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.
Re:Stock roms, lawl (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is going to have it in their hands until tomorrow, I'm guessing it will be another week or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Rooting will probably happen overnight. It is an older version of Android. Amazon stated they realized it would be rooted but asked people not to do it.
It doesn't have a GPS, nor cameras, nor external flash, nor HDMI, nor microphone, and has a limited amount of flash and RAM.
Android altogether has issues with codecs other than h.264.
The point is, that even if they did root it and hack away there's too little to work with as far as the hardware goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does. It doesn't require a PC but the documentation I read stated that you could load files onto it by USB. This should be enough to hack it.
Re:Stock roms, lawl (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it can be rooted, that will not make it succeed. How many people can actually root a device?
I think the 90% (maybe more) of the people that buys a Kindle (or any tablet) do not even know about what rooting a device is.
Re:Root (Score:3)
How Amazons walled
Re:Stock roms, lawl (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
The whole story is partisan trash; I invite anyone to go to the articles source and browse the archives. They literally have a "why this is going to fail" article for every major Android product release, obscure "experts" decrying the benefit of any tech not found in iPhones (quad-core processors, newer nVidia chips, etc.), talk about how new Android versions "won't save them"; they do have a (very few) positive articles about Android features, but the overwhelming majority of content on their site is anti-Android and pro-Apple. There are valid complaints to have with Android, but it's top in marketshare, and it looks just a little fishy when 90% of stories are so heavily critical of Android.
That's without getting to the meat of the matter, though. They make a lot of talk in the article about the poor reviews, about problems rearing their "ugly heads" throughout "almost every review," and then at the end they link two -- one of which calls the Kindle Fire "revolutionary" and gives it their first Editor's Choice for small tablets, and the other stating it's unquestionably a terrific value. Neither is anything but enthusiastic. So one has to wonder where, exactly, the conclusion in TFA comes from?
This is just more Apple dittohead speak. Apple makes quality products. I wish they made quality users.
We are getting one (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sole purpose is basically "grab that and look up x" device for the living room and game night in the kitchen. It's not for games, certainly isn't for reading (I have a real kindle for that), and sure isn't meant to replace my laptop for media consumption.
$200 isn't that bad for a little net portal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sole purpose is basically "grab that and look up x" device for the living room and game night in the kitchen. It's not for games, certainly isn't for reading (I have a real kindle for that), and sure isn't meant to replace my laptop for media consumption.
$200 isn't that bad for a little net portal.
If those are its strengths, then why not just use a notebook computer? Well, early doors. Maybe they'll go back to their techs, beat them mercilessly with a frozen haddock, and updates will be forthcoming which sort it out and make it a little bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
The gaming table is already pretty full and I don't want to make room for my 17in MBP. The Fire on the other hand seems like it will fit the bill nicely since it's the same size as a Playbook which had a presence at the table for a while before it was stolen :/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> If those are its strengths, then why not just use a notebook computer?
Same strengths as the iPad, though. A "laptop that's not quite a laptop which never goes outdoors".
I just read both the reviews linked to, and the sluggishness was about the only negative thing, and as someone else just pointed out here, most people don't notice that sort of thing. You dragged the screen left, and the screen scrolled left. That's not something you usually get on the phone to customer services about.
It's a $200 tabl
Re:We are getting one (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You can't hold a laptop in one hand, and flick it on and within seconds you're on a web page and passing it around to your friends.
Laptops are unwieldy devices, not meant to be pop on, pop off for quick info bites. Or sitting on a train doing something. I mean, it's possible, but its a huge PITA and not very fun. $200 is the perfect price point for these devices. Apple will have to play ball if they want to keep the market.
