Launching the Kindle Fire was a mistake(plus.google.com) |
Launching the Kindle Fire was a mistake(plus.google.com) |
Everyone tells me you get used to the e-ink flash, and I hear it's gotten much better, but it still kinda stinks. Most of my reading is done in bed or on my couch, neither of which has great reading light. The LCD is perfect for this.
Maybe it's the years I've spent in front of a computer, but staring at a screen in the dark doesn't bother me at all. Maybe I'll regret it someday.
his mom didn't like the kindle fire and over the holidays complained to him about it.
I'm also really impressed with how Amazon took the physical buttons (menu, back, and home) off the actual device and made them part of the UI by tapping a little arrow at the bottom of the screen.
Yes, the power button is misplaced, but overall I am very satisfied with this $199 tablet that I am finding myself using pretty often so far.
The biggest issue for me would be that the kindle fire often doesn't respond to input very well. I often find myself having to press a button 2-5 times in order for it to register. I know I am hitting the button because the button animation seems to be working correctly. I hope that they finally manage to fix this issue with another update. This alone brings the device from 4.5 stars down to 3.5 in my opinion.
The only other issue I have is that magazine/comic books are being sold for the kindle fire as if they are actually readable. This is more of a complaint against magazine and comic book publishers who should have started optimizing their content for digital display years ago. I shouldn't have to manually zoom in every time I turn a page and then pan around. The print magazine industry is rapidly becoming unprofitable, so why aren't these companies busting their asses to create e-reader friendly versions of their products?
Also the weight is such a non-issue - it's lighter than most hardback books, whereas I found trying to read off the iPad waaay more clunky (from a lying position).
The Fire is a $200 tablet, and aside from a misplaced On/Off button (not sure how that got passed QA), the hardware you get for $200 is incredible. The software could use some work, there's no doubt about that. But here's the thing:
They can improve the software.
I don't love my Fire, but you can hardly say it is "downright terrible", especially when you consider the price tag.
But not their first impressions.
I've heard this argument before (hell, even The Lean Startup advocates shipping a broken, backwards v1.0), but it's usually paired with meekness: grow slowly, so that by the time you reach a wide audience your quality is awesome and nobody's the wiser. Instead, Amazon's pushing the Fire 1.0 with everything they've got.
Shame, because Amazon probably could have pulled off the meekness strategy really well, too -- launch the Fire in December 2011 to a small number of hand-picked (Prime?) beta users, iterate, and launch the real thing in 2012.
The Kindle Fire experience is terrible right now. That terrible experience is what they'll remember and associate the brand with.
All of these complaints about a $200 tablet remind me of Louis CK's bit on airplanes and cellphones, "Everything's amazing, and nobody's happy."
The experience has been good so far, although I have not attempted to stress the device or perform an action it was not designed for. Every person I know, who has actually used a Kindle Fire, has had nothing but positive comments; most of them are non-technical.
The author is not arguing against the simplicity of the unlock gesture itself, he's arguing that the simplicity of the gesture makes its screwed-up-ness absolutely inexcusable. Or so I read it.
My guess is that the next generation will be a lot better.
I often wondered why a tablet would need such an unlock gesture. It makes sense on a cellphone because you don't want to accidentally unlock while your phone is in your pocket but can't we come up with a different gesture for the tablet form factor?
Here is the other thing: the software is the only thing that matters. I can forgive an awkwardly placed on/of button, I hit it a couple of times a day. Lost touch events and the like, are an absolute deal breaker. I would never buy a car that regularly ignored throttle input or turns of the steering wheel, why would I buy a touch-interface device that regularly ignores touch events?
Never mind that for about a half a day's work you have a handheld computer that 15 years ago was only available to the characters of Star Trek.
I have no idea what people are talking about when they say they are disappointed. Seriously how much hardware + software do you want for $199.
Last time I read a book and finished it was a few years ago. I just finished a 500 page book on the fire, and it has certainly helped a lot with note taking, going back to highlights etc...
Browsing the internet is just fine, although the video audio seems to be off sync for Youtube videos. Movies through Prime were just ok.
Sometimes it hangs, but it's not all that bad. You just turn it off, then on (really, you just press the button back to back. like 1.5 seconds).
