well..... we have been waiting for the Year of the linux Desktop for over a decade now
so free has not worked well
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Hits Apple with New 'Three Kindles for the Price of an iPad' Commercial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well..... we have been waiting for the Year of the linux Desktop for over a decade now
so free has not worked wellWhat they forgot is the sequel:
Man: Hey, I got the three Kindles...just like you! (digs around large bag) Got the $79 one because it's $79...(digs around again)...got the Kindle Touch because it's a touchscreen and 3G...hold on...(digs around again)...dammit, where is it?...Oh, here...and I got the Fire so I can watch movies and other...crap...I just dropped the other two.
Woman: Uh, yeah, that's why I got the iPad. All that crap in one easy to use tablet. And it's only $60 more than all three of those put together!
Man:
EDIT: Looks like I typed too long...Superken beat me too it.
Not to mention, I can read websites on my iPad much easier than on a Kindle Fire because the screen is human-size instead of pocket-sized (yes, I can squint at a smaller screen, but if I want to do that I've got my iPhone).
Screen size is a killer feature of the iPad. Well, and performance, versatility, app selection, connectivity, build quality ... Okay, the Kindle Fire is crap. How much are they asking for it?
----------
I don't give a crap about the specs. I do care about user experience. The Fire is a cramped screen, running dog-slow. It's a horrid user experience, especially once you're used to the iPad!
TO be fair, you don't need three Kindles. The Kindle Fire does all the multimedia stuff that an iPad can do. If you want the eInk advantage, then you can get a regular Kindle. That's it.
Keep in mind that I have an iPad, but no Kindle. I just think that the commercial was well done and showed the advantages the Kindle has. This argument that many are coming up with that you need three Kindles to do what one iPad can do is false and shows a lack of objectivity.
The fact of the matter is, that you can BUY two Kindle Fires and a regular Kindle for the price of one iPad. The Kindle Fire is the one that is the competitor to the iPad, and that's less than half the price of it.
Am I the only one who regularly reads on my iPad outdoors in California? I mean, I wouldn't do that in direct sunlight, but sitting in the shade with my iPad while watching the kids play out of the corner of my eye, I find significantly LESS straining on my eyes than reading a physical book. I suppose if I had my face buried in the book it wouldn't matter, but the brightness of the screen which matches the brightness of the playground I look up at means I get far fewer migraines.
In the tablet world, Amazon IS small time, as is everyone else. And mentioning your competitor can work if done well (like them or not, the Mac vs PC ads were successful) and if your competitor is much bigger than you. Pepsi became much more popular with the Pepsi taste test. And the commercial actually doesn't actually mention the iPad. It implies. And that would only work if the competitor had a market share like the iPad.
The thing is that when looking at tablets, the choice is between an iPad and something else. Since everyone knows the iPad, you have to show how you could be a better option than the iPad. If your whole marketing strategy is built around this, then I'd agree. But Amazon HAS to show what advantage they have over the iPad.
To each his own. But I'd much rather carry around a series of books on my iPad (or on a Kindle or Nook) than the same series in paper. And I'm sick of bookshelves full of old books that I don't really want to get rid of but are taking up way more space than they are worth. And I kind of like being able to search my books for previous mentions of characters and look up definitions and use something interesting said by a character in the book as a launching point to reading up on a subject on Wikipedia and elsewhere ...
All of which is to say: paper books have a hard road ahead of them, and probably won't make it in mass consumption mode, but they do have their benefits. eBooks likewise have a whole slew of benefits, which is why they are replacing the paper variety.
----------
I did not know that there were products out there with the build quality and user-facing feature set of the iPad which were also cheaper.
7" screen is the first disqualifier; if it isn't going to fit comfortably in my pocket, I want to see the damned screen clearly. A fluid and responsive interface is a major feature - enabled by a kick-ass processor and highly-tuned software, but that doesn't matter. Having every imaginable app out there is a massive feature. Integrating with my music and video library (neither bought from Apple nor Amazon, for the most part) is a tremendous feature. The Kindle Fire falls flat, as do all the higher-priced iPad "killers" I've seen.
