Slashdot Mirror
Reviews of Kindle Fire Are a Mixed Bag
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?"
Let it get rooted, and optimized by XDA devs and we can see what the tablet can really do.
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.
I hope you die painfully and alone.
A $200 tablet is unresponsive and sluggish? Shocker.
"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.
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.
I know this is a shock to the fanboys who demand that companies arbitrarily lower prices because they don't want to pay $500 for a tablet, but if you strip something down to a cheap price, there are tradeoffs. You lose some of what people want. OF COURSE it's not as good as an experience as something costing twice as much. Why in the world is this a surprise? If you don't mind the cheaper experience, buy the Fire. If you want something excellent and you think it's worth paying the money, get an iPad. Those are your choices. You can't expect an iPad experience at a Kindle Fire price. Decide whether you want cheap or good, but don't complain that reality won't let you have both.
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".
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The problem is people comparing it to an iPad2. It's not an iPad2. I don't feel sorry for anyone buying one thinking it's a cheap iPad2, nor do I think any reasonable people thought they would or should be competing for the same audience.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
Reminds me of the joke about futons, "a not that comfortable couch that turns into an even less comfortable bed, wow both those things in one!"
People were probably hoping that Amazon was selling the Fire at a loss and that they were actually getting a $500 tablet.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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.
Are you suggesting that /. shouldn't run news that has a negative tone, or that they should have found a more positive blurb for the Fire?
It seems pretty fair and accurately representative of what I'm reading elsewhere. I don't see that /. has an editorial obligation to support Apple competitors no matter what the real story is.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
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).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No, that's NOT what all the reviews say. Some of the reviews say it does a poor job on really basic things, such as page turns. If you like that -- and want a cheapo experience -- buy it. But don't expect an iPad experience for Fire prices. It won't happen.
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.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
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.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
"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.
-Styopa
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.
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, 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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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?
can we really say the palm pilot is dead? or that is has evolved into the smartphone? when you think about it a smart phone is nothing more than a palm pilot with a radio in it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Oh no, not page turns. The end of the world. This matters not.
Yeah, it's not like you'll be doing something like that over and over again, multiple times per hour, while using the device or anything...
It doesn't justify $400 price premium.
$300, but what's being off by 33%? Given your inclination to not sweat the little things, I'm sure this matters not...
All the reviews DO say it's the first iPad competitor they've seen, and mark it highly.
I see the money you've saved on buying a Fire has allowed you to invest in rose-colored glasses. That's not what the reviews say at all. Most, in fact, say pretty much the opposite. That they had high hopes and that it really had a lot of potential, based on the launch event, but that it fails to live up to the iPad. At best, they say it's a great $200 tablet, but in no way is a proper iPad competitor. The screen isn't even the same size category!
The Fire isn't an iPad competitor, but it's a great original Kindle competitor, with some understandable compromises.