233 replies to this topic

[CoRP]

If Amazon were to hit it out of the park with hardware, integration with their cloud media services, and price it well it would still be a 7" tablet. 7" is too small for a media consumption device other than an e-reader. The market for 7" tablets is non-existent. The market for non-Apple tablets is next to nothing, but 7" is beyond terrible.

I don't think Amazon will make the direct leap from eReader supplier to iPad challenger. They will stick to their roots on this next device and add some tablet functionality. I expect a better executed and better priced version of the Nook Color with their next offering. The 10" tablet is where they will make their big splash IMO.

I really like the 7" form factor. But then, I mostly want to use it as an e-reader and browser.

And here it is.

Specs:
7" full-color screen, no eInk (10" coming in 2012)
Two-finger multitouch support
Runs a version of Android that’s older than 2.2 but it’s been heavily customized
No camera
UI looks and feels like Amazon’s iOS Kindle app
6GB of storage

Gadgetlab article about the Amazon Kindle Tablet (are they really going to call it that?)

Edited by CoRP, 06 October 2011 - 07:56 AM.

[OttoC]

The price is attractive but my iPod Touch has a 3" x 2" inch screen and it fits in my pocket.

[taxmancometh]

They might want to think about switching the order to Kindle Amazon Tablet and call it a KAT.

Edited by taxmancometh, 03 September 2011 - 07:44 AM.

[CoRP]

Tech Crunch

Rather than taking on Apple on their own court, they’re moving to keep a lock on a game they’re already kicking butt at (the e-reader market), while upping the odds that anyone weighing “iPad or Kindle?” will be swayed in their favor. By launching with a 7″ tablet (and only a 7″ tablet), Amazon is making it clear: they don’t want the Kindle tablet to be the iPad. They want it to be everything the iPad is not.

They want it to be small, and comfortable to read in bed. This is a Kindle, after all. For many folks who just want something to read in bed or throw into their bag to read on the train, the iPad’s nearly 10-inch display can feel a bit gigantic.

They want it to be cheap. Smaller displays are cheaper right up front, require less plastic for the body, and can get by with a lesser battery and a smaller backlight. More than a year after launch, the cheapest iPad you can buy new will set you back $499. According to the same source whose Kindle tablet we used, Amazon currently has it priced at half that: just $250. Even launching a 10-incher alongside would increase R&D costs, as well as lead consumers to believe that the 10″ model is the flagship (thereby throwing it up directly against the iPad and everything else.)

ZD Net

A few things stand out here. First is the price. $250 is a little bit higher than some people were expecting ($199 was touted as the sweet spot). $250 will wipe the floor with tablets from other makers. Seriously. Amazon has huge market reach and this will have a huge effect on other tablets … even possibly the iPad.

Another interesting point is that Amazon has decided to go it alone with a pre-2.2 version of Android, which means that Google will have to come to terms with a major fork in the Android code. The fact that Amazon didn’t go with ‘Honeycomb‘ or ‘Ice Cream Sandwich‘ (and that the Kindle Tablet will never get either of these) will be a major blow to both Google and OEMs who have been putting a lot of effort (and faith) in these releases.

Amazon also has no shortage of content, both free and paid for, on offer for tablet users. Aside from ebooks, Amazon has a music service, a video service, an Android app store, a games and software downloads service, cloud services and audiobooks (Amazon owns Audible.com). Integrating these services into a single device would make a Kindle tablet compelling for hardcore Amazon users … and in my experience there are a LOT of hardcore Amazon users out there.

Amazon’s Kindle Tablet WILL be a game-changer!

Gizmodo

Edited by CoRP, 03 September 2011 - 08:25 AM.

[Nick Kaufman]

The lightness is indeed a big deal. But I would like to see a pdf and a web page on a full screen before I say whether I like it or not. Preferably, it should have a 4:3 form factor, not 16:9. And I would really love if it was capable of GPS.

[johnmd20]

The lightness is indeed a big deal. But I would like to see a pdf and a web page on a full screen before I say whether I like it or not. Preferably, it should have a 4:3 form factor, not 16:9. And I would really love if it was capable of GPS.

