6 ms·
Not to dismiss his criticisms. The Fire has problems. But this device was clearly designed for a different market. He acknowledges it "I had read that the Fire
by andrewfelix 15y ago
Not to dismiss his criticisms. The Fire has problems. But this device was clearly designed for a different market. He acknowledges it "I had read that the Fire is designed as a consumption device for Amazon products" But he decided to buy it anyway.
It seems odd to write a lengthy criticism of a product he anticipated wouldn't suit him.
EDIT: grammar
- yalogin 15y agoHe acknowledges it after he bought it and as part of the analysis, not before buying it. Either way, I don't quite buy the argument. Amazon was hailed as the one company that could rival the iPad ecosystem. So its not just a conduit for people buying stuff on amazon. So my expectations for the tablet are pretty high even at that price.
- tomkarlo 15y ago"Rivaling the iPad ecosystem" doesn't necessarily mean "replicating" it. And I'd point out that I believe that's concept is something overexcited journalists decided, not something Amazon promoted. Amazon seems to have mostly promoted the Kindle Fire as a Kindle with video and games, for less than you used to pay for a black and white Kindle. For $199, that seems like a good deal and I haven't seen many reviews done on that basis. Doing a review that compares the Fire to an iPad or another $500 tablet is like reviewing a Kia and complaining it doesn't accelerate as fast as a BMW.
- andrewfelix 15y agoYeh I wouldn't buy that argument either. So fair point. However I think the author should be criticizing it from the perspective of the intended market. eg. Clunky interface, lackluster ecosystem etc.