I think most people were expecting a smaller Ipad. Well, come on.
Overall nothing mind blowing but if you like e-readers I think you'll be satisfied with the pdf support.
The secret to Apple's success is obviously their zen-like patience and restraint.
- It wasn't until the web that any new consumer computing platform was viable whatsoever.
- Even then, the new platform had to start as a phone, so people had an excuse to buy it (well, I need a phone anyway...) and so the carriers could subsidize it.
- All the technology needed to be there, and cheap: a responsive multitouch sensor, a GPU for smooth interface animation, a backlit color screen, gigs of solid state storage, hardware video codecs, batteries that last for days, durable glass/metal enclosure, and probably all sorts of little things that we don't even notice.
My point is that the iPad's success wasn't about being first. It was essentially about being last.
Jobs success was in understanding that the first thing you needed to do to make tablets popular was to throw out the stylus.
In the Fire to bring up the menu when reading a book you tap the bottom of the screen. In the Touch you tap the top of the screen. In the Touch you can look up the definition of a word the same way you do on the Fire. However, on the Touch when the definition of a word comes up you can look up the definition of a word used in the definition of the word you just looked up the same way the original word's definition was obtained. You can't do that in the Fire.
Why don't both devices automatically sync? When I first turn on a device I sync. Sometimes when I open a book I have to sync again to get to the furthest read page. Why do I have to sync after syncing?
Why does the browser icon show up on the main page of the Fire every time I use the browser? I keep removing the icon from the main page. Shouldn't I only have to do this once?
Turning pages is a great pain in the Fire and the Touch. You tap the screen and a page turns. This is horrible because sometimes while holding the device I accidentally tap the screen without meaning to turn a page. The iPad has the swipe interface for turning a page. Apple got this spot on. Amazon should copy Apple in this regard.
The web browser on the Fire is horrible. It's slow and I can't get web base email to work properly on it. This is pathetic.
I could go on but the point is made. The Fire is an unpolished device. It's almost entirely pathetic. This is all just my opinion and others will have a different opinion but I would highly recommend getting an iPad instead of a Fire. Don't be lured by the low price of the Fire.
The Fire currently has over 8000 reviews on Amazon with an average rating of 3.9. Over 5500 of those reviews give the device 4 or 5 stars. Something tells me the average Fire customer does not have such high expectations.
Perhaps one that just needs a smaller form factor to toss in their coat pocket when heading out to the coffee shop.
The Fire is flawed from the start because it uses out of date software. If you are going to advertise something as Android, then people expect it to be good at Android. Look at Archos' Android tablets; dead because they kept it on 1.6 forever. (I will certainly never buy an Archos product again.) The solution is to not advertise it as having Android, even if you use Android behind the scenes. There are many Linux devices that don't claim to be Linux, and as a result, nobody ever cares that GHC 7.4 doesn't run on it; it's just a box that runs software that does stuff rather than being "a Linux box". (Hell, the original Kindle is a good example of this. Do you want an xterm on your Kindle? Nope! So you don't care that it doesn't have X11.)
Anyway, I guess I'm saying that the key to hardware design is expectation management. Be different so that you aren't compared to Apple. Underpromise so that you aren't compared to something you aren't.
The Kindle Fire is the first credible competitor to the iPad. Android tablets running Honeycomb - it hurts my head - the UI - it is like a Klingon control panel. Definitely not intuitive. The Kindle Fire - it is a compromise - a custom, dumbed-down ("The Carousel") UI on the iceberg of Android 2.x.
For me, it is a tangible reminder that products aren't all perfect like the iPad. There is no such thing as immaculate conception - the Kindle Fire will get better over time. Comparing it to the iPad is like comparing NYC to... any other city except London[1]. It's a different metro, not as sophisticated - it's for those who just want a tablet device that is relatively affordable.
The iPad has set the bar - it is the first computer for many under the age of six. The Kindle Fire is no such thing - it is, as a review said best, a Kindle with benefits.
