Fire vs iPad

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What Amazon is also pointing out is that the screen on the Fire 8.9" HD is as good as the iPad. Amazon is trying to say that the Fire 8.9" HD is as good as an iPad for less money.

What about that did you not get?

That wasn't what I was responding to. I was reponding to your statement that implied that Amazon thought they could make significant inroads in to Apple's current market with "ours is just as good but cheaper."

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Do people buy iPads solely for the screen? Last I heard, the iPad mini was selling like hotcakes *despite* the screen. All the reviewers swear the iOS ecosytem is why. I tend to agree. First you choose an ecosystem you feel comfy with--then you choose the hardware that best suits your needs and wallet.
It's the same as with ebooks: first you choose between kindle and epub and after you choose epub Kindle becomes irrelevant. And vice-versa.
Ne'er shall the twain meet
.

I have a Mini in addition to a full size iPad. The screen on the Mini is fine. I agree with you that the portability factor and the iOS system more than make up for any perceived screen inferiority. The big iPad gets used at home but the Mini is starting to get used at home too. It's a great little gadget.

[Sydney's Mom]

Chose the Fire because I could stream Amazon prime videos

[SeaKing]

It is a losing game for Apple no matter which way they go.

The competition with hardware is so rarefied now that it is hard to tell the difference between Apple and the "others."

But the "others" are cheaper so Apple will lose share as people's budgets kick in, and if Apple competes on price, it loses two ways. It loses it's elite status, and it lowers its margin so profits suffer.

Still though Apple is sliding down, it is in an enviable position for at least a while more. My guess no more than 5 years and probably 3 years when it becomes just one of the crowd.

[HansTWN]

Just read in the IHT this morning that Apple is spending $3+ billion on R&D and Samsung is spending almost 6. Now we know why they are falling behind.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Chose the Fire because I could stream Amazon prime videos

$250 for a 9" retina display was my reason for getting a Fire HD. I use it primarily for Netflix. I won't consider Prime Videos until Amazon releases an Android app for it.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Chose the Fire because I could stream Amazon prime videos

You can stream Amazon Prime videos to your iPad and iPhone. Amazon has an app for them. Android devices are still left out, with the exception of the Amazon-branded ones.

When I was looking into a tablet replacement for my iPad 1, I was seriously leaning toward the Fire HD+. But what kept me from getting it is the extreme limitations of the Amazon market compared to Google Play. One of my must-have apps was Great Little War Game, and while you can get it for IOS and Android, it is not in Amazon's market, and the developers say it won't be "until Amazon becomes more friendly to international companies." This lack of an open market (which is really one of the big selling points for Android devices) ultimately led me to a Nexus 7.

I still wish I had a bigger, hi-res screen, but not with market limitations, and certainly not with Google's 10-inch Nexus running $500. At that price, I might as well get an iPad.

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Though I love my Fire, I hope this discussion and that commercial are not the sole basis for your decision. Sit down and think about why you want a tablet...

1) make a list of all the things you want to do with the tab
2) list any deal breakers (battery life, dimensions, memory, killer apps)
3) make a list of all the apps that will do the things in #1 well enough
4) make a list of all the devices that will run apps from #3
5) set a budget
6) cross off items from #5 that violate #2, #4, or #5
7) go touch each remaining device
8) read reviews of each remaining device
9) shop price on the devices that are on your short list

if you can go through this process, you will likely be happy with your choice.

Excellent advice.

As much as I enjoy my Fire HD, I am very careful as to who I recommend it to. If someone wants a "guided" tablet ownership experience, or will be using a tablet primarily as an ereader, then I'd have no hesitation recommending it.

I'll also recommend it to anyone who is a tinkerer and wants a high quality device. From a performance/hardware standpoint, a rooted KFHD makes a pretty amazing Android tablet. If I had known just how good it would be (rooted), I would've held out for the 8.9 model.... bah, who am I kidding, I wasn't going to be able to wait that long.

[HarryT]

You get what you pay for. I'm a long-time iPad user who bought - and then returned - the Fire HD. I just didn't like it at all.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You get what you pay for.

Exactly! My reason for getting a large screen tablet was for videos; and for half the price of the latest iPad, I got a tablet with the same high resolution display.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Sregener

I still wish I had a bigger, hi-res screen, but not with market limitations, and certainly not with Google's 10-inch Nexus running $500. At that price, I might as well get an iPad.