Very big deal. The lack of eink is a bit disturbing, I love my Kindle and don't enjoy reading on my iPad or a computer, unless I'm forced to. I guess this is supposed to be more of a tablet instead of a reader, but I wouldn't buy this if the reading experience isn't going to be a good one.

[jayhoz]

Who's your daddy Corp?

[derekson]

16:9 in a 7" screen doesn't seem like enough screen real estate to bother carrying this device if you already have a smartphone.

[CoRP]

16:9 in a 7" screen doesn't seem like enough screen real estate to bother carrying this device if you already have a smartphone.

I should know what this means. But I don't. Please explain why a 16:9 aspect ratio sucks for this size and 4:3 would be better. Gracias.

[Nick Kaufman]

I should know what this means. But I don't. Please explain why a 16:9 aspect ratio sucks for this size and 4:3 would be better. Gracias.

A reading device is a device you mostly want to use in portrait mode. In recent years, 16:9 has become the standard partly because people watch HD movies, partly because it's more efficient for manufacturers.

Now, if you ve got a 16:9 device and you want to read a kindle book, then it's probably going to be better than a 4:3, because the words per sentence adjust and you get more vertical space.

However, if you want to read a pdf -with more likely letter-size proportions- or a webpage then the decreased width in portrait mode will either crop the pages or make them very small in order to fit the screen. Think of it like this: A 16:9 is 9:16 in portrait mode. A 4:3 is 12:16 in portrait.

Last but not least a screen of the same size has less space in 16:9 than 4:3.

[SumnerH]

Last but not least a screen of the same size has less space in 16:9 than 4:3.

Yep, this is key. A 4:3 screen with the same diagonal size will be almost 15% larger than the "same size" 16:9. A 7" screen with a 4/3 aspect ratio has about 23.5 square inches of screen; a 7" 16:9 screen only has about 20.8 square inches of screen.

[Gorton Fisherman]

Agreed on the aspect ratio thing; in my opinion, 4:3 is a superior aspect ratio to 16:9 for tablet type devices in general. This is something that the iPad (and Kindle) got right from the get-go that nearly all of their competition has gotten wrong (i.e. just about every Android device). 16:9 is "better" than 4:3 for precisely one thing: watching high-def video in landscape mode. For nearly everything else you might want to do on a tablet, 4:3 is better. The 16:9 devices look ridiculously narrow in portrait mode, and frankly not so great in landscape mode for anything other than watching video.

For the record, I think 16:9 stinks for general desktop computer use as well. I much prefer a 1600x1200 (4:3) or 1920x1200 (16:10) resolution desktop monitor. With the typical 16:9 1920x1080 monitor that has now unfortunately become the defacto standard, I always feel "cramped" vertically, especially when coding, scrolling through documents, etc. Manufacturers have converged on 1920x1080 due to economies of scale on LCD panels and not because of any usability benefit. There is also the goofy marketing spin of calling them "high-definition displays" even though 1920x1080 is not really any "higher def" than 1600x1200 (both have approx. 2 million pixels).

Edited by Gorton Fisherman, 04 September 2011 - 05:43 AM.

[Batman Likes The Sox]

Personally I think this won't be a game changer.

I think the game changer would have been if this could switch between standard screen and e-ink. But that is probably cost prohibitive right now.

[CoRP]

Personally I think this won't be a game changer.

I think the game changer would have been if this could switch between standard screen and e-ink. But that is probably cost prohibitive right now.

I agree that it won't be a game changer but I think that Amazon will, nonetheless, claim the #2 spot in the tablet space.

