I’m surprised it took this long for the first “how the Amazon Fire is better than the iPad” post to be expectorated onto the interwebs. I thought the wait would be spent on authors coming up with myriad reasons that the touched-by-barely-anyone tablet would be better than Apple’s dominant entry, but alas, ExtremeTech (no linkage for flametards) could find only 5. Five separate pages to maximize page impressions, obviously.
1. Amazon has more content
Touting something like 18 million discrete, downloadable or streamable songs, movies, and TV shows, Amazon definitely has a comparable amount of content to iTunes — but when you factor in e-books and magazines, Kindle Fire simply stomps Apple into the ground.
Having more books should be an Apple-pulp-smashing game-changer, all right. I mean: Amazon’s 7″ multi-touch IPS display with 1024x600p resolution at 169 ppi just screams to have books read on it. Didn’t they even make a commercial about it? And that full 8GB of space will allow users to jam their Fires full of the media that it can’t stream when it’s out of range of WiFi. And isn’t there a Kindle app for the iPad?
2. Portability; Kindle Fire fits in your pocket
The Kindle Fire is just 4.7 inches (120mm) wide — skinny enough to fit in your pants pocket or purse — and the iPad 2 is 7.3 inches (185mm), far too big for anything other than always-in-your-hand, or in a proper bag.
Reason number 2 is that it’s smaller? This has to be some kind of slideshow 60-0 braking record. And check this shit out:
I mean: why even use that image? When people think “fits in your pocket”, people aren’t thinking “1/6 of the devices can be lodged in your back pocket with a shoehorn”.
3. Cost; Kindle Fire is less than half the price of the iPad
This is the clincher: the Kindle Fire is $199, and the lowest, “equivalent” iPad is $500.
Got me there. It does cost less. I may have taken the wrong message away from Bezos’ introduction of the Fire, but I think that was the point.
4. Comfort; You can use the Kindle Fire with one hand
/checks reason 2.
I guess we’re trying to separate the quantitative from the qualitative here.
The Kindle Fire, on the other hand, can be gripped in a single hand *as opposed to the hundreds of documented emergency room visits by people attempting this with an iPad* — you can grasp both the left and right edges with thumb and forefinger *??*, it has softer (plastic) *just in case you thought the Fire was using some kind of soft metal, balsa or talc* edges, and it’s even grabably chubby *there’s something that ends in “that’s what she said” here* (11.4mm vs. 8.8mm for the iPad 2). As a result, you can easily whip your Fire (that name is going to get old soon) out of your back pocket *with assistance*, comfortably read or watch something on the train (even while standing up and holding a rail!) *because you can use one hand, GET IT?!*, and then pocket again *with help from a stranger* when you alight *writer’s workshop word alert* at the station.
5. Web; Amazon Silk will blow Mobile Safari away
Not only is the Kindle Fire a cloud-backed OS — everything you do, download, or watch is mirrored with the cloud — but it also has a browser that promises to redefine mobile surfing. For the most part, Mobile Safari and Android’s stock browser are just cut-down versions of a desktop browser. The Fire’s browser, Amazon Silk, is a brand new re-imagining of what a mobile browser can be.
I’ve already commented that I’m impressed with how Amazon is leveraging its EC2 presence with its browser, but let’s not get carried away. First of all, the iPad trounces the Fire’s RAM and processor, so it’s not like the comparison started off even to begin with. Second, Apple created WebKit – the engine that powers a bunch of different browsers, including the Fire’s – so I think the iPad’s implementation is going to be about as good as it can be done. Let’s see how a side-by-side comparison between the two shakes out before we declare a winner. There’s also that small issue of Amazon having to know everything you browse in order to serve up whatever speed benefits are realized. I’m sure no one will have a problem with that.
The Fire costs less than the iPad – that much is obvious. Saying that the Fire “beats” the iPad stinks of the kind of linkbait bullshit I’ve come to expect after the announcement of something resembling an Apple product. Regurgitating Amazon’s marketing and slapping it in a slideshow doesn’t make it so.