Reviews of Kindle Fire Are a Mixed Bag 381
MrSeb writes "Ahead of tomorrow's full-scale launch of Amazon's new wunderkind, panacea, and lynch-pin of its continuing distribution domination, initial reviews of the Kindle Fire are starting to trickle in... and they're not as fantastic as we had hoped. Unsurprisingly, not a single review is denying that the bright screen, solid construction, and $200 price point make for a perfect holiday season outing — but to actually win the hearts of consumers, to steal those throbbing, Cupertino-captivated organs away from the iPad, the Kindle Fire has to be amazing... and it isn't. Throughout almost every review, one particularly telling observation rears its ugly head: the Kindle Fire can be sluggish. Page turns can lag. Menus can be slow to load. Screen touches can be unresponsive. For a device that is entirely about media consumption, the Fire will live or die depending on its perceived alacrity. If an E Ink Kindle or Nook is better for reading books, and a smartphone or iPad is better for watching movies or listening to music, what space is there for the Fire?"
Stock roms, lawl (Score:5, Informative)
Let it get rooted, and optimized by XDA devs and we can see what the tablet can really do.
Most embarrassing (Score:5, Informative)
The most embarrassing part is that, like many Android devices, the Fire can't scroll smoothly despite having a dual core processor. Scrolling between pages is pretty important for an Amazon tablet. What is it about this task is so difficult? iOS 1.0 handled it back in 2007 on less powerful devices.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that has as much to do with the Linux kernel so much as that Android is based on Java. And large chunks of Android (along with 99% of the apps) don't use hardware acceleration. Google wouldn't allow it initially due to differences in hardware.
Now most everyone is using one of two types of GPU in all Android devices, and hopefully the software stack starts to take advantage.
The iPhone 4S takes full advantage of offloading all UI rendering to the GPU, which makes it seem snappy and responsive.
Amazon wrote a fairly customized version of Android here, so it is their own fault if they didn't take advantage of the GPU.
Re:Surprise (Score:2, Informative)
based on Java
That should be irrelevant. Execution is close to native speed on Android. Heck, on the Desktop, the "Java is slow" is an ancient argument.
And large chunks of Android (along with 99% of the apps) don't use hardware acceleration.
Bingo.
But Amazon should have addressed this. As you say, with the Kindle fire, they essentially have the entire stack. They could have taken advantage of acceleration. And they've got the resources to make that happen.
The iPhone 4S takes full advantage of offloading all UI rendering to the GPU, which makes it seem snappy and responsive.
"seem" is a weasel word. Using the GPU makes it snappy and responsive.
Re:iPads suck as reading devices (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who regularly reads on an iPad, I'm not really there with you.
- the iPad has much lower pixel density than the Nook Color/ Tablet and Kindle Fire. You can see it. And peopel who read books aren't going to have much love for pixelated text.
I honestly haven't noticed the text being bad. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing. A double-density display might be nice (comparing the iPad to the iPhone 4, it's noticeable, but not a degraded experience IMO.)
- the iPad screen is horribly, unusably glossy. Basically the only situation in which you are not dealing with awful reflections is indoors when you manage to position the iPad so that no lights are reflected in it. Outdoor use? Forget it. The Nook Color as I said does a lot better.
I agree with this. I got a matte screen protector because of it. I really wish Apple would deal with this problem.
- the iPad is big and bulky for reading. It's not about strength or being too weak to hold up something as light as the iPad, holding something iPad size at arms length for a while gets old really really fast.
I don't hold books at arms length. So I guess I never noticed a difference.
- the iPad is not portable, it is nothing like a book. The Nook Color and similar sized devices like the Kindle Fire fit easily into a jacket pocket or a handbag, the iPad is a pain to carry around in comparison. The iPad is a coffee table device, not a true mobile device.
I carry mine around in a handbag. I can't imagine having a 7" device in my pocket, jacket or otherwise. Heck, I can barely stand having a 3.5" screen phone in my pocket. It swings around annoyingly while I walk.
An iPad is a luxury, \anyone who does any seirous work will also have a laptop. The iPad is osmething you pull out when a laptop is inconvenient.
