Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Given the price points, I am wondering whether Amazon is earning ANY profit on the hardware.
We went iPad / Nook route in our household, so we are also not obvious customers. But if I knew someone where cost was a big factor, I would not hesitate to recommend checking these Fires out.
Posts: 23,742
Threads: 1,348
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Posts: 31,101
Threads: 1,757
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
4
That $50 a year plan is very nice. I don't want to pay for a data plan for a tablet every month, because I just don't need it that often, but I would gladly cough up $50 for a year of 250MB a month of data. That would be more that enough for me 99% of the time.
![[Image: IMG-2569.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/Jn06m2gT/IMG-2569.jpg)
Whippet, Whippet Good
Posts: 21,859
Threads: 1,734
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
What's interesting is no one seems to be talking about the main difference: quality of content.
Sure they can both show books, but which one does it better? The iPad by far. Same with the rest of the content consumption.
Posts: 2,129
Threads: 203
Joined: Oct 2024
Reputation:
0
I think it's a given that, at twice the price, the iPad would perform better, which is why nobody is talking about it, but Amazon's ecosystem and low entry cost are pretty compelling, for a toy computer. These devices will set like hotcakes. Luscious, fragrant hotcakes.
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
M A V I C wrote:
What's interesting is no one seems to be talking about the main difference: quality of content.
Sure they can both show books, but which one does it better? The iPad by far. Same with the rest of the content consumption.
Amazon offers alot of books! And official amazon readers get access to free best sellers each month.
The big advantage is the iPad can be used for iBooks, B&N and Amazon.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
M A V I C wrote:
Sure they can both show books, but which one does it better? The iPad by far. Same with the rest of the content consumption.
264 PPI for the iPad, 254 PPI for the 8.9” Fire HD, 216 PPI for the 7” Fire HD, and 169 PPI for the Fire. Notice all the Fires are more pixel dense than the iPad 1 or 2 and the 8.9” Fire is essentially the same as the new iPad.
Posts: 21,859
Threads: 1,734
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
sekker wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
What's interesting is no one seems to be talking about the main difference: quality of content.
Sure they can both show books, but which one does it better? The iPad by far. Same with the rest of the content consumption.
Amazon offers alot of books! And official amazon readers get access to free best sellers each month.
The big advantage is the iPad can be used for iBooks, B&N and Amazon.
The Fire has a hard time with PDFs and doesn't support epubs. Plus, the quality of their content is much lower than Apple's.
silvarios wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
Sure they can both show books, but which one does it better? The iPad by far. Same with the rest of the content consumption.
264 PPI for the iPad, 254 PPI for the 8.9” Fire HD, 216 PPI for the 7” Fire HD, and 169 PPI for the Fire. Notice all the Fires are more pixel dense than the iPad 1 or 2 and the 8.9” Fire is essentially the same as the new iPad.
The higher resolution screen doesn't somehow make the content better. If anything, it'll just make the quality problems more obvious. I'd give specifics but I'd probably be violating a NDA or two.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
M A V I C wrote:
The Fire has a hard time with PDFs and doesn't support epubs. Plus, the quality of their content is much lower than Apple's.
Are you talking about the native app support for ePub and PDF? The iPad can't read ePubs without installing an app as far as I know, so why knock the Fire because of the same limitation? You will need to add an app for ePub support on either device. Similarly, while the iPad can read PDFs natively, there's no easy way to deal with a collection of PDFs without downloading an app. The out of the box experience for PDF would seem to be similarly disappointing on either device; perhaps, for different reasons, but disappointing none the less.
As an aside, why does the native PDF viewer on my iPad properly display a PDF so it fills the screen, but iBooks defaults to a zoomed out tiny view? Also frustrating, after manipulating the PDF to fill the screen, iBooks resets the default view once I swipe to previous or next pages. A quick double tap to zoom doesn't work, because it zooms in way too far to see the whole page. I'm guessing I missed a setting somewhere; so yes, I will need to revisit the config to be sure iBooks is not acting funky by design.
M A V I C wrote: The higher resolution screen doesn't somehow make the content better. If anything, it'll just make the quality problems more obvious. I'd give specifics but I'd probably be violating a NDA or two.
You don't mean PDFs, right? I don't believe Apple sell PDFs? Can you point to a published report accessible to the general public that states why iBooks is a better store than Kindle store? By better, how does iBooks surpass the Kindle in quality or selection of "book" content.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
sekker wrote: The big advantage is the iPad can be used for iBooks, B&N and Amazon.
Does the Kindle Fire and its successors still allow for side loading of apps? If so, the Nook Store can be added, but for obvious reasons, the iBooks store cannot.
|
