Originally Posted by Ekaros
I don't fully agree here, the review should take account how good device is relative to it's price and competitors, how well it does what it is ment to do and do you get atleast decent bang for the buck. Also on such devices as Kindle Fire HD, does other factors offset the issues.
If Fiat is a sport car and cost as much as Porche then the speed-wise comparison is correct. On other hand if it's cheap family-saloon against relatively expensive sport-car you can't realy compare them.
If you have two almost same devices with very different prices should they have the same rating? Or you could get much more features for same price, still same rating as long as specs don't lie?
True. If it's similar products.
But in this often used example: Kindle Fire HD and Google/Asus Nexus 7 are not that similar.
Of course, both qualify as tablets. And both are 7".
Still: They aim for entirely different target groups and differ significantly in their market approach.
As a "standard" tablet for the "average" user, Kindle Fire HD certainly fails: No Google Play, no nook or Kobo app, tightly tied to the Amazon ecosystem.
But why is this a bad thing?
One could turn this whole thing around: You can have a flatrate from Amazon for "love film". For just 10 Euros per month, you can stream as many movies as you want. Google only offers movies to rent. If you watch, let's say, 15 movies per months: Is Kindle Fire "better" then?
To me, that's comparing Apples to Oranges.
Why can't a gadget be great on one hand, but on the other hand still be the wrong one for you?
Why not just rate, in this example, Kindle Fire great for what it does and in addition comment "still, it's not right for me, I need 3G and an SD slot"?
Why bash it instead?
Would it be a valid rating, if someone said: "Nexus 7 and Fire HD both are crap. You can't run your iOS apps on them."?