MarketIntentProxy.apk is the culprit.

Who owns “your” mobile device?

I have several concerns. First is the idea of limiting what a consumer can or can’t do on a device he or she has purchased. I’ve seen this situation before with smartphones and tablets sold through carriers. Some examples include the blocking or removal of tethering applications and more recently, Verizon’s(s vz)(s vod) insistence not to have Google Wallet installed on its Galaxy Nexus model.

To some, this is a grey area because the operator has an asset to protect — its network — and also because of the hardware subsidy model. If there’s a mobile application pinging servers too much, carriers should have recourse and processes to let the offending app maker know, fix the problem or be pulled from an app store. This exact scenario recently happened with YouMail and T-Mobile, for example. In terms of subsidized hardware, when does a consumer actually “own” their device? Carriers can pay for some of the costs, so do they “own” the device as well over the life of a network contract and does that allow them to have control?

Regardless of where your opinion lies on these two particular angles, these arguments shouldn’t apply to the Kindle Fire. Why? Because even though Amazon is reportedly selling the Fire at a small loss, consumers are paying the full price for the hardware. There’s no subsidy for Amazon to pay in order to get people to buy or use a Kindle Fire. And with no subsidy, there’s no contract for network service.

In fact, the Kindle Fire can’t even use a mobile broadband network because it only has a Wi-Fi radio. So consumers are buying the device outright and supplying or finding their own network connection. I’d say the owner should have full control over their device in this situation, with the understanding that technical support is limited or not provided when using the device outside of its intended use.

Redirecting specific web requests is bad karma

My second concern is: where does it end? By routing a specific web request away from the intended site on the Internet, Amazon has set a dangerous precedent here. We collectively debate open vs closed ecosystems, net neutrality and other related themes, but if I had to pick one app to consider “sacred” in these discussions it would be the browser. That’s not the case for this particular web request on a Kindle Fire and once millions of these are in consumer hands, who or what could stop Amazon from adding other URLs to a list of redirects?

You’d think a Kindle Fire owner could simply install a third-party browser — Dolphin Browser HD on a Fire can access Google’s web-based Market, for example — but guess what? There are no third-party browsers in the Kindle AppStore save for Maxthon. But that the browser is our window to the web and that window should not have smears or streaks obscuring our view because a company says so.

I understand Amazon sells the Fire in order to sell apps, movies, TV shows, magazines, books and physical goods. And the company built its tablet upon Google’s open-source Android platform. I think that was a smart strategy.

But Amazon’s tablet relies heavily on Google’s platform; it’s not like the Fire is a standalone platform of its own because standard Android apps can and do run on the device. You simply have to know how to access them and install them. Most people don’t, so I don’t think Amazon should worry. And blocking one of the easiest ways to get standard Amazon apps on the Fire — via the Android Market website — isn’t a long-term answer because the company could suffer through the tag of “web censorship.”

Perhaps I’m being too hard on Amazon here, since many apps require hardware such as a GPS or microphone, which the Kindle Fire doesn’t have. But when I think about this situation in a different light, it doesn’t sound like I am. For instance, if you decided to purchase a new car and after you bought it, the dealership told you it could only be driven on certain roadways, how would you feel? Maybe that’s too extreme of an example, but all I know is this: I want to ride in whatever lane of the information superhighway with my browser that I see fit.

43 Responses to “Yo Amazon: Please don’t hijack the web on Kindle Fire”

  1. So Amazon made a device that has limited functionality, big deal. Amazon never claimed you could access Android Market, they never claimed the “fire” could make ice cream either.

    Also when you buy something by installments, you own it once you have paid for it and not a day before. It’s not hard even for a retard to understand.

  2. Richard A. Johnson

    What is the purpose of browsing the market from your Fire anyways if you can’t download the APK from it? If you purchase a Fire, thinking you are getting a Galaxy, Xoom, or iPad clone, you are wrong. Why do you think it only costs $199? There is already an ICS port being worked on, so unloosen those panties already.

  3. So…just because YOU think hat a company should sell something for a loss, and still let you use something that won’t give them a revenue stream, than means they should?

    How stupid do you have to be to not understand that without doing this, they COULDN’T sell it it a loss. The whole POINT of this is to make up for the loss they incur with each sale.

    The bottom line is, when you buy it, you KNOW it is locked down. So don’t whine like the little bitch that your mother is embarrassed about over it.

