And yet, Amazon claims it is selling them by the metric buttload. If it really is that bad, can we look forward to a post-Christmas Fire sale?

The "e-paper" on the original Kindles is kinda cool. If they sold anything other than English books, I might be interested (Amazon Japan pushes them as a way to learn English). Though, that's mostly a complaint about the publishers I guess.

Otherwise though, it's just another cheap(er) tablet. I have an iPad myself, no need for another tablet, but meanwhile I hear people are pretty happy getting Nook color tablets and then modding them to turn them into regular Android devices. All tablets, as far as I know, iOS and Android, have apps for reading Kindle-formatted books if you want to do that.

I really wish that the original Sony PRS e-readers had come down in price. I loved mine and am really balking at a touchscreen. I just want to read books. Don't want color or ads.

Anyway one of the main things I do with my iPad is read the newspaper and magazines - I have subscriptions, and can read the full scanned content at very high resolution, just like reading the print edition. It's a wonderful thing, and usually I scan the headlines at "minimized to fit the screen" default view and then quickly tap to full print size to read articles (so on the iPad I'll be seeing about a fourth of a full-size broadsheet newspaper page or so, and more than half of a magazine page, quite enough for "where the article is going" context - unlike on my PHONE, which runs the same apps but at regular print size of course shows part of one column).

So I'm curious about the complaints that the Kindle would be too small. Surely the magazines show up by default at "as large as we can go to fit all on the screen" and with locked proportions, and then the users similarly zoom in, right? Or is the app on the Kindle farking up the proportions, somehow? Because that WOULD be unacceptable, but I can't imagine them doing that... can't the readers just zoom?

Also, had a really, really bad experience with HipStreet and their eReader/entertainment system. Be aware that they promise that you can do everything with it but it has problems with things like "pdfs" and "anything not text documents". Returning the damn thing was a complete chore.

cameroncrazy1984: How about a nook? Not the color one, the original one.

I hadn't tried one. Do you think it would do the job?

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I really wish that the original Sony PRS e-readers had come down in price. I loved mine and am really balking at a touchscreen. I just want to read books. Don't want color or ads.

My wife has a Kindle keyboard-- she seems to like it. I've been stealing it when she goes to sleep and it's pretty good for reading. I don't think she's had it long enough to be able to say whether there are any major issues, but there haven't been any in the 6 months since she got it. Hers has ads, but she got the cheaper ($100) model whereas the $140 version doesn't have ads. (And, honestly, the ads generally aren't that noticeable.) My only complaint with it is (and I think this would be the same with any e-reader) that if I hold it for too long, my hand starts to ache, just because it's so thin.

Since this is shaping up to be the latest iOS vs. Android thread, I have a question for you iPhone/iPad users.

Do the latest versions iOS for either device support on screen widgets? I haven't really paid much attention to Apple phones or tablets for a long time, and one of the most useful things for me about Android are the widgets that run on the home screens. As far as I know, iOS doesn't have this (unless you jailbreak, which doesn't really count), and instead only has the grid-layout app menu. Is this still true, or have later versions of iOS finally allowed widgets to run on the home screen? Do you iOS users care about this or is it something you don't really feel like you're missing? I ask because way back in the day when I got my first Android deice, the T-Mobile MyTouch, widgets were one of the main selling points, and the biggest reason I didn't get an iPhone. Since then I've had a DroidX and now a Bionic, and the calender, tasks, and Facebook widgets get used a few dozen times a day. I don't think I could ever use a phone now that doesn't have them.

\It seems odd Apple wouldn't support widgets on mobile devices, since weren't they the first to have them on their desktop OS? Windows "gadgets" were an attempt to copy Apple's widgets if I remember correctly.

GAT_00: cmunic8r99: GAT_00: Oh, I forgot one thing. None of the Nooks will read a Amazon filetype. If you have a large Amazon library, you'll have to... load a standard Android OS onto the SD - this is Tablet/Color only BTW - and load an Amazon app. This is the easiest version

Not the Nook Tablet. Link (new window)

That's smart, though that actually reads almost like a mistake.

Well, the nook Color was trivially easy to root and install CFW on, so it might not be.

That said, they locked down the nook Tablet for CFW, so perhaps it was.

