View Single Post
Old 09-23-2012, 02:16 PM   #16
wizwor
Guru
wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Posts: 980
Karma: 21057283
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
It's funny. I couldn't find this article this morning. When I read it yesterday on the Times of India the lead in attributed it to the NY Times. Anyway, here is a link and the quote...

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7...re-hd-vs-ipad/

Quote:
The Kindle Fire HD has three main video-streaming options: Netflix, Hulu Plus, and of course, if you're a Prime member, Amazon Instant Video. The iPad also has access to those same streaming services, so I tested both tablets using Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. When you take into account the vision behind each tablet, it's not too surprising which provides the better video-streaming experience.

I began by streaming the same episode of "Breaking Bad" through Amazon Instant Video on each tablet over CNET's internal Wi-Fi network. I then walked around the building, eventually leaving the building with both tablets, while the episode continued to play. Both tablets played without a hiccup during this time; however, only the Fire HD displayed and maintained an HD signal. The iPad's signal was strong, but decidedly SD.

After leaving the building and traveling about 20 feet from CNET's front door, the iPad lost the streaming signal, giving me only the spinning circle of death. The Fire HD continued to play in HD for another half block or so (about 100 feet) before it too stopped playing the show.

With Netflix streaming, I saw something very similar. This time, with an episode of "The Walking Dead" and when within five feet of our test router, the iPad delivered a quality, but sub-HD version of the episode, while Fire continued to push out a better-looking HD image. After walking farther away and eventually leaving the building, the iPad stopped streaming at about the same place as before (about 20 feet from CNET's front door) and while the Fire HD didn't get as far with Netflix as it did with Amazon Instant Video, it did make it another 50 feet or so before it lost the signal. Also the Fire HD was more consistent with its quality, rarely dropping to a low-quality mode -- something the iPad did frequently as I moved around.

I also tested the range of each tablet's Wi-Fi antenna by walking a block away from the CNET building and then walking closer and closer until I could connect to our internal network. Each tablet connected at about the same distance from the building (50 to 60 feet away). So my theory, at least in the case of streaming, is that it's not necessarily the range of the Fire HD that leads it to success here, but how quickly its MIMO-powered antenna allows it to buffer video. The Fire HD seems optimized for this. Which makes sense, given Amazon's vision for the device as primarily a media consumption device.

While the iPad proves a worthy competitor in the streaming-video challenge, the Fire HD currently has no equal in this department. If streaming video is at the top of your priority list, the Kindle Fire HD is the tablet for you.
This is what I mean. Better video under all circumstances means more to me than a second or two waiting for an image in a web page or an animated ad to load.

Last edited by wizwor; 09-23-2012 at 02:20 PM. Reason: to highlight and annotate
wizwor is offline   Reply With Quote