[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, I don't encode video 24/7 either with my 12 GB i7 iMac. I guess I'm not using it to its potential.


Yes, just that and email, and maybe the occasional video. That's why I'm looking for something smaller and cheaper.

I usually do my banking on my desktop, because that's where my personal finance software resides, on the computer on the desk where I keep all my receipts. No serious reading because I hate the iPad for extended reading, and I control my HT with a Logitech Harmony remote. The remote stays on the couch/coffee table permanently.

ie. The right tool for the right job, not one tool fits all.

The arguing on MacNN keeps on turning...
People don't believe what they write.
They just come here to argue for the sake of it.
The dogma on MacNN keeps on turning...
Sing along...

[ort888]

I would use the camera on my iPad if it worked better. It always frustrates me so I've given up on it.

I can't get skype to work on my iPad. I can see video, but no one can see me.

Facetime is great if both people have Facetime, but not many do.

Why isn't there a good AIM video chat client? (Is there a good AIM video chat client?)

[freudling]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I would use the camera on my iPad if it worked better. It always frustrates me so I've given up on it.

I can't get skype to work on my iPad. I can see video, but no one can see me.

Facetime is great if both people have Facetime, but not many do.

Why isn't there a good AIM video chat client? (Is there a good AIM video chat client?)

What do you mean not many do? There's a zillion iPhone 4's and 4ses out there, and tens of millions of iPad 2s. There's also zillions of modern iMacs, MacBook Pros, MacBooks, and MacBook Airs out there. All these devices have front facing cameras, and all of them have FaceTime.

And what is up with Skype? You're statement is vague...

[freudling]

An iPad 2 and Kindle Fire comparison. This shows what a sluggish, constrained, POS the Kindle Fire is. Anybody who has patience for a choppy, sluggish, small screened, limited device like this deserves a medal.

Kindle Fire vs iPad 2: Bootup Times, Web Browsing, and Netflix Streaming

I agree with MacDailyNews's take:

MacDailyNews Take: Tiny-screened, sluggish, clunky, unresponsive, re-taptastic, frustrating, jittery piece of crap topped with a severe case of AppLack™. We’d call Amazon’s Kindle Fire a “poor man’s iPad,” but we don’t want to insult iPad by mentioning it in the same sentence.

[Wiskedjak]

You can't compare the Fire with the iPad. It's like comparing an Audi with a Kia. Different target markets. The people who can afford an iPad and prefer a 10" screen won't be looking at the Fire.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, I don't encode video 24/7 either with my 12 GB i7 iMac. I guess I'm not using it to its potential.

Actually you're using it's potential, you just aren't using it's capacity. I think you're confused with terms.

Yes, just that and email, and maybe the occasional video. That's why I'm looking for something smaller and cheaper.

I usually do my banking on my desktop, because that's where my personal finance software resides, on the computer on the desk where I keep all my receipts. No serious reading because I hate the iPad for extended reading, and I control my HT with a Logitech Harmony remote. The remote stays on the couch/coffee table permanently.

ie. The right tool for the right job, not one tool fits all.

Then you'd likely be better served with a cheaper 10" tablet, maybe one of the TouchPads for $100-150 or an Acer Iconia that's now available for $250? For "serious reading" you'd want e-ink anyway, that's what my Kindle DX is for. It's about the only thing that I've found wanting about the iPad 2, LCDs aren't good for that type of thing (I mentioned that last year on MacNN and was attacked, but I was right). I suppose I just like cutting down on gadget clutter when I can, and if the iPad will serve for so many things, why not use it? I have my iPhone 4s for max mobility, my iPad for almost everything else, and my desktop for proper video/photo editing and high-end games. It all just works.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You can't compare the Fire with the iPad. It's like comparing an Audi with a Kia. Different target markets. The people who can afford an iPad and prefer a 10" screen won't be looking at the Fire.

Yes, you can compare them. They're just tools for a job. They're both tablets: consumption devices where devices like the iPad allow for production too.

The comparison is valid in this way. In addition, a tablet is a "third category" that should offer compelling value to the user over a smartphone/laptop and desktop. The tablet category has struggled to define itself over the past decade, when Apple finally came on and cracked the tablet code. All other tablets had failed.