The 16GB N10 is $399; $499 is the 32GB, which is still $100 cheaper than the equivalent ipad (and comes with higher res screen).

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You get what you pay for.

Maybe true, maybe not. You're paying a lot for the Apple name, the Apple arrogance, and the Apple Sandbox experience. Is it really that much better than an Android 4.2 device that it justifies double the price? I don't believe so.

And many games that you must buy for IOS are available as free, ad-supported versions for Android. So you can try them out and see if they're any good before spending any money, and then if it's worth it, you can buy the ad-free version. That's a money-saver as well.

Want to develop apps for IOS? Buy yourself a $99/year subscription to the development kit. Android? Free. Have a PC and want to develop apps for IOS? Um... no; at least not officially.

Did the latest version of IOS make your device a mess? Downgrade quickly or you'll never be allowed to. Apple decide to stop supporting your device? Nobody else can release a patch to fix what ails it.

The iPad is good. Very good. But Android is not far behind, and may be far ahead for some users. Openness counts for something, too.

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Maybe true, maybe not. You're paying a lot for the Apple name, the Apple arrogance, and the Apple Sandbox experience. Is it really that much better than an Android 4.2 device that it justifies double the price? I don't believe so.

And many games that you must buy for IOS are available as free, ad-supported versions for Android. So you can try them out and see if they're any good before spending any money, and then if it's worth it, you can buy the ad-free version. That's a money-saver as well.

Want to develop apps for IOS? Buy yourself a $99/year subscription to the development kit. Android? Free. Have a PC and want to develop apps for IOS? Um... no; at least not officially.

Did the latest version of IOS make your device a mess? Downgrade quickly or you'll never be allowed to. Apple decide to stop supporting your device? Nobody else can release a patch to fix what ails it.

The iPad is good. Very good. But Android is not far behind, and may be far ahead for some users. Openness counts for something, too.

I'm personally a fan of Android and hoping that Google does what is necessary to close the gap even further, but there is still a significant difference in apps. Some of it caused by the no-cost entrance into the Android app market (the $99 entry fee on the iOS side helps keep some of the riff-raff out), some of it caused by the OS and APIs themselves. This is where the reputation of a particular app ecosystem plays an important role. In Google Play, developers pop in, then they pop out. The impression left is that there are many fly-by-night developers who will disappear (never to support or update their app again).

This causes people to be hesitant to pay for apps. I'm not saying that nobody pays for Android apps, but studies have shown that a larger percentage of iOS users pay for apps than Android users pay for apps.

I'm not against paying for quality apps. But I need to have a certain comfort level that the developer created a quality app in the first place and that they will be around to provide bug fixes. I'm talking about the features that are present in the current version of an app that I'm paying for... not some expectation of a future feature to be included. My comfort level is high for the iOS app store... not so high for the Android markets.

And I've yet to encounter an Android tablet of comparable size and weight that offers the same battery life as an iPad.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

My comfort level is high for the iOS app store... not so high for the Android markets.

And I've yet to encounter an Android tablet of comparable size and weight that offers the same battery life as an iPad.

Having been burned by one app in the IOS store, and never in the Android market, I'm not in the same boat. In my case, the developer sold his software to another company, which promptly renamed the product and had the original deleted from the Apple market. I can, of course, buy the same app again with its new name and continue to get bug fixes...

And since I own both an iPhone and an iPad, I've had the pleasant experience of needing to buy two copies of the same app, one "HD" for the iPad, even though my iPhone has almost the same resolution. The iPhone apps look very grainy on my iPad, and of course there's no going the other way (can't run an iPad app on the iPhone.) Somehow, Android apps seem to work and look just fine across multiple resolutions without having to buy additional copies of the same app...

The Nexus 10 compares very favorably with the iPad. Lighter, faster, with more resolution, and just 10% less battery life (10 hours vs 9).

But of course, we've gotten far afield from the original Fire HD+ vs iPad. Since the Fire HD+ has a lot of the same problems as the Apple market (you're just tied to Amazon instead of Apple), I'm not sure one can make a super-strong argument either way. Of course, root that Fire and it inherits most of Android's positives, with the only negative being a potential loss of security. But if you're a Prime customer, then access to the perks of Amazon make the Fire HD+ an almost no-brainer.