Re:We are getting one (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I don't think Apple has much to worry about:
From TFA:
Suggesting that users won't notice unresponsive screens, buttons, an general lag is just burying your head in the sand. I foresee some initial excitement for this pad just like all the others before it, and then buyers remorse will kick in about the time the larger reviews do.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a netbook which I used to use all the time. I hardly use it since I got my tablet. It's handy if you need to write lots. If you just want to browse the web, post a few small comments, watch some videos or read a book, the tablet is far more "handy".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am an Apple fan boy and I've never enjoyed using iOS. Until it ships with something else I won't own one.
Re: (Score:3)
Because most people don't need a $500 device to do what they want a tablet to do. The Fire does those things without being overkill, both on features and on your wallet.
With the Fire you aren't paying for 3G if you don't want to (pay a monthly fee for very slow internet access). You aren't paying for a bunch of storage that you don't need. You aren't paying for a camera and a microphone, which most people don't care about in a tablet. Apple packs all these features in that are little-used by most in order t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We got some iPads here at work to eval for use in various places. I was very underwhelmed. OTOH - My family and I really enjoy our Asus Transformer tablet. Whenever my kids are home for my weekends, a common question from my wife is "Where's the tablet?" I am very happy about not being tied to iTunes either. There's only one iPod left in the house, and it's a nightmare of support when she has problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what this has to do with fire, and beside it is mainly just name calling. Underwhelmed by what? Enjoyed the Asus why? Would rather not be tied to iTunes because? A nightmare of support because?
You aren't actually saying anything.
Re: (Score:2)
$200 isn't that bad for a little net portal.
What would happen if they spent another $50 on the CPU and released a $250 version? I bet it would fly off the shelves...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We are getting one (Score:4, Insightful)
battery life, most likely. it's the main reason i got a sony reader a few years back. sure, the screen's nice to read from but it's the battery life that's a massive benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
battery life, most likely. it's the main reason i got a sony reader a few years back. sure, the screen's nice to read from but it's the battery life that's a massive benefit.
What these things really need, all readers that is, is a means of holding it up over the bed so I can read with my hands under the covers. Arms get tired, hands get cold, while holding up a book. I'd love something which allows me to keep warm while reading (I tend to read a lot during the Winter) Maybe something with a headboard mount, or tripod with an arm to support it - and as I'm at home reading in bed, it may as well have a means of supporting the charger so I run it on house current, rather than t
Re: (Score:2)
I think manufactures have, indeed, solved this particular technical issue.
It's called, surprisingly enough, a 'laptop'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here you go. [amazon.com] Or this. [amazon.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
We *have* a Kindle, and it lasts about 15 hours (radios off.) That's what made me go look it up -- the difference between the fanboi claims and my actual experience. And Amazon confirmed exactly what I'm seeing -- they're not making any false claims, that's fanboi territory. Lithium-ion batteries don't have self-discharge issues over 30 day periods, either, just FYI.
Re: (Score:3)
We *have* a Kindle, and it lasts about 15 hours (radios off.) That's what made me go look it up -- the difference between the fanboi claims and my actual experience. And Amazon confirmed exactly what I'm seeing -- they're not making any false claims, that's fanboi territory.
I don't think it's fanboi territory, there's just been a misunderstanding here. You linked to the new basic $79 kindle, which does indeed have half the battery life of the previous models and probably about 15 hours' of usage. However, most people commenting about kindles here (including myself) will have the older (and arguably much better) keyboard kindles, which had double the battery life and easily gave a months' charge. I assume that you've got the new $79 model; if you do have one of the keyboard
Re: (Score:2)
I can't read for very long off a backlit surface with out becoming teary eyed. I know some (especially in the tech world) can power through a day with just a few minute breaks here and there from their LCD, but I have to get up and do something else for a bit before I can go sit down at my monitors again (both LED-LCDs). I don't know why but I get it at the Cinema too.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We are getting one (Score:5, Interesting)
Would be nice if tablets came with that OLPC XO screen that switched between color with a backlight and black and white reflective for using outdoors. The black and white mode also had 3x the resolution, wonder how it would compare to an e-ink or iPhone 4 retina display for reading text.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a DX which means it doesn't have wi-fi and AT&T has an exceptionally poor network around here
Re: (Score:2)
If you just need something to look things up online, why don't you use your existing Kindle?