[Gorton Fisherman]

I agree that these Amazon tablets will likely become the first non-Apple tablet devices to sell in significant numbers. The reason is that Amazon is the only Apple competitor that has a comparable ecosystem offering: i.e., a huge selection of apps, music, video, e-books, etc. all available for easy purchase using a single unified, credit card backed account. All the other also-ran tablets have flopped largely because they've failed to realize that the ecosystem factor is much more important than tech specs such as clock speeds, number of megapixels in the rear-facing camera, how many SD/USB/HDMI ports it has, which of the umpteen variants of Android is installed, whether or not it has the latest Tegra 2 processor, and all the other similarly irrelevant characteristics of mobile devices that the techie blogs such as Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. focus on almost exclusively. The fact is that nobody except geeks really cares about any of that crap.

Another huge advantage the Amazon tablets will have: the fact that they will undoubtedly be plastered all over Amazon's front page for the foreseeable future, like the Kindle has been for the past year or so. I think this factor alone with give them a huge edge over the competition, similar to that which Apple enjoys due to its chain of retail stores. Compare this to the miserable sales environment that most other tablet devices face: laying around randomly on a table, surrounded by a bunch of extremely similar looking devices, being serviced by largely clueless and/or disinterested Best Buy/FutureShop/HH Gregg sales droids. Or, even worse, being sold in a wireless carrier store, an even more wretched retail environment, with typically even more useless sales personnel. (Seriously, who in their right mind would want to go shopping for a tablet in a Verizon Wireless store?)

Edited by Gorton Fisherman, 04 September 2011 - 09:59 AM.

[dcdrew10]

The 7in 16:9 screen, lack of a camera, and (according to one article) 6GB capacity and reliance on the cloud are weak points. There have been a couple of 7 in tablets that have not made it. Unless Amazon's OS is stellar I don't see success for the Kindle Tablet. WiFi is accessible in a lot of places,but still not ubiquitous enough to be so cloud reliant, since 6GB is really not much at all; after the OS you might get a couple of standard def movies and 100 or so songs and a couple of books or PDFs. Video chatting is not the main draw of a tablet, but it is becoming a pretty standard feature and might be a factor in popularity. The Kindle is good for one thing, reading books. It's superior to pretty much anything out there, but this new tablet looks like it will be mediocre at most things. I am interested in seeing the OS in action and the plans for the 10 in and a possible e-ink/multi-touch hybrid, but I can't see myself buying one of these.

[th@tkid]

Personally I think this won't be a game changer.

I think the game changer would have been if this could switch between standard screen and e-ink. But that is probably cost prohibitive right now.

Nook Color 2 (which comes out this month is rumored to have e-ink integrated into it.

DigiTimes also said that the Nook Color 2 E Ink will supply “e-paper backplanes,” which suggests there will be a new E Ink component to the Nook Color 2, although it is unclear what its role will be at this point.

e_ink in Nook Color 2?

[jayhoz]

Looks like "soon" is Wednesday.

[derekson]

The Amazon tablet will look like a PlayBook -- because it basically is.

My sources tell me that RIM originally outsourced much of the hardware design and production of the PlayBook (gdgt.com­/rim­/blackberry­/playbook/) to mega-ODM Quanta -- a company that builds, and sometimes helps design, hardware for name brands. The time eventually came that Amazon's executives decided to do an Android tablet -- far likelier to respond to the dark-horse success of the Nook Color (AKA "NOOKcolor": gdgt.com­/barnes­-noble­/nookcolor/) than to the adjacent success of the iPad -- Amazon's own Kindle group (called Lab 126) apparently opted not to take on the project, in favor of continuing to work solely on next-gen E-Ink-based devices.

From there, Amazon's team determined they could build a tablet without the help and experience of Lab 126, so they turned to Quanta, which helped them "shortcut" the development process by using the PlayBook as their hardware template. Of course, it's never quite that simple, and as I'm told Amazon ran into trouble, and eventually sacrifices were made (like using a slower processor).

[NortheasternPJ]

My sources tell me that RIM originally outsourced much of the hardware design

Why would RIM outsource the development of what they were hoping was going to be a flagship product for them? If that's true I can't believe how poorly that company is run. Secondly, even if they did, how the hell don't they have legal contracts with the outsource partner that doesn't allow said partner to basically give the design to Amazon.