This part especially is what I agree with:
"Yet, the drive to quickly release a product in a hot field is almost irresistible. Amazon believes growing marketshare is more important than the reputation of their tablet. This is wrong. I believe consumer tolerance for poor products is at an all time low, thanks to ten years of amazing Apple products. Unfortunately, the idea that first movers win is widely believed across the tech industry."
Version 1.0 should be magical.
I do need to correct the author on one point though - I did find a native email client on it.
Which is nigh unusable. I set up my email account on it and went to bed with it at 70% charge. I woke up with the Kindle Fire at 20%. It drained 50% in about 8-9 hours doing nothing more than email.
Yes, idle email checking uses power, but I have never seen it that bad on any device. The battery is no slouch either based on normal reading/video drain rates.
My Fire's battery has been dry for 4 weeks and counting now. I have no felt even the slightest urge to recharge it and use it. Considering this is a low-margin device designed to hook people onto Amazon's profitable content pipeline, this is an utter and abject failure. Others I know who got the Fire at launch have all either returned it, or their Fires have a fate similar to mine - forgotten in a drawer.
Is this actually a problem with the Fire though, or would she react the same way to an iPad?
With apps, you can offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee, it will increase conversion, and few people will ever take you up on it. It sucks that it means a business doesn't have to please everyone completely, but the business is in it for the money anyway, not pleasing everyone. I think, from a business perspective, it was right to launch and capture the holiday sales. Subsequent versions will get better. I have a first generation Kindle and later versions blow it away. My version has freaking black text on a dark gray background, worse than cheap newspaper.
The kindle that I received for Christmas has been a joy to use :)
Lots have companies have tried to beat the iPhone/iPad. Nobody has even come close. This guy's whole worldview centers around the fact that since he worked at Amazon, all their engineers are clearly the best. And if that engineering team releases a bad product it's clearly a reflection on someone other than the engineering team.
What is far more likely is that Amazon's engineers weren't going to approach the iPad no matter how hard they tried or how long they worked. It's nothing to be ashamed of - they have lots of great company in this regard.
But yeah--the interface is fiddly. I think the only reason why I get so much use out of my Fire is because I'm used to dealing with buggy products. I'd never give one to my parents. Maybe 2.0.
Oh--and the browser is HORRIBLE. Despite Amazon's crowing about their new tech--it seems like Skyfire repackaged. And super hard to use.
Some do. But a lot expect an e-reader that also plays movies. That's how Amazon is marketing it: just one of their many kindle devices. My mother-in-law has a Kindle and reads a lot of books, and I keep trying to tell her that it's more similar to an iPad than her Kindle, but I don't think it sinks in because, well, it's a Kindle.
LOL. Because Amazon are known for quality consumer software, right?
From a customer's point of view, for $200 they expect a smaller screen, less storage, less features, less ability to run the latest games. They do not expect less fit and finish. See the car industry for an example. You expect less bells and whistles from a Toyota Corolla than you do from a Lexus, less power and less luxurious materials, etc, but you don't expect that the dash will have large gaps in it, the steering will be unreliable, etc.
Screw that, the tablet is next to useless without Prime unless you like buying movies/tv shows that are DRMed up.
Also, why the hell does it have stereo speakers that are only on the left side of the device in landscape orientation? What use is stereo in portrait?
And on top of that, mine was shipped from Amazon with a defective LCD and now I have to deal with that.
Honestly, I am not impressed.
If your LCD is defective, contact Amazon and they will take care of it - that's what the warranty is for :)
Amazon is not gaining any points from this, at any rate.
Some websites out there that contain historical information still reference it, so Google for it and look around.
I feel that it is a bait and switch. Even if the news did not originate from Amazon or Amazon was misquoted, Amazon did nothing to correct these sites and has profited it,
1. Microsoft's not likely to let Amazon put Amazon put Windows 8 on the next Fire for free.
2. Microsoft will be running the app store for Windows 8 tablets, not Amazon (BTW, do we even know what the in-app purchase rules will be for Windows 8? If they're at all Apple-like, that's a dealbreaker by itself).
3. Windows 8 is likely to have more demanding/expensive hardware requirements than Android
Amazon totally forked Android and ripped out all of the google bits, all of the default UI and made it into their own OS.
It's Android in that it will run Android apps but that's it.