If you've ever tried to actually use one for net access, you would have never made that comment.
I love that I can access the net on my Kindle3, but it's usability is as bad as using a Tivo or Boxee to do the same thing. This may have changed with the new touch-based Kindles, but using a directional pad to orient a mouse to click buttons and links on screen near-unusable.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's is a contraction of "it is" in this case
So suck a fart of my asshole you miserable fuck
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody's got a case of the Mondays!
Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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: (Score:2)
There hasn't been a lot of time between where they forked Android and several months ago, when you'd have expected the Fire's OS to be in a mostly completed state.
I'm guessing there will be updates that refine the platform more, especially as big as it's selling. Amazon is serious about it, so I've no doubt they will address it.
No thought on the UI (Score:2)
Adding the content for Amazon Prime members is enticing... but really, work on how the product feels in the hands of the user (user experience). Then you *might* take some users away from the iPad.
Not so sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
"For a device that is entirely about media consumption, the Fire will live or die depending on its perceived alacrity."
Really? Given that previous Kindles have been relatively slow to turn pages, and that Hulu and Netflix playback on devices like XBox 360s, Blu-Ray players, and PS3s presents a somewhat less-than-seamless experience, are we confident that "good enough" isn't good enough?
Not everyone needs everything to be absolutely smooth and stunningly fast. It's nice, but it may not be worth more than doubling the price. Keep in mind that most Americans (and, really, the worldians) aren't geeks. Delays may be okay.
Will I buy a Fire? Probably not, but I still get that my relatively high standards for devices are relatively high.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Given that previous Kindles have been relatively slow to turn pages, and that Hulu and Netflix playback on devices like XBox 360s, Blu-Ray players, and PS3s presents a somewhat less-than-seamless experience, are we confident that "good enough" isn't good enough?
Given how (relatively) inexpensive the Kindle Fire is, I suspect you're right - although we obviously won't know for a year or so. But I could see this reputation being a problem if Amazon tries to follow the Fire up with a more expensive tablet that's meant to compete against the iPad.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you actually used it or are you just making shit up? The Netflix app on the 360 is stellar, and the version that runs on the PS3 and Google TV devices is pretty good, far better than the native UIs of those systems.
It's slow as two-legged dog on my iPad, though, so I don't use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was enjoying your post, but then my bandwidth changed. I'll have to finish reading it in a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was true when I bought a PS3 but for last 6 months if you tracked my hours on the device I think you would see Netflix at about 75% of usage and games at 25%. Maybe I'm unusual, but I am surprised at how nice an experience the PS3 + netflix is for watching TV.
Page turning slow??? (Score:3)
What are they doing? Using it to spy on the reader?
Based upon how long you spent on Page 327 of Cocking the Snook, which contained a lot of words we've run through our aggregator, here are a pile of books you also might enjoy...
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.
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?
Shockingly, lower price means cheaper experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shockingly, lower price means cheaper experienc (Score:5, Insightful)
People were probably hoping that Amazon was selling the Fire at a loss and that they were actually getting a $500 tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read any of the reviews? They all say it holds its own against what the iPad does. Offers quick access to web and email, listen to music, and watch videos. Fire does it just fine for $200. iPad does it just fine for $600. Gee, wonder which one people will end up buying?
Re:Shockingly, lower price means cheaper experienc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, not page turns. The end of the world. This matters not. It doesn't justify $400 price premium. If you can read books, browse pages, check email, listen to music, and watch videos for $200, it can do everything the iPad does for $400 less. Everything. None of the reviews say its unusable. None say its horrible. None say its not worth buying. All the reviews DO say it's the first iPad competitor they've seen, and mark it highly.
Re: (Score:3)
All the reviews DO say it's the first iPad competitor they've seen, and mark it highly.
