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.
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.
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.
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.
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.