  4. Kevin Marks

    It depends how they are doing this. One thing Android does well is letting apps claim URL patterns that they understand. This means that several apps can claim, say, URLs, and Android will let you pick at runtime (and set a default).
    If Amazon is using this mechanism, and allowing others to insert there, that’s great. If they’re hardcoding to prevent it, that’s different.

  5. Navarr Tethyr Barnier

    Wait. I think I might understand why the Kindle does this. When you open a Market link on Android it opens up the Market app so that it pulls up the application in the store. Maybe Kindle Fire does the same thing?

  6. Isn’t all this stuff open source? So just load the source code, modify it as needed, then re-compile and re-install on your device. All these people saying they like Android because it’s open, what’s the point if nobody seems able to modify what they need modified?

  7. Guillermo

    it doesn’t bother me at all. I can go to many 3rd party app sites to get apps the amazon store might not have. now if I was only allowed to go to the amazon app store, then I’d have a problem with that.

  8. palmyra21

    but it’s open!

    If it was Apple directing you to the iphone page if you search for Android in safari, you guys will be screaming bloody murder. The DOJ would be opening a anti-trust inquiry. But since it’s Android (non Apple), it’s meh.

  9. “Imagine buying a new car and then being told you that it can only be driven on certain roadways”

    So, if you knew ahead of time that the car would only work on certain roadways, don’t complain after you buy it that it only works on those roadways.

    It’s like buying a Ford and then complaining that you can’t use Chevrolet parts on it.

  10. I see this as a slippery slope. There are definitely very understandable reasons for it, but what if they suddenly decided they didn’t want you searching for rival products. What if redirected to their Kindle site?

    Be careful of giving an inch, as usually it ends up with someone taking a mile.

  11. While I don’t like it, I can see the logic of devices restricting apps from unsupported marketplaces from being installed. However, I don’t see the reason to do a blatant URL redirect for this purpose. That is the evil part. It goes against the common decency of online behavior. The least Amazon could do is show a message that says the device won’t support apps from the unauthorized marketplace when someone tries to access the Android marketplace.

  12. This sounds like a A.I.T. … Amazon Internet Tax to me. A lot of talk of other “Taxes” about other devices. This is the first I have heard about that kind of “Big Brother Amazon” overbearing control of the internet… sounds kind of creepy to me.

  13. doctorSpoc

    WTF??? Amazon is giving up any profit on the tablet hardware.. you’ve heard of profit right? you know the reason that business actually exist.. some say they are taking a small loss on each tablet).. to me that sounds like a subsidy.. LMAO. they are giving the tablets away with the express purpose of you using amazon media and services.. nothing in the world is free.. you get something and you give up something.. in this case you get a tablet for cost – $10-20 and you give up the tablet being completely and utterly unrestricted.. if you want an unrestricted tablet then go pay full price for one (cost + profit) or wait until another non-iPad competitor goes out of business and fire sales their stock.. i think it will take about another 6mths max for quite a few to completely get out of this losing market..

  14. Did Amazon clearly state that Marketplace isn’t an option in the ToS? If not, then therein lies the blame. Personally, they shouldn’t just do a simple redirect put put up a page with a link stating that the only store that works with the Fire is their own (or other blah blah) with a link to tap.

  15. Donald Michael Kraig

    A “successful 7-inch tablet?” Depends upon what you mean by successful. If you mean “sells a lot now, but we haven’t seen returns yet” then yes, it’s successful. If you mean “Cost tens of millions to develop and loses hundreds of millions for Google every month,” then yes, it’s a success. If you mean “It’s a money maker!” then it’s a dismal failure.

  16. I can understand the frustration, yet comparing Amazon, as the develop of its hardware, to the purchase of a new car and not having the ability to use certain roads is a bit far fetched. I’m sure that’s why you used the qualifier, “maybe.”

    If you want to ride in whatever lane of the superhighway you want, perhaps you can buy something that will let you do so, rather than complaining because the Fire does not.

    Millions of consumers have already voted for the Fire and even factoring in the returns, it’s wildly popular.

    Don’t like it, then don’t buy.

    • Abhijeet Kumar

      I understand a lot of people still do not get that even though kindle fire is based on android, it is not Google’s platform. If Google and its fanboys are not able to take the fact that another company took the open-source version of Google’s crappy OS, and with a midas touch turned it into a gem of a tablet, they better look at themselves in the mirror. Amazon has done nothing wrong by creating what was required, using a crappy OS, from a clueless company, without violating any of its licenses, and turning it into something that makes sense. Android, btw isn’t Google’s in-house developed OS, it was acquired, uses linux kernel underneath. Google and its fanboys === low IQ.

