Quote:
Originally Posted by mgmueller
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."?
|
My comment was mainly on rating side of things.
I do agree that some or most of the reviews are junk, and waste of time...