This is the *first* iPad competitor they've seen? What the heck were the Galaxy Tab, Playbook, Asus Transformer and other post-iPad tablets? Or do they mean the first "respectable" (i.e. non-Chinese knock-off) competitor at a much cheaper price, with all the warts that go with it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's for filling the fad for the less wealthy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying tablets are a "fad"- they will be around for the foresable future. However, the public's response to tablets at the moment is "fadish".
It's the cool thing to have- especially for anyone wanting to look yuppyish and in the in-crowd. Not saying they don't have function for many people (although most people would still be more practically served by a netbook).
So someone needs to fill the niche for the majority of people for whom Apple and other quality tablets are just too expensive.
So regardless of whether kindle fire is any good- it will sell because there is a need for less wealthy people to feel "with it".
Re: (Score:2)
The reason netbooks got it so badly is because most people are NOT better served by them. Most people want a portable device to read, watch videos, browse the web, play games and perhaps write an occasional email or Facebook post. A tablet does all of those better except perhaps writing. Perhaps - I much prefer typing on a tablet to the tiny keys of a netbook. And for actual mobile use (you know, when there isn't a table handy to put it on) the tablet wins hands down in everything.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree.
You can stick a DVD or a Bluray in a netbook as well as stream video.
For browsing the web- how often do you not need to type something into google- a keyboard is the best way to do that (for most people).
If you often find your self wanting to stand up and use a device- sure an tablet would be better- there are other scenarios a tablet is better too- but I think for most people a netbook, whereas less cool, is more functional.
Like tablets though- there is a wide variety of how good the t
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stick a DVD or BR into most netbooks, because most netbooks don't have a disc drive (let alone blu-ray drive).
For a couple quick google searches, I don't think there's a fundamental difference between a physical keyboard and touchscreen keyboard. Most people are reasonably sufficient on both. Unless you're using the tablet as a primary device (which most wont), you're not usually typing tons and tons on it. Many netbook keyboards are also gimped. I'm probably faster
Re:It's for filling the fad for the less wealthy (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason netbooks got it so badly is because most people are NOT better served by them.
So what's a netbook? Netbooks were sold as a category, but they really weren't any different than what had come before. Atom processor instead of Core processor, check -- so they have lousy performance. Otherwise all the components were exactly the same as a laptop. It was never much of a stretch to just drop the Atom and build a regular laptop with cheap build quality (which is pretty much what you see in Best Buy now).
Most people want a portable device to read, watch videos, browse the web, play games and perhaps write an occasional email or Facebook post. A tablet does all of those better except perhaps writing.
Boy, here I really disagree. I have an Android tablet and I rarely pull it out for anything. Most Web sites are still designed for a pointing device rather than a touch UI. Anything that requires typing, from word processing to Facebook to Slashdot, works better on a device with a keyboard. Tablets work great for Angry Birds, but otherwise I'm just not sure what they're good for.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's a netbook?
Small.
Re:And your definition of "fad?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad blurp? (Score:2)
The blurp looks like an advertisement for the iPad, or at least a 'do not buy a Kindle Fire' ad. Is this really worthy of /.?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The blurp made it seem that the Fire has no positive things, that's all. That's why I asked the question.
I think the concept is great... (Score:5, Insightful)
$500 vs $200 (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they suggesting a $500 item might be better than a $200 item? I'm shocked!
The fact that a $200 item is competitive feature wise with a $500 item should make it the better value, no?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For what it is worth, iOS devices aren't always fast and snappy. I wait on my iPhone to respond all the time.
Tablets aren't carried around in pockets in most cases. A tenth of an inch in thickness shouldn't even mean anything to anyone.
I wipe my iPhone several times a day to remove fingerprints. Supposedly it is finger print resistant but I just don't see it. If the feature worked as advertised, I'd consider it a plus.
Amazon created a tablet that is primarily there to digest media. You can listen to music,
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair one of those devices comes with a 2x plus markup over the manufacturing price.
what space is there for the Fire?" (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
A $200 device that will do both.