The NYT has been an apple shill for years. Mossberg, I think his name is.

It is a new york times story.... the New York Times is Apple's unpaid press office and gets lots of free stuff for writing pro-Apple stories.

taurusowner: Since this is shaping up to be the latest iOS vs. Android thread, I have a question for you iPhone/iPad users.

Do the latest versions iOS for either device support on screen widgets?


I couldn`t live without my widgets. I use at least one literally every time i pick up my phone. I really love my shifting blue smoke background also but that`s just pretty instead of being very very useful. I don`t see what the fuss about voice recognition is though, any ambient noise like cars in the street or people talking and the `feature` becomes completely useless. I suppose this is not a problem if you never see people or the street...

H31N0US: The NYT has been an apple shill for years. Mossberg, I think his name is.

magus007: It is a new york times story.... the New York Times is Apple's unpaid press office and gets lots of free stuff for writing pro-Apple stories.

I have to say that the small part of the article that I read did read like "It`s not an iPad so forget it"

My thought was, "But it`s not an iPad so don`t judge it against a device that is out of it`s price band"

apples to apples or something like that.

Nook Color just had a software update. Now has Netflix.

H31N0US: The NYT has been an apple shill for years. Mossberg, I think his name is.

Know how I know you don't know what you're talking about?

I think I found the problem:

"It's for the millions of people who: a) don't have $500-plus to spend on an iPad and b) really want to be part of the touchscreen revolution that's changing how we control devices."

This can mean one of two things, people think the Fire is supposed to be an alternative to the iPad in a general sense or people really just want to touch screens because it is the hip thing to do. I would hate to believe that people are buying touch-screen devices just for the sake of the touch-screen without any care for what the device does, so that precludes the latter option.

Was this ever marketed as an iPod alternative? It would seem like marketing a Honda Civic as a replacement for a Ford F150. Sure, they can both get you around and the Civic may actually be a better choice for commuting, but if you are going to haul stuff you need the truck.

GameSprocket: Was this ever marketed as an iPod alternative? It would seem like marketing a Honda Civic as a replacement for a Ford F150. Sure, they can both get you around and the Civic may actually be a better choice for commuting, but if you are going to haul stuff you need the truck.

I assume you mean iPad.

My guess is that there are tons of people out there who are kind of "meh" on the concept of a tablet, and would only use it for couch browsing and occasional multimedia viewing. They don't need a lot of games or apps. $500 was too much for something they didn't really want or need that much.

Prior to the Fire, the only real options were the $500 iPad, $500 Android tablets, or sub-$200 utter crapware you can find at CVS. If there were a $200 iPad they'd buy it, just like someone who wanted a Civic would probably buy an F-150 if it were as economical as a Civic AND Civics didn't exist.

The Fire allows these "meh" tablet buyers to get one that serves their limited needs without spending a lot. It may or may not be crapware, but buyers are willing to take that chance because a brand name like Amazon is behind it. Plus it plugs into Amazon content, which is huge for some but probably not as big a draw as simply being a cheap tablet with some semblance of accountability backing it up.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: I assume you mean iPad.

Um, yeah. Early typing.

Other than that, my point was that the Fire is getting a bad wrap because it is not living up to expectations that it was never intended to meet.

GAT_00: I still don't get why everyone think it's so great. To get decent amount of work out of it you have to pay a $80/year membership. Who the fark is dumb enough for that?

Work? Huh?I all ready pay the 80 bucks and the Fire does everything I want it to and more. I love my Kindle Fire.

czetie: And yet, Amazon claims it is selling them by the metric buttload. If it really is that bad, can we look forward to a post-Christmas Fire sale?

McDonalds sells more burgers than Ruth's Chris sells steaks. Therefore the burgers are better.

GAT_00: Oh, I forgot one thing. None of the Nooks will read a Amazon filetype. If you have a large Amazon library, you'll have to either hack the Amazon files to force convert them to e-Pub, pay Amazon to do it (HAHA), or load a standard Android OS onto the SD - this is Tablet/Color only BTW - and load an Amazon app. This is the easiest version.