Any tablet besides eInk readers are in competition with the iPad. Everybody's buying the iPad, while all other tablets, all the different shapes and sizes, have totally failed. And the reason they have failed is because 1) The iPad has set the bar 2) The margin for error in this tablet category is virtually nil. That's because unless this third category device offers compelling value to the user, they won't buy it, because they already have a smartphone and a computer. And, added to this, the iPad has set the bar so high. When you experience the scrolling on the iPad, and then you experience it on say, the Kindle, it's just horrible. It ruins the whole experience. That's one of many examples.

What people forget here is that you can put whatever brand name you want on this. It's still non-hardware accelerated, Android crap. Android is a cheap chinese knock off of iOS. It had potential. But it's become such a bleeding, horribly performing mess. No matter how much lipstick companies like Amazon put on it, it's still a pig. And that's the problem with no solution.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What do you mean not many do? There's a zillion iPhone 4's and 4ses out there, and tens of millions of iPad 2s. There's also zillions of modern iMacs, MacBook Pros, MacBooks, and MacBook Airs out there. All these devices have front facing cameras, and all of them have FaceTime.

And what is up with Skype? You're statement is vague...

Let me clarify...

Amongst the people I want to video chat with, not many have facetime. I have tried about 2-3 times to do a skype chat with my wife and 2 year old son, and everytime we do it, my wife can see me, but I can't see the other end. I thought my wife was doing something wrong, but when I finally tried to troubleshoot it, the exact same thing happened to me. There is a complete lack of options or setting to dink with and almost nothing you can do with the iPad app to change anything. Other people online have the same problem and no fixes seemed readily available. After screwing around with it for 15 minutes, realizing there was almost nothing I could do, I chalked it up to some sort of software glitch and decided to wait for a new version of the software.

That new version is out now, but I have not had a chance to retest it.

My point is this... facetime is swell, if both people have it. Skype (for me) doesn't work and there is no good way to do an AIM chat (the way all of my wife's family have chosen as their video chat client of choice).

So for me, the camera on the iPad is pretty much useless. Others may have a different experience.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Actually you're using it's potential, you just aren't using it's capacity. I think you're confused with terms.

Fair enough, but then again I don't edit blockbuster movies on it or build airplanes on it, despite its potential for that type of work.

I use it for what I want to use it for, which is mostly basic business app type use, with the occasional multimedia editing.

Then you'd likely be better served with a cheaper 10" tablet, maybe one of the TouchPads for $100-150 or an Acer Iconia that's now available for $250?

??? The TouchPad is dead. As for an Acer Iconia, I've never tried it. However, I do find 10" tablets a bit awkward, which is one reason I'm not such a humungous fan of my iPad, although the main reason is the cost of it, for what I use it for.

The only reason I was willing to spend $519 on the iPad was because my workplace was willing to pick up nearly half of the tab for it.

For "serious reading" you'd want e-ink anyway, that's what my Kindle DX is for. It's about the only thing that I've found wanting about the iPad 2, LCDs aren't good for that type of thing (I mentioned that last year on MacNN and was attacked, but I was right). I suppose I just like cutting down on gadget clutter when I can, and if the iPad will serve for so many things, why not use it? I have my iPhone 4s for max mobility, my iPad for almost everything else, and my desktop for proper video/photo editing and high-end games. It all just works.

For serious reading, I read paper, but would consider e-ink. Like I said, the proper tool for the job. The iPad is not the proper tool, even if I want to reduce the number of gadgets.

As for an HT remote, personally I think the iPad is completely inappropriate for it. It's higher cost and more gadgets for ultimately an inferior experience. For most (but not all) HT systems, a proper dedicated remote control is way simpler and much better designed to work for it. It's nice having a dedicated power button, a dedicated Watch TV button, and a dedicated Watch Movies button right on the remote, and it's always nice to know the remote is actually sitting on the coffee table instead of upstairs on the bedroom couch because my GF wanted to read her email on it.

P.S. I thought I might stream Netflix on my iPad, but I don't do that either. I just play it through the Netflix player on my Blu-ray machine, on my HDTV.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Actually you're using it's potential, you just aren't using it's capacity.

You're using the apostrophe's potential, but abusing its capacity.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ort888 

My point is this... facetime is swell, if both people have it.

Literally everyone I know IRL has a FaceTime device, yet the amount of times I've actually used FaceTime with them? Zero.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Literally everyone I know IRL has a FaceTime device, yet the amount of times I've actually used FaceTime with them? Zero.

I use it all the time. So do the 50 others at the business. Can't speak for anyone else, but from this, I see it get a lot of use.