      • Nam Đặng

        Uhm, who said Amazon was wrong to create Kindle Fire? The problem is that Amazon dictates what users can and cannot access on the WEB. And here I thought Amazon was a strong supporter for web neutrality?

  17. Seem like you’re on of the people who still doesn’t really “get” the fire.

    You’ve completely made a mountain out of a molehill here. An advanced user, those that care about the issues you raise, are going to be able to install another browser and move on their way. The basic simple “grandparent” user isn’t going to understand why a link is taking them to a market where they can’t purchase anything. It makes infinitely more sense for amazon to put this redirect in than to confuse an alienate the market they’re going after.

    Frankly you’re targeting the wrong company in your little rant. Sure amazon wants people using their market but all of this talk about them “blocking” it is actually in Google’s hands. Just like the net10 or any other nongoogle approved device it doesn’t get access to the market or other key android apps. Short is even if amazon wanted that, google isn’t going to give it to them so amazon came up with a simple work around, no harm no foul.

  18. Jason Kichline

    I’m not saying I agree with what Amazon has done with the Fire, but I also don’t think it’s evil. Here’s why. If you go to within your browser, your computer may do different things. Your browser may support it, or it may direct that scheme to open a different program. The same goes for something like itunes://. The scheme of the URL is intended to be opened by an application that supports the protocol.

    One protocol we are very used to is mailto:[email protected] or tel:5551234567 . On an Android device, this is handled differently depending on what apps are installed on the device. For instance, a tablet that does not support telephony may just ignore the phone number link. It may give you a choice to open one of many email browsers, or it may open up the default email app on the device. Again, there’s nothing wrong there.

    Amazon doesn’t have the ability to run the Google Market on their devices because it is such a custom build of Android. Because of this, the Fire routes calls to market:// to it’s own market and handles it appropriately. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The other option would be to tell the user that the protocol is not supported and leave them hanging. It is better to handle the protocol request if you can.

  19. You can sideload apps. You can root the Fire.

    And further the terms of what one ‘owns’ are dependent on the licence agreement and T&C, which everyone reads – yes? And if unhappy one can return the device no questions asked within 30 days (or right now over the holiday period until Jan 31).

    I regard the actions here as somewhat in the line of ‘curating’ the device for lesser skilled users, of which there are many and for many of those the Fire seems to be their (a) first tablet (b) first Android device. It does cut down on their support overhead (fewer inexperienced users pounding on Amazon’s door for support for non-Amazon supplied apps – this is always an issue for Amazon eg people use Amazon’s forums to vent & complain all the time about other non Amazon websites which refer to Amazon). Advanced users already know how to sideload their own apps. Maybe they need to spell out the boundaries or licenses a bit more clearly but their clarity on their product pages is improving.

    I have no desire to stand up for Amazon, not being a fangirl, but I appreciate the delicate balance they need to strike.

  20. Shea Clayton

    I can’t say I disagree with amazon redirecting android marketplace requests to their app store. They want to maximize revenue and minimize support costs. They’re probably testing apps in their app store against kindle fires to make sure they work well. There are plenty of less specialized android tablets out there if you don’t want this restriction. And it’s a pretty small one (considering how many websites exist….)

    I guess I’m not buying the moral argument against their restrictions on the kindle fire’s browser.

  21. I can’t say I disagree with amazon redirecting android marketplace requests to their app store. They want to maximize revenue and minimize support costs. They’re probably testing apps in their app store against kindle fires to make sure they work well. There are plenty of less specialized android tablets out there if you don’t want this restriction. And it’s a pretty small one (considering how many websites exist….)

    I guess I’m not buying the moral argument against their restrictions on the kindle fire’s browser.

  22. No, you’re not being too hard on Amazon, this is absurd. They’re selling the Fire with the claim that it has a web browser, but it doesn’t, for any web browser, even Safari or IE, still lets you access Google’s site. I expect this behavior from wireless carriers, telcos, and cable companies, because they actually believe they own the internet, but seeing Amazon act this way is a huge disappointment.

    If they want to lock out certain (competitive) websites, that’s their prerogative, but they need to disclose this (and not in fine print) to potential customers before they buy the crippled device.