In all other ways, Amazon's Android is competing with Google's Android, which is one of the reasons Amazon don't describe it as an Android tablet unless they are talking to developers.
It's actually a really interesting strategy, although from an Open Source perspective it's always a shame when companies fork successful projects for their own goals.
She has since returned the iPad 2 and gotten a Kindle Fire. Her main reason was that the iPad was too big for her to carry around constantly and the Fire fits in all of her purses. Since she would use the device while waiting or at random times, it was more important to have the device with her than sitting at home.
I've also noticed this - complaining about a product "not being waterproof" when the product makes no mention of being water proof, drivers not available for Mac when the product clearly mentions windows only etc.
Amazon should allow reviews only from people who actually bought the product, that will reduce at least a bit of stupid reviews.
The Cessna costs a fraction of the price of the DC-10. The Fire is a fraction of the cost of an iPad...
Even if you have no idea how to compare tech specs, or if you are brain-dead to marketing tactics, anyone should be able to look at the price tag and think to themselves, Well, the Fire costs a lot less than the competition. It's probably not going to have all the bells and whistles, but it is going to get the job done.
The Nook Tablet is borderline DC-10. Of course, I'm looking at these devices with a rooting perspective as well. The screen quality, RAM, and extra storage space giving the Nook the edge. I have no desire to listen to music on a tablet, so I really only care about web browsing and video. The e-ink devices are still superior for regular text IMO. Unfortunately, since the publishers adopted the agency pricing model, these devices won't decrease in cost as quickly as they would have under regular retail pricing that would've allowed the razor blade model to defer the costs.
The iPod Touch starts at $200 and it's a great product.
Basically, the market demands a cheaper tablets. Unfortunately for consumers the average $500 tablet contains about $300 worth of parts and labor. This means that in order to meet the demand, sacrifices must be made.
Because most people would rather have a $200 tablet than no tablet at all, the Kindle Fire was born. Like it or not, the Kindle Fire represents the most advanced hardware you can get at that price. While it has its shortcomings, the device is well built and reasonably powerful.
The software, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. I think that Amazon shouldn't have tried to reinvent the wheel. Grid style interfaces are pretty much perfect so I don't understand why they thought they could do better. While I don't agree that the software experience is terrible, I do hope that they fix the responsiveness issues.
It is undoubtable that there is a market for an iPad-like device that is cheaper than the iPad. As you note, such a thing isn't possible, which brings us to the Kindle fire. It is much cheaper, but it is cheaper in part because it is less "powerful," in part because the hardware is less "refined," but most of the reason it is cheaper comes down to the fact that it is smaller and sold for a loss. That it is smaller makes it, on the one hand, more portable, but on the other hand, less good for many types of reading and interaction.
How will people feel about those tradeoffs. You seem to think that a lot of people will find them compelling because, well, why? Because of price? Price is clearly not the only consideration for people, as the iPod's success demonstrates. Portability? The iPod Touch isn't just a music player, and at least part of the market understands that already, as Apple will likely sell ~7M this quarter. It is more portable than the Kindle fire, and used for many of the same tasks. Taking both price and portability into account leads one to look at another alternative: the smartphone the consumer either already has, or is likely to acquire in the next six months.
People were faced with a similar choice a few years ago. Should they buy a netbook, or a "real" laptop. Netbooks sold well, for a little while. Some people loved them, others wanted to love them, but found their compromises too limiting. I borrowed from work, but it ended up just being a curiosity, and when I got an iPad, I realized it was better for both reading, because I could rotate the screen, and writing, because the on-screen keyboard could compensate for errors introduced by its small size in a way the netbook's keyboard could not. The netbook market is now in decline, while the market for the iPad seems to exceed Apple's ability to supply them.
I don't pretend to know how this will turn out, other than to guess that Apple will continue to sell a lot of iPad's at a healthy profit. I also expect that Amazon will sell a healthy number of Kindle Fires, and its successors. Further, I expect that the gap between the capabilities of the Kindle Fire and the iPad will grow for the foreseeable future, as Amazon "spends" most advances in technology to lower costs, and selling prices, while Apple uses most to drive upgrades and maintain margins.