It's free. Doesn't take up as much resources as Skype. And it works great. As soon as Apple integrates iMessage into it it's going to kill.

[imitchellg5]

Well then if it doesn't take up as much resources as Skype, then you're not using your IPad to its full potential

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well then if it doesn't take up as much resources as Skype, then you're not using your IPad to its full potential

I guess. It's not just the iPad. Skype on the desktop is a pig. It's brutal. I'm actually glad MS got a hold of it because I see some progress. As it was, Skype's development roadmap was a joke.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Fair enough, but then again I don't edit blockbuster movies on it or build airplanes on it, despite its potential for that type of work.

I use it for what I want to use it for, which is mostly basic business app type use, with the occasional multimedia editing.

That's what an iMac is for, serious editing is done on a Mac Pro (or a render farm). Time is money, in that game.

??? The TouchPad is dead. As for an Acer Iconia, I've never tried it. However, I do find 10" tablets a bit awkward, which is one reason I'm not such a humungous fan of my iPad, although the main reason is the cost of it, for what I use it for.

The TouchPad has the fastest growing unofficial development community, check XDA and see. Also, if you only paid half the cost of the thing, why would you lament not having a Fire? It's about the same price and is of lesser quality and function?

The only reason I was willing to spend $519 on the iPad was because my workplace was willing to pick up nearly half of the tab for it.

Well good, it's nice that they subsidize your toys, even if you're still complaining about paying half price.

For serious reading, I read paper, but would consider e-ink. Like I said, the proper tool for the job. The iPad is not the proper tool, even if I want to reduce the number of gadgets.

That's one instance I've found, there aren't many others.

As for an HT remote, personally I think the iPad is completely inappropriate for it. It's higher cost and more gadgets for ultimately an inferior experience. For most (but not all) HT systems, a proper dedicated remote control is way simpler and much better designed to work for it. It's nice having a dedicated power button, a dedicated Watch TV button, and a dedicated Watch Movies button right on the remote, and it's always nice to know the remote is actually sitting on the coffee table instead of upstairs on the bedroom couch because my GF wanted to read her email on it.

That's probably why we have several of them. Yes, I have other remotes, but I can just activate the remote app on my iPad and do the same thing, with infinitely customizable templates. It can be as simple or complicated as I want it to be.

P.S. I thought I might stream Netflix on my iPad, but I don't do that either. I just play it through the Netflix player on my Blu-ray machine, on my HDTV.

Which you carry with you?


I just love how much support the Fire has around here, just because it's cheap. Mark my words, the 7" Fire is a blip on the radar, and it'll start to fade even before the 10" comes out. Why? Because it sucks as an e-reader and is a half-assed tablet to boot.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's what an iMac is for, serious editing is done on a Mac Pro (or a render farm). Time is money, in that game.

iMacs are commonly used for professional photo and video editing. This will only become more common now that iMacs have Thunderbolt. And people don't edit on render farms. They render on render farms.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well good, it's nice that they subsidize your toys, even if you're still complaining about paying half price.

They won't be subsidizing my toys going forward. And yes, the iPad is an expensive toy in my house. It doesn't get any serious usage. I justified it as a PDF reader, but I ended up not using it for that at all.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Which you carry with you?

I don't carry the iPad with me either, but I don't watch Netflix on the road in any case. I don't have an unlimited cell data plan, and it's too unreliable for Netflix anyway. I only watch Netflix at home.

My iPad is now strictly an at-home machine, but at home it's the Blu-ray player and the HDTV for Netflix.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

iMacs are commonly used for professional photo and video editing. This will only become more common now that iMacs have Thunderbolt. And people don't edit on render farms. They render on render farms.

Photo, yes. Video, rarely. Encoding a 30 minute segment in 1080p can take hours on something like an iMac, on a farm it can be whittled down to minutes.

I don't carry the iPad with me either, but I don't watch Netflix on the road in any case. I don't have an unlimited cell data plan, and it's too unreliable for Netflix anyway. I only watch Netflix at home.

Not in my experience. The 3G performance in this area is fine for Netflix, and we rarely ever exceed 5GB /month on any of the iPads. I thought Canada had good coverage in the major cities.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Photo, yes. Video, rarely. Encoding a 30 minute segment in 1080p can take hours on something like an iMac, on a farm it can be whittled down to minutes.

? Professional video editing is very common on iMacs. Hell, even Apple shows up at video industry events with iMacs for demo machines.