Futon of readers/tablets? (Score:4, Insightful)
iPads suck as reading devices (Score:5, Interesting)
The comparisons to the iPad are ridiculous. I do expect the Nook Tablet to be a better device and The Nook Color has the least reflective LCD display I have ever seen on a mobile device and the only LCD display I consider good enough to read on.
However the iPad is a horrible reading device. Anyone who thinks an iPad is a reading device doesn't read much.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
What we want from the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet is something that is easier and better to read on and carry around and is a lot cheaper than an iPad. 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. Well, 7" tablets are even more convenient, and a lot cheaper than an iPAd which costs more than a basic, extremely competent laptop does.
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. An iPad for a lot of people is a luxury, and something it's not hard to have second thoughts about. 7" tablets will give another reason to not buy an iPad. They are completely different devices, which will actually be more suitable for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, that's a lot of typing!
Re: (Score:2)
The comparisons to the iPad are ridiculous. I do expect the Nook Tablet to be a better device and The Nook Color has the least reflective LCD display I have ever seen on a mobile device and the only LCD display I consider good enough to read on.
However the iPad is a horrible reading device. Anyone who thinks an iPad is a reading device doesn't read much.
Yeah, and despite all that, my Kindle Library pretty darned large thank-you-very-much. 90% of it read on an iPad, the other 10% on my 2nd-gen Kindle which was immediately given to the in-laws once I got the iPad. For my situation, reading on the iPad is a way better situation than the Kindle.
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.
vs the nook color? (Score:2)
Donotwant (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no use for any locked-down toy computers. I disregard any such devices once I learn of their nature, although sometimes I take an interest again if they can be hacked (like the Nook Color).
Just wait.... (Score:3)
The difference will be the price point and ease of use. Sure- the iPad can do it all better, but for 2.5 times the cash. Other devices might be better ebook readers. But getting all of it for under $200? Technology history is full of better devices and technologies losing to "good enough". And the reviews seem to be saying it isn't stellar, but also seem to be saying it will do the job. And how many non-techie people read through all the comparison reviews? I doubt the typical Slashdot reader is Amazon's main intended demographic.
I wouldn't count it out yet.
iPad killers... aren't (Score:5, Interesting)
I say this as somebody who doesn't have an iPad and can't figure out why people want one...
Apple really has pulled something off with the iPad that I think hasn't happened in a long time. There are finally serious competitors to the first iPad, but they're more expensive and not quite as slick. The Galaxy Tab is probably the closest right about now, but it's just not as good. Nothing comes close to the second one in terms of performance, and it's still just $500. This is aside from all the user-interface things that don't figure into the specs.
I've never seen anything like it. Apple released the first iPad almost 2 years ago and there aren't really any serious competitors. There are serious competitors to the first one, but they came out only just before the release of the second one! A brand new Galaxy Tab is still $500, is a lower resolution, and slower than it's also-$500 competitor!
The iPad is honestly the cheapest option, but the best anyway. A pretty interesting thing for Apple, even though their high prices are mostly a myth anyway (the cheapest laptop for the specs I wanted was a mac). As we see here, by cutting the price back (and even eating a loss) you lose functionality very quickly.
Re: (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? Ho
Ultimately, that's why I have one of each... (Score:4, Interesting)
The E-Ink versions of the Kindle do what they are supposed to do very, very well. If I sit down to read a book on an E-Ink screen, I can read for several hours without eyestrain. The Kindle E-Ink UI is sluggish, but it is generally consistently sluggish, and my brain soon ignores the sluggishness. The slow page-turning stops mattering after a while -- it takes some time to flip a page on a physical book, too! -- and the lack of glare, easy-read screen, and ability to read in sunlight combine to create a pleasant reading experience.