So, please, educate us poor Apple fanboys: where does one find this mythical tablet which is obviously as good or better than the iPad for less money?
I absolutely agree that you should buy the product that is right for you. If the Kindle Fire is right for you, there's no reason to buy an iPad! But you are claiming all of us who own an iPad are suckers who buy it for some odd brand allegiance rather than something else. That is completely out of line.
Umm ...
It is true that you CAN use a little 7" screen for that, but to imply that you can do so as well as on an iPad is just plain silly. While the ad included a family, and implied that getting the kids off the beach and into the shade was a positive feature of the Kindle Fire, I wouldn't say that was the point of the ad. The piont, going from the transcript and an initial watching, was:
1. $79 Kindle is best for reading on the beach
2. You can have a Kindle and use a Fire for videos/web/etc
3. Even two Fires and a Kindle basic (with ads) are less expensive than an iPad
I'd agree on (1), although I never like reading books in direct sunlight either and don't particularly enjoy eInk screens under any circumstances, disagree on (2), and add the caveat of ad-supported discount on (3) [without ads, the three add up to $507 .. $199+199+109].
The family thing: well, it's a feature I suppose, but not an immediate takeaway on the ad for me. IMHO, it's not a very compelling feature (everyone needs to be staring at an electronic device at that moment? Come on!), but what do I know? We just have six kids who magically get along just fine with our two iPads when my wife and I aren't using them ...
----------
"Better" being a rather loaded term. An LCD screen is different than eInk. And, no, eInk is not just like a standard paper book; the black/white contrast is significantly less, and the resolution is abysmal.
I love my Ipad and my kindle Touch for a $99 add on! The Kindle serves a specific purpose for me - it hurts my eyes on the iPad to read too long. Love Both - Need Both for different purposes.
In other news, you can buy ten 26" 720p LCD TVs for the price of one 55" 4K LED TV. I know which I would prefer to have. For me, quality, capability and user experience trump price. For me, a 7" tablet is not worth $199 or any price, because the things I do on a tablet can't be done in 7" of real estate, and with a laggy OS to boot.
It looks desperate when a company competes with Apple on price. No-one else can offer products that run OS X and iOS , or have access to the iTunes Store and the App Store. Furthermore, Apple innovate and offer unmatched industrial design, whereas a $79 tablet is a dinky plastic mess that will probably not last a year of real-world usage.
Originally Posted by Mr. Gates
The iPad is simply not high enough in Pixel density (yet) to make it comfortable for reading in any great amount of time.
The light pouring into your eyes is another problem however, with the iPad 3 and the higher pixel count, I imagine it will have an acceptable experience with the illusion of real print. It still will not be as good as a Kindle but it will be 1 step closer ...
Oh.....Ok , Gee ...
Stop the internet everyone. This guy's wife has it all figured out.
You know why I really trust her brilliant judgment ? - Someone offered to but her a new iPad and she said : "No"
But for everyone else NOT living in fantasy land, you know I am correct in my original statement
The iPad is simply not high enough in Pixel density (yet) to make it comfortable for reading in any great amount of time.
The light pouring into your eyes is another problem however, with the iPad 3 and the higher pixel count, I imagine it will have an acceptable experience with the illusion of real print. It still will not be as good as a Kindle but it will be 1 step closer ...
Oh.....Ok , Gee ...
Stop the internet everyone. This guy's wife has it all figured out.
You know why I really trust her brilliant judgment ? - Someone offered to but her a new iPad and she said : "No"
But for everyone else NOT living in fantasy land, you know I am correct in my original statement
Originally Posted by Mr. Gates
The iPad is simply not high enough in Pixel density (yet) to make it comfortable for reading in any great amount of time.
The light pouring into your eyes is another problem however, with the iPad 3 and the higher pixel count, I imagine it will have an acceptable experience with the illusion of real print. It still will not be as good as a Kindle but it will be 1 step closer ...
Oh.....Ok , Gee ...
Stop the internet everyone. This guy's wife has it all figured out.