And like I said, you don't edit on a render farm.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

? Professional video editing is very common on iMacs. Hell, even Apple shows up at video industry events with iMacs for demo machines.

And like I said, you don't edit on a render farm.

We just shot and edited a video we're using on the iPad with iMovie. Looks... works great. And GarageBand on the iPad. Whole Podcast done on it.

[Eug]

iMovie is not a professional editing application, and video quality from the iPad sucks.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

iMovie is not a professional editing application, and video quality from the iPad sucks.

Yes, it is a professional video editing application. People are using it all the time in this context.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Yes, it is a professional video editing application. People are using it all the time in this context.

Uhhh, what? Take one film production class in a any college, even the lowest-funded in America, and I promise you, you won't be working with iMovie. And NOBODY in the industry uses iMovie. I didn't even use iMovie when I was on a high school production team.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Uhhh, what? Take one film production class in a any college, even the lowest-funded in America, and I promise you, you won't be working with iMovie. And NOBODY in the industry uses iMovie. I didn't even use iMovie when I was on a high school production team.

It has professional applications. Period. Microsoft, some newsrooms, even commercials... have had their videos cut with iMovie.

[Spheric Harlot]

It is an amateur program.

The fact that some people using it for things are professionals in areas OTHER than video does not make it a "pro" application.

OTOH, a tool is a tool, and whatever works, works. I've met one person who actually did a major company image film in Keynote—his agency threw together a quick demo in Keynote, as proof of concept for what their finished production could look like in Final Cut Pro, and the client was perfectly happy with that demo. So, a couple of edits and tunings later, that's what actually went out.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

It has professional applications. Period. Microsoft, some newsrooms, even commercials... have had their videos cut with iMovie.

Than they're not professionals, they're amateurs doing a professional's job.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Than they're not professionals, they're amateurs doing a professional's job.

Correction. "Professional work" means you're getting paid for it, "amateur work" means you aren't. If a person is doing something for pay, then it's a professional job, regardless of the tools used or even the quality of the end product.

Can iMovie be used for paid work? Sure. Hell, I was once paid $2k for drawing on a piece of press board with a crayon for a couple hours.

[Wiskedjak]

Now I'm expecting to hear freudling tell us that Canon should just give up trying to compete with the iPad in the video recording market.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Can iMovie be used for paid work? Sure. Hell, I was once paid $2k for drawing on a piece of press board with a crayon for a couple hours.

Can you hook me up with that gig? Pleeeaaaase!

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Now I'm expecting to hear freudling tell us that Canon should just give up trying to compete with the iPad in the video recording market.

Well, the one thing that the iPhone is going to do, along with other smartphones moving forward, is annihilate the point and shoot category of cameras, an area where Canon has a foothold. I heard iPhone 5 will have a 10 or 12 MP camera.

Point and shoots are getting up there to about 16 MP, but its not all about MP. Software plays a role too. Combine the major advancements in micro-sensors being used on smartphones with all the Apps available, like Camera+, and point and shoots are next to get killed.

As for the iPad, I don't understand why, when people mention the camera on it, they seem to automatically assume you're referring to the back camera. The front camera on the device is very useful for video chat, unless you hate what you look like... the back camera, I couldn't care less.

[imitchellg5]

Point and shoot, sure. The iPhone 4S camera, as well as most high-end Android devices, are plenty good enough to replace carrying around a point and shoot.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Can you hook me up with that gig? Pleeeaaaase!

You good with Enochian? Are you of the VII° or higher? How's your penmanship? Do you get nervous working in front of a group while naked? These are important questions.

[freudling]

PC World's review of the Amazon Kindle Fire. Snippets taken from the review:

Bottom Line
The 7-inch, Android-based Amazon Fire will appeal to those who buy books, videos, and music at Amazon, but it will frustrate those looking for a more versatile slate.

As a tablet, though, the Fire can't hold a candle to the best tablets available today: It has subpar specs, a limited interface, and a surprisingly messy app store.

Forget about multitasking as a whole. The Kindle Fire lacks shortcuts to make moving between content easier, as you'll find in standard Android 2.3 or in the tablet-optimized Android 3.x.

Amazon's contacts app is uninspiring--and surprisingly, the Kindle Fire doesn't come with a basic calendar or clock app, two standard inclusions in Honeycomb tablets.