I cannot sit and read for hours on my iPad. After a two or three-hour reading session on the iPad -- even with regular breaks! -- the world around me is fuzzy and I'm often nursing the beginnings of a headache. The Barnes & Noble Nook Color shared the same problem. I don't expect any different from the Fire. Close-range LCD creates eyestrain in many people, despite manufacturer claims to the contrary. I can't read an LCD comfortably outdoors in the sunlight, and the glare is horrendous in many situations.
The Kindle Fire, for me, would only be interesting to me as a replacement for my iPad. So what would I get for $200? A device that isn't a great book reader because I can't read for longer than an hour on it without eyestrain. And now reports claim it shares the same problem every Android device I've used so far suffers from as well: inconsistently sluggish performance. That's the very reason I own an iPad 2 instead of one of the many excellent, high-spec Android tablets out there. UI sluggishness bugs the heck out of me most when it's inconsistent, and I suspect I'm not alone in that observation. The human brain is an organ of prediction, and performance must be predictable to take advantage of that fact.
The Kindle Fire? Meh, I'll pass, while once again pondering the thought of selling my iPad 2. That is, until the next time I play Dungeon Defenders, want to surf quickly without firing up the laptop, or watch a movie when the kids are using the big screen. The Kindle Fire might survive in that ecosystem and might not. I see no compelling reason to pick one up.
Silk browser (Score:2)
I wonder how much of the sluggishness is due to the browser funneling everything through Amazons servers? If you want a consistent user experience the local hardware needs to handle retrieving and rendering, not a remote server. I don't want my browsing dependent on how much traffic Amazon is experiencing.
Can another browser be used on the Fire besides Silk, one that works like a traditional web browser?
False metric (Score:4, Insightful)
"For a device that is entirely about media consumption, the Fire will live or die depending on its perceived alacrity."
No, not at all.
That's the measure about whether it's an iPad.
It's not.
The fact is that (I believe) many people will be happy to save $hundred$ in exchange for a little menu-lag. The Fire will live or die depending on its perceived VALUE.
HP Touchpads failed as a market product, but FLEW off the shelves at a lower pricepoint. That has NOTHING to do with how 'quickly' it displayed stuff....that didn't change between the earlier and later sell-rates.
Capitalism 101, for those of you in academia.
Most sluggishness is software issue wil be patched (Score:2)
Amazon don't release final products. The Fire sounds like buggy incomplete software like the Touchpad. The difference is HP were complete morons and released the Touchpad for 600. For 200 the Fire will sell like hot cakes any way and Amazon will bring out a software patch in a month or two. The hardware inside the Fire is very potent, and 512MB of RAM is enough for Apple so it is enough for anyone. Amazon have done a poor job of 'improving' gingerbread. But at $200, they have time to fix it. Silk is a stupi
No thanks (Score:2)
Question, how long will they last? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are these devices designed to just die in a year or two when the batteries decay? And will they "function" at all when they are running off of supplementary power? My Nook Simple, seems to go braindead when its plugged in. It goes into a "charging" mode.
I realize this crowd probably wants to use the Fire as a tablet and not as an e-reader. But its being sold as a e-reader and a "replacement" for books. Well, books dont stop working after a few years. What is the max lifetime we can expect from these devices?
Blog spam (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Claim reviews are trickling in
2. Only link to your own review, and repeat your own thoughts in the summary.
3. Profit.
No missing step required. MrSeb submits a link to a review written by someone named Sebastian. Coincidence? I think not.
Not sure it reflects the cited reviews accurately (Score:3)
Then you click on one of them, the PC magazine review [pcmag.com] and it gives it "4/5 with its "bottom line" summary as "The first easy-to-use, affordable small-screen tablet, the Amazon Kindle Fire is revolutionary." Verge was slightly less positive, giving it 75%, but finishes with "Still, there's no question that the Fire is a really terrific tablet for its price. "
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense.
CNet gave it a good review. Ditto for ZDnet. Engadget's review was critical, but came out positive for the Kindle Fire.
Every review I've read so far has said that the only people who will be disappointed w/ the Kindle Fire are those who expect an iPad 2 for $200.