I never carry a laptop while I travel anymore. iPad in my carryon works great. I might throw a bluetooth keyboard in my checked luggage, if I think I'm going to have to do a whole lot of typing. Simple note-taking is fine without it, as are short, quick e-mails.
The other reason people will buy the Kindle Fire is the same reason people bought those junk $100-120 Android tablets. It's cheap enough to not have to think about.
Maybe. There are certainly more people out there who can afford not to think about a $200 purchase than a $500 purchase. I think $200 is still thought-provoking to most people. And anyone who reads specs (admittedly not most people) should be wary of the limited storage on the Fire. The Nook Tablet at $250 provides double the storage and expandability. If I were looking for a 7" tablet, that's where I'd be looking.
Re:iPad killers... aren't (Score:3, Informative)
The Galaxy Tab is much higher resolution, what are on about?
And it performs better and is thinner than the second iPad, forget the first one.
Sure, the iPad still kills anything else for software, but if you want a tablet for actual tablet uses of games and movies and reading and browsing, the Galaxy Tab is great. If you want software that is severely crippled compared to what you could run on a cheaper laptop, sure, the iPad is great for yuppies. Why do you think Apple is so desperate to get it banned? How many people do you know who bought the iPad for the software? IF you want functionality, a $400 laptop kills the iPad any day, hell a $200 netbook kills it.
The higher prices are not a myth. You can get a quad core full HD screen laptop here in Australia for $899. Find me a comparable laptop from Apple with a price anywhere in the ballpark - a comparable laptop from Apple costs over $2000 here.
Sounds like you sold out to Apple and have stopped caring about what happens in the rest of the world, or you are desperate to justify all the money you have shelled out.
The price is NOT $200 (Score:2, Informative)
Let's be honest about this. The price of the Kindle Fire may be $200 but people who buy this will also find themselves buying Amazon Prime which is $80. This is relevant because an iPad comes with the iCloud for free. Amazon has unbundled the package and Apple has not. For a few people the unbundling is nice: if you own multiple devices then you only buy Amazon Prime once. But one should recognize the $200 is somewhat illusory.
Battery life (Score:4, Informative)
We've got an e-ink Kindle, my SO uses it constantly, and I wasn't unusually impressed by the battery life, so I went and looked it up: The battery life of the e-ink Kindle is, according to Amazon [amazon.com], 30 days with 1/2 hour of reading every day, or a total of 15 hours, with the radios off. My iPad hits 15 hours no problem at all with the radios (both 3G and wifi) off when I'm reading. Static text display with occasional page turns aren't very tough on the hardware. Of course the iPad has much more battery capacity in order to accomplish this. We have ordered the Fire, and it'll be very interesting to see how long it holds up, reading. Since it's smaller than an iPad, the foregone conclusion is that the battery capacity is less. The question is, what's the power consumption of that smaller backlight? Proportionally less, enough to keep it in that 15 hour range, or... ???
As for the usability of an LCD display for reading, it's very high indeed. I don't even use our e-ink Kindle, because mostly, I read in bed. I laugh every time I see people dissing LCDs for reading. It's either confirmation bias or outright nonsense. Both e-ink and LCD are fine for many hours of reading. There's no flicker on an LCD screen, they can be turned down to extremely dim for comfortable use in darkness, they're *way* faster than e-ink, and they're usable in situations where the e-ink fails, such as in the bedroom with someone who is trying to sleep -- and while e-ink is indeed readable in full sunlight, if I actually try to read in full sunlight, I suffer some serious eyestrain in very short order, so that's of little use to me.
So which major brand Android device cannot scroll (Score:4, Informative)
So which major brand Android device cannot scroll smoothly?
Is it Sony Tablet S? Nope, it rocks.
Is it Samsung Galaxy Tab, thinnest, lightest tablet with best tablet screen ever released according to toms (http://media.bestofmicro.com/benchmarks-review-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1,G-1-305137-13.png)? Nope, it rocks.
Yes, there are cheapo devices, that, at fraction of cost, are a bit sluggish. But is it something to wonder about?