For all the fuss made about Amazon's Silk Web browser, which uses a proxy server to cache frequently accessed sites and purportedly speed up surfing, I can't say I noticed much of a difference in my Web browsing.

App behaviors were all over the map.

The difference between phone and tablet apps on a 7-inch screen can be huge. This shortcoming is particularly surprising since I'd have expected Amazon to handpick apps from its Appstore that best show off what the Kindle Fire can do. Instead, my random downloads produced apps with fuzzy, phone-ready graphics and menu design, and my searches revealed apps that won't even work right on the Kindle Fire because it lacks the necessary hardware.

For all the thoughtful design touches the Kindle Fire has, I found just as many glitchy behaviours.

Tablets are more about usability than specs. That said, the Kindle Fire's skimpy specs clearly reflect the compromises that Amazon made to achieve its $200 price... It lagged on transitions, even simple ones such as turning book pages or rotating orientation; it also produced jerky animations and repeatedly generated pixelated video playback.

The Fire falls far short of providing a full and satisfying tablet experience.

Amazon Kindle Fire Tablet Review | PCWorld

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Bottom Line
The 7-inch, Android-based Amazon Fire will appeal to those who buy books, videos, and music at Amazon, but it will frustrate those looking for a more versatile slate.

Exactly what we've been saying all along. And, what is Amazon's business model? Oh ya, selling books, videos and music. NOT selling generic use electronics.

Also from the article:

The Fire's integration with Amazon's media storefronts is, bar none, the best thing about this tablet

THIS is what Amazon is concerned about with the Fire. Anything else, even mediocre performance, is just added value.

[Wiskedjak]

The Fire is designed to appeal to a very specific market segment that is ignored with the iPad:

- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for a less expensive colour eReader
- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for tighter integration with the Amazon store
- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for colour eReader with a footprint more like a paperback and less like a textbook

The Fire is not meant for people who want to record and edit video, video chat or pay for higher performance computing. It's meant to appeal to customers who haven't yet purchased a standard Kindle or iPad yet for the above reasons.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The Fire is designed to appeal to a very specific market segment that is ignored with the iPad:

- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for a less expensive colour eReader
- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for tighter integration with the Amazon store
- those who haven't yet bought an iPad because they're looking for colour eReader with a footprint more like a paperback and less like a textbook

The Fire is not meant for people who want to record and edit video, video chat or pay for higher performance computing. It's meant to appeal to customers who haven't yet purchased a standard Kindle or iPad yet for the above reasons.

It's so funny to watch people concoct all these wild, crazy ideas about what the Kindle Fire is... why it isn't competition for the iPad... why it's good for a subset of the market... and all the rest.

The Kindle Fire is a tool for a human to use. Period. It's a tablet. It's not a car. It's not a stone. It's not a laptop. It's a tablet. It's in the same category as the iPad. As much as everyone thinks it's not competing with the iPad, it is. Forget the price. It doesn't matter. And the reasons are plenty... but I don't think you know why it doesn't matter.

I'm so tired of hearing that, "It's way smaller, and great for reading!... better than the big honking iPad!!!" It's a POS. It sucks at reading most content and it sucks at being a tablet.

There's a reason why 1 iPad is sold every second. You just don't seem to understand why.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

It's so funny to watch people concoct all these wild, crazy ideas about what the Kindle Fire is... why it isn't competition for the iPad... why it's good for a subset of the market... and all the rest.

The Kindle Fire is a tool for a human to use. Period. It's a tablet. It's not a car. It's not a stone. It's not a laptop. It's a tablet. It's in the same category as the iPad. As much as everyone thinks it's not competing with the iPad, it is. Forget the price. It doesn't matter. And the reasons are plenty... but I don't think you know why it doesn't matter.

And of course, the Mac mini is in the same category as the Mac Pro. It's just a computer. It's a tool for a human to use.

And a Beetle is in the same category as a Humvee. Just a car.

Of course, most people see different tools appropriate for different uses.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And of course, the Mac mini is in the same category as the Mac Pro. It's just a computer. It's a tool for a human to use.

And a Beetle is in the same category as a Humvee. Just a car.

Of course, most people see different tools appropriate for different uses.

The difference between say a Mac Mini and the Kindle Fire is that the Fire is a flawed POS, the Mac Mini a polished tool. To do what these tablet makers are doing with 7" tablets would be like making the Mac Mini into the shape of a diamond. The form factor is flawed. It's a tweener. It makes too many compromises to be a useful tool to most people.

