by For me I find it incredibly interesting that tablet makers are going to the screen sizes that Apple decided against as they don’t give a “great user experience”. I don’t think anyone will argue that the 10″ screen sized arena is dominated by the iPad2.
[pullquote_left]To be clear, the Kindle Fire is much less capable and versatile than the entry-level $499 iPad 2. It has a fraction of the apps, a smaller screen, much weaker battery life, a slower Web browser, half the internal storage and no cameras or microphone. It also has a rigid and somewhat frustrating user interface far less fluid than Apple’s.[/pullquote_left] Much like Apple carved the market out for themselves, Amazon is getting in on the act now with the Kindle fire but even with it’s $200 price point does price alone make this a better product? The Wall Street Journal think not. It’s an interesting device but why is no one wondering about the Silk browser potentially tracking your every moment. Didn’t BT try this with “phorm” a while back? Any ways take a look at the video for a top comparison.
Walt Mossberg gives a review where it doesn’t feel biased to want to hate the iPad but investigating technologies and see how it’s relevant against it’s competitor. Why does everything that get’s released in the tablet world have to be an iPad killer? Do reviewers not have the sense to compare Android against Android without giving the iPad a rib?
I suppose it’s part of the pc legacy where numbers and speed is what it’s all about rather than the experience and integration.
Leave a Reply