You know why I really trust her brilliant judgment ? - Someone offered to but her a new iPad and she said : "No"
But for everyone else NOT living in fantasy land, you know I am correct in my original statement
The point was that someone who read a lot on her iPad did not have the same issues that internet commenters have reached consensus about. If I had to guess I would say that most of those people do not speak from experience.
The current iPad isn't horrible for reading. People can and have read on it comfortably. That said, there are better alternatives out there, such as eInk, which is easier to look at over extended periods of time, and the much rumored retina display iPad, which will make that text you're spending hours looking at clearer and easier on the eyes.
So just because someone is currently satisfied with reading on the iPad doesn't negate the better alternatives. Nor does the existence of better alternatives automatically make the iPad horrible in comparison. It just means someone's happy with what they got.
I think many people are missing the real point of the ad. It isn't to put down the iPad, nor is it to compete with ios or even suggest you should own two or thee Kindles. The point was, why pay for features you do not want or need. If all you do is read books and want an ereader why spend $400 or do on an iPad when you can get a Kindke for under $100. And if all you want is to access your Amazon Prime or Hulu or read email, surf and read books but have no interest in iTunes or apps you can get a Fire for under $200; it is about options.
We own pretty much all of Apples devices in one form or another but when it comes to reading my books I grab my kindle because for me it is the best tool for the job. This isn't saying the iPad is bad, it is saying for me the Kindle is a better option, so instead of getting two iPads for my wife and I we got one for her and for me a kindle. I do not need any other function but to read books so why would I spend more for features I do not need?
My wife didn't want a laptop but wanted to do things like manage pics, read, email, watch movies and share our iTunes content; for her an iPad was the right tool.
Now our six year old daughter is always using the iPad to read kid books, access her online school work and watch cartoons. We could get our daughter an iPad, but why spend all that cash when a Fire for more than half the price will do everything she wants?
Right tool for the job at the right price IMHO is the way to go; even if that tool doesn't have an Apple logo on it.
We own pretty much all of Apples devices in one form or another but when it comes to reading my books I grab my kindle because for me it is the best tool for the job. This isn't saying the iPad is bad, it is saying for me the Kindle is a better option, so instead of getting two iPads for my wife and I we got one for her and for me a kindle. I do not need any other function but to read books so why would I spend more for features I do not need?
My wife didn't want a laptop but wanted to do things like manage pics, read, email, watch movies and share our iTunes content; for her an iPad was the right tool.
Now our six year old daughter is always using the iPad to read kid books, access her online school work and watch cartoons. We could get our daughter an iPad, but why spend all that cash when a Fire for more than half the price will do everything she wants?
Right tool for the job at the right price IMHO is the way to go; even if that tool doesn't have an Apple logo on it.
+1 to this man for being one of the tragically few to understand exactly what the point of the commercial was.
I love my iPad as much as everyone else here...but to dismiss the Kindle as a "dinky plastic mess" is really showing either ignorance or blind loyalty.
As an e-reader only, it's arguably the best there is. And it's hardly "dinky". I've just purchased one, but I do know people who have had one for much longer than a year. It's sturdy and meant to be carried around.
Honestly, it doesn't sound like you've ever touched one - which doesn't make your opinon very credible.
Originally Posted by Mr. Gates
The iPad is simply not high enough in Pixel density (yet) to make it comfortable for reading in any great amount of time.
The light pouring into your eyes is another problem however, with the iPad 3 and the higher pixel count, I imagine it will have an acceptable experience with the illusion of real print. It still will not be as good as a Kindle but it will be 1 step closer ...
Oh.....Ok , Gee ...
Stop the internet everyone. This guy's wife has it all figured out.
You know why I really trust her brilliant judgment ? - Someone offered to but her a new iPad and she said : "No"
But for everyone else NOT living in fantasy land, you know I am correct in my original statement
Holy crap, a little sensitive (and lacking in manners)? I actually DON'T know that you are correct. In fact, I didn't realize there was a right or wrong answer. A lot of people don't seem to have a problem reading on the current iPad. I'm sorry that you do, but don't assume everyone else is the same.
Last edited by a moderator: