Like making a first impression, you only get one chance to do that.
Now, almost 2 years later we have some 7" Tablet/jrs, NetTablets, Tablet/castrati (whatever) trying to fill the void between a $200 iPod Touch and a $500 iPad.
Here's how I see it.
Apple created the iPad to fill the space between laptops and pocket devices. So these third parties immediately see it like this.
They think that this is the way things are. So what do they do? They try to fill the 'gaps'. Like a low-resolution bitmap image expanded terribly high, they try to interpolate the pixels between the devices by cutting up the line, spreading it apart, and plopping in intermediaries.
And yet, every single one has failed. Always to the detriment of the company and often to the bankruptcy (or near) of that division or the whole kit and caboodle.
They don't get it.
THIS is the reality.
They're bitmap players in a vector world. Or, if you've seen the parallel between this and Apple's marketing, low-DPI players in a Retina world.
The fatal error here is assuming the Fire won't be further refined, it will most assuredly be reimagined after they've had it out for a few months.
Not sure.
Lets say you returned your Fire because you didn't like it, the negative experience that you pass on to your friends is contagious. Far more than if you like a product. It was a hotel manager who told me a few years ago - give someone a good experience they will tell 2 people, give someone a bad experience and they will tell 10.
If the Fire gets off to a bad start, the technical unsavy may not want to risk v2 or v3.
The difference between the Fire and the iPad is that Apple got the iPad right from day 1. Forget all the naysayers about multitasking and cameras and all that jazz, Apple got out an amazingly good product on the first day.
And as much as we write off "well it's only $200", consumers deserve to get a polished product for that. The hardware maybe cheap but there is no excuse in this day and age for a bad user experience from a main brand company like Amazon.
The biggest thing in all of this is the bit that people overlook-
What happens after the purchase?
If someone plays with it for a few days and puts it to one side, they'll never buy another version. They'll think that all tablets are crap, including the iPad.
And what people are overlooking by a mile - is that iPad users for the most part use their purchase all the time, and are telling other people about the good experience. This isn;t about Pro-Apple, it's about Pro-Technology. People want good technology.
In the Rating section the comparison charts are organized to emphasize the things the Fire lacks vis-a-vis the iPad2, while simultaneously glossing over things the iPad2 lacks vis-a-vis the Fire.
For example, in comparing the hardware, they note that the Fire has no GPS, no motion sensor, no cameras, etc. All true. However, they fail to treat the iPad2 equally. In comparing the software included with the two units, it would be just as fair to call out that the iPad2 has no QuickOffice, no included Facebook app, no included comics viewer, no daily free app giveaways and no Flash support. But conveniently, AppleInsider doesn't point a finger at iOS's shortcomings and instead has chosen to slant the comparisons against the Fire. Now, I realize that it goes against the party line to fault Apple for banishing Flash from iOS's Garden of Eden, but the truth is that Flash is still useful and there are still websites that depend on Flash that iOS can't fully access. At least the Fire doesn't arbitrarily prevent you from doing so.
So you find the lack of flash to be an incovenience on your iOS device or the presence of flash to be key on your android device? I use iOS and I don't miss flash. Instead, I feel that sites that don't work properly on my iDevice are behind the current technological times and need to get busy. They are lazy. Arbitrary is asking that all devices support proprietary technology. Not arbitrary is asking that devices support open standards. If the standard is proprietary, something needs needs to change.
That's a great point, and I've often thought about it myself. But then you have to realize that Apple designed a different UI for the iPad and the iPhone. It would make more sense for Apple to release a 7" iPod touch than a 7" iPad.
People keep repeating this and it's simply not true. There is ONE major difference, and that's the split view UI controller that allows a drop down list to appear side-by-side with the content.
Everything else: buttons, sliders, navigation controllers, and so on are the same.
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
And then throughout any interface observations suggests that the Fire is not up to snuff because it doesn't copy the iOS methods. Things such as bounce at end of list, particular transitions etc.
So it comes out to me at least a bit at cross purposes. First a waggling finger followed up by the complaint it does not slavishly copy.
Lets say you returned your Fire because you didn't like it, the negative experience that you pass on to your friends is contagious. Far more than if you like a product. It was a hotel manager who told me a few years ago - give someone a good experience they will tell 2 people, give someone a bad experience and they will tell 10.
If the Fire gets off to a bad start, the technical unsavy may not want to risk v2 or v3.
The difference between the Fire and the iPad is that Apple got the iPad right from day 1. Forget all the naysayers about multitasking and cameras and all that jazz, Apple got out an amazingly good product on the first day.
And as much as we write off "well it's only $200", consumers deserve to get a polished product for that. The hardware maybe cheap but there is no excuse in this day and age for a bad user experience from a main brand company like Amazon.
The biggest thing in all of this is the bit that people overlook-
What happens after the purchase?
If someone plays with it for a few days and puts it to one side, they'll never buy another version. They'll think that all tablets are crap, including the iPad.
And what people are overlooking by a mile - is that iPad users for the most part use their purchase all the time, and are telling other people about the good experience. This isn;t about Pro-Apple, it's about Pro-Technology. People want good technology.
I agree. Unfortunately allot os us are tech savvy. But there are a majority of people who are not tech savvy. It's amazing how may people are ignorant to technology. Their Kids are far more technology savvy than their parents. Parents that listen to their kids and buy the iPad find that their kids are happier. But Kids that expect and iPad and get a Fire are gonna show their parents just how poor the quality is when the fire ends up in a dresser drawer or laying under the coffee table. I honestly believe this device is a toy. Or a color Kindle.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
Waaaaaah the world doesn't work like it should in my imagination. Someone had to make it. It was Apple. Someone decided to go in this directions it was Apple. Everyone else is following. If Apple wasn't successful at selling their idea of a tablet...no one would be making them. Flash is dead in mobile browsing, apparently you didn't get the memo. What do you consider a useful function? Sounds like you have no clue.
Apple created the iPad to fill the space between laptops and pocket devices. So these third parties immediately see it like this.
They think that this is the way things are. So what do they do? They try to fill the 'gaps'. Like a low-resolution bitmap image expanded terribly high, they try to interpolate the pixels between the devices by cutting up the line, spreading it apart, and plopping in intermediaries.
And yet, every single one has failed. Always to the detriment of the company and often to the bankruptcy (or near) of that division or the whole kit and caboodle.
They don't get it.
THIS is the reality.
They're bitmap players in a vector world. Or, if you've seen the parallel between this and Apple's marketing, low-DPI players in a Retina world.
Oddly... That says it all!
Normally I wouldn't include the images in my reply...
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
This is a good point. Sinse the swipe to unlock feature was patented, doesn't Amazon have to pay Apple royalties. Just because the Fire swipes from left to right, should make no difference, correct?
People keep repeating this and it's simply not true. There is ONE major difference, and that's the split view UI controller that allows a drop down list to appear side-by-side with the content.
Everything else: buttons, sliders, navigation controllers, and so on are the same.
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
If Apple were going to release a 7" iDevice they would have already done it!
If the iPad 1 had been a 7" device the same form factor as the Galaxy Tab, PlayBook at a $500 price it would not have been as successful nor would it been able to usher in the post-pc era and devastate the netbook market.
Everyone knew that Apple was going to introduce a Tablet for $1,000.
Most expected it would run OS X and be a MacBook without a keyboard.
Most expected that the usual suspects (Dell, HP, ASUS...) would follow almost immediately with cheaper models, say, $799 running Windows.
But Apple fooled them all and changed the way we interface a computer -- at a price, quality, capability level that nobody could match for going on 2 years.
The iPad defined what a Tablet [computer] is!
Like making a first impression, you only get one chance to do that.
Now, almost 2 years later we have some 7" Tablet/jrs, NetTablets, Tablet/castrati (whatever) trying to fill the void between a $200 iPod Touch and a $500 iPad.
The fact is that there is no money [profit] to be made in the 7" market -- whatever you call the device.
I am not sure. Its all speculation, of course, but the landscape is always changing and what was true last year may not be true today. I am repeating myself in this thread (apologies) but in spite of all the technical and business reasons for Apple NOT to release a 7" and the fact that SJ clearly stated that the present iPad was the ideal size (after much research / testing), and even after we recently have been hearing all about the what lies behind the business decisions central to Apple's success (simplicity, the courage to say no, live by ones vision, etc), I still contend that if the Amazon Fire is a gains traction and continues to sell well, Apple may have little choice but to compete.
With the existing IOS user base and public awareness, as well as the developed backend services and content, why not compete in a rapidly growing market? There would be fragmentation and more complications for developers, but also an opportunity.
I can even see a point where if you own one application for one device and wish to get the same for another there would be a minor charge. Not a deal breaker, but a charge nonetheless.
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
And then throughout any interface observations suggests that the Fire is not up to snuff because it doesn't copy the iOS methods. Things such as bounce at end of list, particular transitions etc.
So it comes out to me at least a bit at cross purposes. First a waggling finger followed up by the complaint it does not slavishly copy.
what is a developer to do
Well the "swipe to unlock" is something Apple just patented (widely reported recently) just as Google just received a patent for gesture unlock swiping between a grid of numbers. So it's odd Amazon would use the very Apple-borrowed swipe (it also works in a non-smooth way on the Fire).
On the other hand, I don't think the review is demanding that the Fire act exactly like iOS as much as pointing out that it diverges in ways that make it feel slower and cheaper, missing the little touches that Apple filled with specific examples like bounce. On the Fire, it appears to do a grey shadow when you pull down to the end of a list. This is clearly not as well conceived as Apple. Very much like Windows copying the Mac, and introducing changes that just make the copy worse.
Shouldn't worry, it's the usual thing where people can only see a product from their own point of view, and discount that other people have different tastes, uses, abilities, etc. It's a very narrow viewpoint they hold.
If I had an iPad, I wouldn't be taking my laptop to the sofa in the evening, however, MrsTinman's iPad always goes to the sofa after work and rarely her laptop. If we go away, she'll take the iPad rather than her laptop.
If anything, the iPad is making me reconsider whether I need a laptop and couldn't just use an iMac+iPad.
But as I said, everyone is different, and have different uses for things. And not everyone can appreciate that.
That's a lovely idea. But at the same time, every so often something comes along that makes a previous category obsolete. I think this is a clear example of one of those cases. The only difference between the two form factors, once you correct for stuff that's going to become a non-issue over time (like performance), is that one has a keyboard attached to the bottom of the display by a hinge. Do you really think having a keyboard attached by a hinge to the bottom of the display is such a huge convenience that there should be an entire product category to serve the demand for it?
EDIT: I thought you were the guy I was originally arguing with and misread you. Forgive the snarky tone.
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
You're serious? For most apps, it doesn't matter. You tell the system you want a list with 23 elements in it. The system tells you to give it your text for item 16. It displays it. The user taps on item 16, and you go to the next screen. Rinse. Repeat.
By and large, it doesn't matter WHAT the size is. The system scales and manages everything for you.
And if you're doing bitmapped graphics or something similar, then you'd better have gotten your port size and scaling information from the system BEFORE you started drawing. Again, done correctly, you have resolution independence.
How the hell do you think the same app runs correctly on a old-school 3GS and a 4/4S with a Retina display?
Wow, how uninformed are you? You talk about how the iPad 2 can't replace a laptop, as though your opinion is somehow gospel.
My iPad 2 has replaced my $2000 Windows 7 laptop most of the time. In fact, just about the only thing I use my laptop for is to wirelessly sync my iPad and iPhone.
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
They even made unique Home Screen icons of a difference size and spacing instead of just scaling them by pixel sizes to make them bigger.
I can't believe going into 2012 ass hats are still claiming the iPad is just s big iPod Touch. Maybe if they realized they rewrote the UI from the bottom up to be idealized for the display, which is also completely different aspect ratio not just size, they'd realize why Android never had a chance by simply scaling up to fit a larger display.
I think people that wishes a 7" tablet for the smaller form factor have not really understood the difference between 3.5"-4" vs 7" vs 10". When it comes to certain computing/reading experiences, the middl of the road 7" sizes just doesn't cut it. I think Apple for it right with it's current two sizes and skipping the 7".
Jobs got it right, let others fight over the less profitable and usable form factor. You need to put all the form factors on a table and start playing with different apps and functionality to realize this. I have iphone, ipad and nook tablet on the table and boy, the immediate choice for me to grab would be ipad and then iphone...nook tablet is actually well done if they didn't lock the bootloader... that said, i think 7" is good for epub reading experience but translates other computing experiences half-ass.
I get that this is an Apple fan site. But if you can't achieve at least a veneer of impartiality when reviewing stuff from other companies, then you should stick to Apple products and not review them at all!
The word 'review' suggests some kind of critical evaluation - not just an excuse to point out the superiority of the Apple alternative which costs 2.5 times as much. Wouldn't you be shocked if a $499 product WASN'T easily superior to a $199 product? It's like saying that Intel's latest hex-core chip is far superior to the dual-core alternative.
Clue: comparing products is only meaningful when they're in the same market. Other sites have criticised the Fire too, but most of them have realised that it's quite plainly not intended to compete directly with the iPad.
Comments
The iPad defined what a Tablet [computer] is!
Like making a first impression, you only get one chance to do that.
Now, almost 2 years later we have some 7" Tablet/jrs, NetTablets, Tablet/castrati (whatever) trying to fill the void between a $200 iPod Touch and a $500 iPad.
Here's how I see it.
Apple created the iPad to fill the space between laptops and pocket devices. So these third parties immediately see it like this.
They think that this is the way things are. So what do they do? They try to fill the 'gaps'. Like a low-resolution bitmap image expanded terribly high, they try to interpolate the pixels between the devices by cutting up the line, spreading it apart, and plopping in intermediaries.
And yet, every single one has failed. Always to the detriment of the company and often to the bankruptcy (or near) of that division or the whole kit and caboodle.
They don't get it.
THIS is the reality.
They're bitmap players in a vector world. Or, if you've seen the parallel between this and Apple's marketing, low-DPI players in a Retina world.
The fatal error here is assuming the Fire won't be further refined, it will most assuredly be reimagined after they've had it out for a few months.
Not sure.
Lets say you returned your Fire because you didn't like it, the negative experience that you pass on to your friends is contagious. Far more than if you like a product. It was a hotel manager who told me a few years ago - give someone a good experience they will tell 2 people, give someone a bad experience and they will tell 10.
If the Fire gets off to a bad start, the technical unsavy may not want to risk v2 or v3.
The difference between the Fire and the iPad is that Apple got the iPad right from day 1. Forget all the naysayers about multitasking and cameras and all that jazz, Apple got out an amazingly good product on the first day.
And as much as we write off "well it's only $200", consumers deserve to get a polished product for that. The hardware maybe cheap but there is no excuse in this day and age for a bad user experience from a main brand company like Amazon.
The biggest thing in all of this is the bit that people overlook-
What happens after the purchase?
If someone plays with it for a few days and puts it to one side, they'll never buy another version. They'll think that all tablets are crap, including the iPad.
And what people are overlooking by a mile - is that iPad users for the most part use their purchase all the time, and are telling other people about the good experience. This isn;t about Pro-Apple, it's about Pro-Technology. People want good technology.
In the Rating section the comparison charts are organized to emphasize the things the Fire lacks vis-a-vis the iPad2, while simultaneously glossing over things the iPad2 lacks vis-a-vis the Fire.
For example, in comparing the hardware, they note that the Fire has no GPS, no motion sensor, no cameras, etc. All true. However, they fail to treat the iPad2 equally. In comparing the software included with the two units, it would be just as fair to call out that the iPad2 has no QuickOffice, no included Facebook app, no included comics viewer, no daily free app giveaways and no Flash support. But conveniently, AppleInsider doesn't point a finger at iOS's shortcomings and instead has chosen to slant the comparisons against the Fire. Now, I realize that it goes against the party line to fault Apple for banishing Flash from iOS's Garden of Eden, but the truth is that Flash is still useful and there are still websites that depend on Flash that iOS can't fully access. At least the Fire doesn't arbitrarily prevent you from doing so.
So you find the lack of flash to be an incovenience on your iOS device or the presence of flash to be key on your android device? I use iOS and I don't miss flash. Instead, I feel that sites that don't work properly on my iDevice are behind the current technological times and need to get busy. They are lazy. Arbitrary is asking that all devices support proprietary technology. Not arbitrary is asking that devices support open standards. If the standard is proprietary, something needs needs to change.
That's a great point, and I've often thought about it myself. But then you have to realize that Apple designed a different UI for the iPad and the iPhone. It would make more sense for Apple to release a 7" iPod touch than a 7" iPad.
People keep repeating this and it's simply not true. There is ONE major difference, and that's the split view UI controller that allows a drop down list to appear side-by-side with the content.
Everything else: buttons, sliders, navigation controllers, and so on are the same.
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
And then throughout any interface observations suggests that the Fire is not up to snuff because it doesn't copy the iOS methods. Things such as bounce at end of list, particular transitions etc.
So it comes out to me at least a bit at cross purposes. First a waggling finger followed up by the complaint it does not slavishly copy.
what is a developer to do
Not sure.
Lets say you returned your Fire because you didn't like it, the negative experience that you pass on to your friends is contagious. Far more than if you like a product. It was a hotel manager who told me a few years ago - give someone a good experience they will tell 2 people, give someone a bad experience and they will tell 10.
If the Fire gets off to a bad start, the technical unsavy may not want to risk v2 or v3.
The difference between the Fire and the iPad is that Apple got the iPad right from day 1. Forget all the naysayers about multitasking and cameras and all that jazz, Apple got out an amazingly good product on the first day.
And as much as we write off "well it's only $200", consumers deserve to get a polished product for that. The hardware maybe cheap but there is no excuse in this day and age for a bad user experience from a main brand company like Amazon.
The biggest thing in all of this is the bit that people overlook-
What happens after the purchase?
If someone plays with it for a few days and puts it to one side, they'll never buy another version. They'll think that all tablets are crap, including the iPad.
And what people are overlooking by a mile - is that iPad users for the most part use their purchase all the time, and are telling other people about the good experience. This isn;t about Pro-Apple, it's about Pro-Technology. People want good technology.
I agree. Unfortunately allot os us are tech savvy. But there are a majority of people who are not tech savvy. It's amazing how may people are ignorant to technology. Their Kids are far more technology savvy than their parents. Parents that listen to their kids and buy the iPad find that their kids are happier. But Kids that expect and iPad and get a Fire are gonna show their parents just how poor the quality is when the fire ends up in a dresser drawer or laying under the coffee table. I honestly believe this device is a toy. Or a color Kindle.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
Waaaaaah the world doesn't work like it should in my imagination. Someone had to make it. It was Apple. Someone decided to go in this directions it was Apple. Everyone else is following. If Apple wasn't successful at selling their idea of a tablet...no one would be making them. Flash is dead in mobile browsing, apparently you didn't get the memo. What do you consider a useful function? Sounds like you have no clue.
Here's how I see it.
Apple created the iPad to fill the space between laptops and pocket devices. So these third parties immediately see it like this.
They think that this is the way things are. So what do they do? They try to fill the 'gaps'. Like a low-resolution bitmap image expanded terribly high, they try to interpolate the pixels between the devices by cutting up the line, spreading it apart, and plopping in intermediaries.
And yet, every single one has failed. Always to the detriment of the company and often to the bankruptcy (or near) of that division or the whole kit and caboodle.
They don't get it.
THIS is the reality.
They're bitmap players in a vector world. Or, if you've seen the parallel between this and Apple's marketing, low-DPI players in a Retina world.
Oddly... That says it all!
Normally I wouldn't include the images in my reply...
A good DED review for sure.
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
This is a good point. Sinse the swipe to unlock feature was patented, doesn't Amazon have to pay Apple royalties. Just because the Fire swipes from left to right, should make no difference, correct?
People keep repeating this and it's simply not true. There is ONE major difference, and that's the split view UI controller that allows a drop down list to appear side-by-side with the content.
Everything else: buttons, sliders, navigation controllers, and so on are the same.
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
If Apple were going to release a 7" iDevice they would have already done it!
If the iPad 1 had been a 7" device the same form factor as the Galaxy Tab, PlayBook at a $500 price it would not have been as successful nor would it been able to usher in the post-pc era and devastate the netbook market.
Everyone knew that Apple was going to introduce a Tablet for $1,000.
Most expected it would run OS X and be a MacBook without a keyboard.
Most expected that the usual suspects (Dell, HP, ASUS...) would follow almost immediately with cheaper models, say, $799 running Windows.
But Apple fooled them all and changed the way we interface a computer -- at a price, quality, capability level that nobody could match for going on 2 years.
The iPad defined what a Tablet [computer] is!
Like making a first impression, you only get one chance to do that.
Now, almost 2 years later we have some 7" Tablet/jrs, NetTablets, Tablet/castrati (whatever) trying to fill the void between a $200 iPod Touch and a $500 iPad.
The fact is that there is no money [profit] to be made in the 7" market -- whatever you call the device.
I am not sure. Its all speculation, of course, but the landscape is always changing and what was true last year may not be true today. I am repeating myself in this thread (apologies) but in spite of all the technical and business reasons for Apple NOT to release a 7" and the fact that SJ clearly stated that the present iPad was the ideal size (after much research / testing), and even after we recently have been hearing all about the what lies behind the business decisions central to Apple's success (simplicity, the courage to say no, live by ones vision, etc), I still contend that if the Amazon Fire is a gains traction and continues to sell well, Apple may have little choice but to compete.
With the existing IOS user base and public awareness, as well as the developed backend services and content, why not compete in a rapidly growing market? There would be fragmentation and more complications for developers, but also an opportunity.
I can even see a point where if you own one application for one device and wish to get the same for another there would be a minor charge. Not a deal breaker, but a charge nonetheless.
A good DED review for sure.