[andi*pandi]

I'm actually in the market for a kindle as a gift. I've skimmed this thread and all the comments on Fire seem negative. I'm aiming this gift at a non-apple person, who reads a lot, is frequently outside, and who may want to tinker with word docs etc. Is the Fire out, would a b/w kindle with the free 3G be better? Tablet X?

[imitchellg5]

Even when you have a decent argument, freudling, your language compromises it so severely that no one can take you seriously. And then there's the fact that you simply have to give a product time. You've been making snap judgements based upon your own pre-conceived notions which you then obviously carry into your own experiences with a product. That's not a good way to make a successful argument.

[freudling]

Right now, Amazon and its astroturfing people and software are in full force. Tons of positive reviews from people who either it's their first review, or they have dozens, most of which are glowing 5 star reviews.

Funny thing is, Apple's iPad 2, which has been on the market for some 8 months, as less than 500 reviews on Amazon. Yet, they've sold tens of zillions. Amazon's Kindle Fire has over double the reviews, and it's only been on the market for a couple of days. Either the people who buy Amazon's gear are more prone to writing reviews, or it's astroturfing. Evidence for the latter.

Melville House Books � Amazon astroturf campaign exposed

I found this review amongst all the noise:

I had high hopes for this device and put in my pre-order about 6 weeks before the product came out. Sadly, I quickly came to the conclusion that it's not worth owning at any price and returned it today.

I own an iPad (1st Gen, which I love and use all the time), but I purchased the Kindle Fire to have as a second, less-expensive, smaller tablet around the house. I thought that I could easily justify owning it for $200 (especially since it seemed to compliment my Amazon Prime membership).

Unfortunately, after becoming accustomed to an iPad, I found using this Android-based device totally unsatisfying and frustrating. If you want an e-reader for reading books, I would instead encourage getting a regular B&W, light, small e-ink Kindle. But for all other purposes (web-browsing, video, etc.), the Kindle Fire isn't good enough to want to own, even at $200. It's interface is aggravating and it's too heavy. In my view, an iPad is absolutely worth the higher cost for all other content-consuming purposes.

The interface of the iPad is simply more intuitive and more satisfying. It's a more seamless, elegant user experience, so much so that you rarely feel as though you're interacting with a machine. The Kindle Fire (as well as the other Android-devices I've used) don't rise to that standard--you often feel like you're interacting with a clumsy computer. Apple iOS still seems to be several product cycles ahead of Android here.

Some people may argue that I'm comparing apples and oranges, and that this is an unfair comparison because the iPad is more expensive, has faster hardward, etc. But it's not a competition and it's not about being "fair". This is about making a purchase decision and deciding what devices are worth spending your money on and clutter up your home with. Even at the very modest price of $200, the Kindle Fire isn't worth the money or the clutter. Sorry, Amazon--I'm otherwise a huge fan and customer.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm actually in the market for a kindle as a gift. I've skimmed this thread and all the comments on Fire seem negative. I'm aiming this gift at a non-apple person, who reads a lot, is frequently outside, and who may want to tinker with word docs etc. Is the Fire out, would a b/w kindle with the free 3G be better? Tablet X?

Go for the Kindle Touch eInk. That's a good gift for someone who reads non image/graphic heavy content. It's also cheaper.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm actually in the market for a kindle as a gift. I've skimmed this thread and all the comments on Fire seem negative. I'm aiming this gift at a non-apple person, who reads a lot, is frequently outside, and who may want to tinker with word docs etc. Is the Fire out, would a b/w kindle with the free 3G be better? Tablet X?

If they're outside a lot, nothing beats reading on an e-Ink screen. If the main use of the device will be reading, and outdoors, I'd say the Kindle Touch would be a better choice. After playing with the Kindle Fire yesterday, I think it's a good device (and it seemed very quick to me), but I wouldn't take reading on the Fire over my Kindle Keyboard (with 3G).

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Even when you have a decent argument, freudling, your language compromises it so severely that no one can take you seriously. And then there's the fact that you simply have to give a product time. You've been making snap judgements based upon your own pre-conceived notions which you then obviously carry into your own experiences with a product. That's not a good way to make a successful argument.

You're incredulous.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

You're incredulous.

Thanks for the constructive criticism!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Forget the price. It doesn't matter. And the reasons are plenty... but I don't think you know why it doesn't matter.