All of these of course do require work, so it isn't the easiest. Of course, a Kindle won't play with e-Pubs, and the Fire needs $80/year to do a lot of the same stuff a Tablet appears to do free. If you do have Amazon Prime, there appears to be an edge with media like TV shows and movies, but that's about it.

My 2 cents.

I haven't had any problems using the freeware Calibre to convert epubs for use with a Kindle. It may take an extra 30 seconds or so to convert a file, but that's about it. (Admittedly though, most epubs I've converted were freely available & didn't have any DRM unpleasantness attached...)

If the bulk of someone's library consists of DRM-restricted epubs, then you're right: Nook would be the better choice over Kindle. But since many of those restricted epubs are library books - and since many libraries are now getting on board offering ebooks to Kindle users (it was only a matter of time) - there's little more than 'personal preference' left as the deciding factor in the Kindle vs. Nook debate anymore.

I've had a Fire for about two weeks now and I think it's a nice device. It's not an iPad but I don't think it was meant to be. It costs less than half of an entry-level iPad and, if you have reasonable expectations, is perfectly capable.

STOP THE PRESSES!

A $200 DEVICE ISN'T AS NICE AS A $500 DEVICE!!!!!OMG!!!!!

Next, they'll tell us that a Mercedes is a better car than a Kia...

maddogdelta: A $200 DEVICE ISN'T AS NICE AS A $500 DEVICE!!!!!OMG!!!!!

I can get a $1000 Sager that beats the ever-loving shiat out of a $2500 Macbook Pro.

The thing is, when it comes to extremely low-profile devices like the Macbook Air or the iPad, Apple's consolidated manufacturing power allows them to put them out at expected prices for non-Apple retailers while still making their average profit margins.

So yes, there's a good reason why people expect something half the price of an Apple product to be just as good; because traditionally, that's usually been the truth.

I played around with the Fire, and did not like it.
I ended up with a Nook Tablet. With a bit of adjusting (no root needed) I have the Amazon app store loaded, and have side loaded a few useful apps from the Android market. Any advantages that the Fire had for content, can also be accessed on the Nook Tablet.

cmunic8r99: RexTalionis: I thought about getting an e-ink reader, but figured that it wasn't right for me since there is usually very little ambient light where I live.

[dumbimages.net image 567x566]

Love my Simple Touch. It's much better than the 1st gen Nook.

Every time I see those ebook light attachment things, I think of the awful accessories they had for the Game Boy. Never again! I decided when I bought my first e-ink reader, that if there wasn't enough light to read by, I would have to find something else to do.

RexTalionis: I thought about getting an e-ink reader, but figured that it wasn't right for me since there is usually very little ambient light where I live.

Cardboard box?
Bat cave?
Abandoned mine?

I have a kindle. I was already a prime person since 2006 anyway so it was a no-brainer. Bets thing about it - fits in my coat pocket so I can take it to the gym and look at it on the stupid treadmill 5x a week.

bought my 6 year old a Kindle Fire for Christmas...he loves reading and we can load up a bunch of kids books on it easy squeezy...plus, the occasional Angry Birds game doesn't hurt. A lot of educational sites he plays games on run with Flash, and they play fine on it. I played with it for a few hours and thought it was cool as heck. Screen was great, connected to the wifi in a snap and had Netflix running in an instant. the volume control 'is' a bit cumbersome, but with the functionality leaning towards reading slightly ahead of audio/video media, i can see why they did it that way.

AcneVulgaris: czetie: And yet, Amazon claims it is selling them by the metric buttload. If it really is that bad, can we look forward to a post-Christmas Fire sale?

McDonalds sells more burgers than Ruth's Chris sells steaks. Therefore the burgers are better.

Even by the standards of Fark, that's a spectacularly stupid response. It's even more stupid if you think it accurately reflects what I said.

If you're hungry and need something cheap and quick, then yes, the burgers are "better". If you're hungry for a quality piece of meat with subtle and complex flavors served in a relaxing, upscale environment then the Ruth's Chris steaks are "better". Neither one is objectively "good" or "bad" in isolation from a particular need.

Meanwhile, the Kindle Fire bashing is dumb and dumber. Dumb is "it's not as good as an iPad, therefore it's useless". Dumber is "it's not good by any standard, so all those people buying it are fools".