I disagree. The article is explicitly about people being unhappy with the kindle and returning, it uses consumer reviews to prove this, yes it mentions specific flaws, however that is not the basis of their argument, their argument is about users being overall unhappy and returning it, something facts don't support.
I summed up my view better in a comment below:
The article looks at a few individual reviews on amazon's website, to support its claim that consumers are unhappy with the device, however overall if you look at the average of these ratings they are on par with the iPad. And the statement that "some of the early adopters are unhappy" is relatively useless as it could be applied to the iPad or any other device and still be true. Where is the substance to this argument?
The article looks at a few individual reviews on amazon's website, to support its claim that consumers are unhappy with the device, however overall if you look at the average of these ratings they are on par with the iPad. And the statement that "some of the early adopters are unhappy" is relatively useless as it could be applied to the iPad or any other device and still be true. Where is the substance to this argument?
Really? The basis of the article is that people expected it to be as good as the ipad and where dissapointed, and it uses consumer reviews to prove this! Directly quoting them! This is where ALL of the articles proof comes from. Your complaint is with the article not the poster.
The slow adoption is caused by incompatibility(anything GPL ver. 2 only is incompatible with GPL ver. 3 and can not be linked together). This means, for instance, that any program using the Qt libraries(all kde based apps) HAVE to be Gpl 2, unless trolltech changes the license. And I'm sure this is just one of many cases.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The article is explicitly about people being unhappy with the kindle and returning, it uses consumer reviews to prove this, yes it mentions specific flaws, however that is not the basis of their argument, their argument is about users being overall unhappy and returning it, something facts don't support. I summed up my view better in a comment below: The article looks at a few individual reviews on amazon's website, to support its claim that consumers are unhappy with the device, however overall if you look at the average of these ratings they are on par with the iPad. And the statement that "some of the early adopters are unhappy" is relatively useless as it could be applied to the iPad or any other device and still be true. Where is the substance to this argument?
The article looks at a few individual reviews on amazon's website, to support its claim that consumers are unhappy with the device, however overall if you look at the average of these ratings they are on par with the iPad. And the statement that "some of the early adopters are unhappy" is relatively useless as it could be applied to the iPad or any other device and still be true. Where is the substance to this argument?
Really? The basis of the article is that people expected it to be as good as the ipad and where dissapointed, and it uses consumer reviews to prove this! Directly quoting them! This is where ALL of the articles proof comes from. Your complaint is with the article not the poster.
The slow adoption is caused by incompatibility(anything GPL ver. 2 only is incompatible with GPL ver. 3 and can not be linked together). This means, for instance, that any program using the Qt libraries(all kde based apps) HAVE to be Gpl 2, unless trolltech changes the license. And I'm sure this is just one of many cases.