How is it that, in the middle of a recession, you can say price doesnt matter? I suspect there are many people who haven't bought a a color ereader yet because the iPad is too expensive for their budget and would be willing to sacrifice performance and features in exchange for a lower price tag.

Should Kia close up shop because BMW makes a superior car?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is it that, in the middle of a recession, you can say price doesnt matter? I suspect there are many people who haven't bought a a color ereader yet because the iPad is too expensive for their budget and would be willing to sacrifice performance and features in exchange for a lower price tag.

Should Kia close up shop because BMW makes a superior car?

Dude, you don't believe what you write. You just can't. People on here are smarter than what I'm seeing written. I think there's just too much trolling going on. But I could be wrong...

Now for why what you've written has no basis in reality. Apple climbed to the top of heap in the world... one of the most valuable publicly traded companies in the world. And they sell premium priced products, not cheaply priced junk. They climbed to the top during the recession. Apple Retail Stores were one of the only chains to show growth at the height of the recession.

In other words, it's not price. People are willing to pay more for better products. The iPad is one of the hottest consumer products on the market. This is reality.

Selling cheap junk is failing for everyone in the tech industry now. HP is in the whole ($15 billion). Junker Android tablet manufacturers... many, have packed it in. Nobody cares. Nobody needs this stuff. It's a new generation of consumers raised on tech, and they won't waste their money on cheap junk.

Apple's king of the hill. Advice: make great products, and don't try and flog cheap junk for half the price.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple's king of the hill. Advice: make great products, and don't try and flog cheap junk for half the price.

Right. So, Kia should just close up shop because they aren't king of the automobile hill?

There will ALWAYS be a market for cheap junk at half the price because there will always be people who can't afford the best. It may not be as lucrative as the high quality products and you won't be king of that hill, but people will always buy it. And, if buy getting people to buy that cheap junk gets more people into the market where you ARE king of the hill (ie: Amazon book store), all the better.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Right. So, Kia should just close up shop because they aren't king of the automobile hill?

There will ALWAYS be a market for cheap junk at half the price because there will always be people who can't afford the best. It may not be as lucrative as the high quality products and you won't be king of that hill, but people will always buy it. And, if buy getting people to buy that cheap junk gets more people into the market where you ARE king of the hill (ie: Amazon book store), all the better.

I don't know anything about the auto industry. I'm only in the tech industry. I can't speak for industries I don't know anything about.

As for the markets for cheap junk. You're missing the point. Dude, we get that there're people who will buy cheap junk. How many of them in the tech industry is a good question. If you look at all the cheap Android tablets that have failed... if you look at how successful Apple is making great tech at premium prices... if you look at how much debt companies like HP incur selling cheap computers because there's no margins... you realize that it's a dead end.

This is the major problem: selling cheap is really bad for the companies selling. They're losing money because their margins are razor thin. Any blip in a quarter can severely indebt them.

Then there's the threat of disruptive tech like the iPad taking away what little business you have. HP got itself $15 billion into the hole on its 3% margins on computers. In the end, with all the support and operational costs, it's just not sustainable.

Acer's in the hole last quarter. The iPad is widely held to be responsible for eating into their volumes. If these companies don't sell on volume, they die. It's precarious.

Amazon is losing money on every Fire sale. Not only are they servicing a very niche market of people wanting a POS tablet locked into and purposed for Amazon's ecosystem, they have to sell enough content to these people to at least make their money back on their losses. This is dangerous. They have this niche market in the US to service.

I'm looking at Amazon more from a business perspective here. I really wonder how all of this is going to play out. A company who would need 16 years worth of profits at the rate they're going to make as much profit as Apple does in 3 months. I truly wonder how sustainable Amazon is.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm actually in the market for a kindle as a gift. I've skimmed this thread and all the comments on Fire seem negative. I'm aiming this gift at a non-apple person, who reads a lot, is frequently outside, and who may want to tinker with word docs etc. Is the Fire out, would a b/w kindle with the free 3G be better? Tablet X?

If they read a lot, especially outside, you'll want an e-ink reader. LCDs just don't cut it for extended reading, and their battery life is horrible in comparison. The Kindle Touch is the thing to get, the one with free 3G is ideal if they need to download books anywhere. Not to mention how thin and light it is. 8oz? Are you kidding me?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You know, having never played with one before, I had no idea that the Kindle readers weren't backlit. The pictures make it look like it is! And $60 for a leather case with a built-in light?! Holy crap.