I find it curious though that in the first few paragraphs he raises the spectre of "patent" with swipe to unlock. (I did notice it is in the opposite direction just to be "safe").
And then throughout any interface observations suggests that the Fire is not up to snuff because it doesn't copy the iOS methods. Things such as bounce at end of list, particular transitions etc.
So it comes out to me at least a bit at cross purposes. First a waggling finger followed up by the complaint it does not slavishly copy.
what is a developer to do
Well the "swipe to unlock" is something Apple just patented (widely reported recently) just as Google just received a patent for gesture unlock swiping between a grid of numbers. So it's odd Amazon would use the very Apple-borrowed swipe (it also works in a non-smooth way on the Fire).
On the other hand, I don't think the review is demanding that the Fire act exactly like iOS as much as pointing out that it diverges in ways that make it feel slower and cheaper, missing the little touches that Apple filled with specific examples like bounce. On the Fire, it appears to do a grey shadow when you pull down to the end of a list. This is clearly not as well conceived as Apple. Very much like Windows copying the Mac, and introducing changes that just make the copy worse.
Shouldn't worry, it's the usual thing where people can only see a product from their own point of view, and discount that other people have different tastes, uses, abilities, etc. It's a very narrow viewpoint they hold.
If I had an iPad, I wouldn't be taking my laptop to the sofa in the evening, however, MrsTinman's iPad always goes to the sofa after work and rarely her laptop. If we go away, she'll take the iPad rather than her laptop.
If anything, the iPad is making me reconsider whether I need a laptop and couldn't just use an iMac+iPad.
But as I said, everyone is different, and have different uses for things. And not everyone can appreciate that.
That's a lovely idea. But at the same time, every so often something comes along that makes a previous category obsolete. I think this is a clear example of one of those cases. The only difference between the two form factors, once you correct for stuff that's going to become a non-issue over time (like performance), is that one has a keyboard attached to the bottom of the display by a hinge. Do you really think having a keyboard attached by a hinge to the bottom of the display is such a huge convenience that there should be an entire product category to serve the demand for it?
EDIT: I thought you were the guy I was originally arguing with and misread you. Forgive the snarky tone.
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
You're serious? For most apps, it doesn't matter. You tell the system you want a list with 23 elements in it. The system tells you to give it your text for item 16. It displays it. The user taps on item 16, and you go to the next screen. Rinse. Repeat.
By and large, it doesn't matter WHAT the size is. The system scales and manages everything for you.
And if you're doing bitmapped graphics or something similar, then you'd better have gotten your port size and scaling information from the system BEFORE you started drawing. Again, done correctly, you have resolution independence.
How the hell do you think the same app runs correctly on a old-school 3GS and a 4/4S with a Retina display?
Wow, how uninformed are you? You talk about how the iPad 2 can't replace a laptop, as though your opinion is somehow gospel.
My iPad 2 has replaced my $2000 Windows 7 laptop most of the time. In fact, just about the only thing I use my laptop for is to wirelessly sync my iPad and iPhone.
You really spent $2000 on a Windows laptop?
No... All the controls, kb, etc are diffent size...
They even made unique Home Screen icons of a difference size and spacing instead of just scaling them by pixel sizes to make them bigger.
I can't believe going into 2012 ass hats are still claiming the iPad is just s big iPod Touch. Maybe if they realized they rewrote the UI from the bottom up to be idealized for the display, which is also completely different aspect ratio not just size, they'd realize why Android never had a chance by simply scaling up to fit a larger display.
Next I will go to www.playstationsuperfanboyclub.com and read their unbiased review of the latest legend of zelda game!
What a great read! And so unbiased.
It was a bit too generous. I wouldn't have given it 2.5/5.
Jobs got it right, let others fight over the less profitable and usable form factor. You need to put all the form factors on a table and start playing with different apps and functionality to realize this. I have iphone, ipad and nook tablet on the table and boy, the immediate choice for me to grab would be ipad and then iphone...nook tablet is actually well done if they didn't lock the bootloader... that said, i think 7" is good for epub reading experience but translates other computing experiences half-ass.
The word 'review' suggests some kind of critical evaluation - not just an excuse to point out the superiority of the Apple alternative which costs 2.5 times as much. Wouldn't you be shocked if a $499 product WASN'T easily superior to a $199 product? It's like saying that Intel's latest hex-core chip is far superior to the dual-core alternative.
Clue: comparing products is only meaningful when they're in the same market. Other sites have criticised the Fire too, but most of them have realised that it's quite plainly not intended to compete directly with the iPad.