[behindthepen]

Why would RIM outsource the development of what they were hoping was going to be a flagship product for them? If that's true I can't believe how poorly that company is run. Secondly, even if they did, how the hell don't they have legal contracts with the outsource partner that doesn't allow said partner to basically give the design to Amazon.

you don't think RIMM's R&D already has it's hands full?

The choice to go with an old, customized version of Android is interesting. That would seem to indicate either 1- limited interest in 3rd party apps or 2- a whole new set of repurposed apps, so they can keep all the margin on those too? Looking forward to that explanation.

Amazon tablets will almost certainly be the #2 tablet in the US, but a lack of 3rd party apps could leave them vulnerable.

[MainerInExile]

Amazon tablets will almost certainly be the #2 tablet in the US, but a lack of 3rd party apps could leave them vulnerable.

They have their own AppStore, and have been working hard to get big Apps developers on it. I don't think this will be a problem, especially if they sell some tablets.

The choice to go with an old, customized version of Android is interesting.

My understanding from the media coverage is that it is a forked Android. So Amazon will continue development, but independent of Android on the whole. So basically the version of Android is irrelevant.

[priestvalon]

Owning and having extensively used an Ipad out and about, I have to say, 10" tablets are imperfect mobile devices. Great if you have a table to lean on, or a couch to sit on, otherwise a bit large and cumbersome. Less weight is definitely an important factor, but carrying an ipad around with you is an a lot like carrying a clip board, regardless of weight.

7" is a very decent size. Jobs was wrong in saying that adult fingers are too big to deal with a <10" tablet. I have a small smartphone and swiftkey is simply awesome to type with. The problem with a 7" 16:9 tablet is partially how the onscreen keyboard can obscure all but a tiny strip of website when typing in landscape, but I feel that's more keyboard implementation than anything.

I'm not crazy excited about the Amazon tab, but that's because I don't want a cheaper tab, I want a more capable tab: a real, full functioned browser with enough memory not to choke on several tabs, flash and plugins as an option and a real non-obfuscated file system. I feel like the ipad is jack of all trades but master of none, with my use. Windows 8 looks to be where my next purchase will be (provided ms executes what they've been talking about, of course.) Asus has been putting together some great mobile hardware lately, and I'm excited to see what comes of all this.

[jayhoz]

[Jimy Hendrix]

Well, no more stupid keyboards on Kindles, cheapest one for $79, Touch for $99, $199 tablet. What does everyone think?

I'm probably gonna pounce on one of the sub $99 Kindles to finally get into the e-reader thing, which depends on how the touch gets reviewed and if there's an actual advantage there that justifies the $20.

[jayhoz]

Amazon has an interesting challenge on their hands with the Amazon Fire. It only has 8GB of memory while all of their competitors have 16/32. Amazon seems to be saying that a great deal of your content will live in the cloud so the lower memory shouldn't pose a problem. The problem will come when spec sheets like the following start showing up leading consumers to believe that they can only store 50% of what they could with another device.

[TallerThanPedroia]

This may be a dumb question, but on the $79 non-touch, no-keyboard, how would you type in the name of the book you want to download? Unless there's just a cumbersome system like using one's TV remote control to slowly pick out one letter at a time?

[dcdrew10]

Well, no more stupid keyboards on Kindles, cheapest one for $79, Touch for $99, $199 tablet. What does everyone think?

I'm probably gonna pounce on one of the sub $99 Kindles to finally get into the e-reader thing, which depends on how the touch gets reviewed and if there's an actual advantage there that justifies the $20.

I was impressed with the Kindle Fire until I read that it has no microphone, no camera (not as big of a deal as the microphone), and no 3G option. I think being able to Skype or video chat would make the Fire a huge hit with the college and high school crowds. I would also be interested in the availability of PDF readers/annotators and the annotation in the Kindle book app. The form factor is good for movies, less desirable for reading documents. It still has a lot of potential and makes the tablet market more accessible and any competition to iPad is good (I say this as an iPad owner).

The new Kindle e-readers are nice too, there is really nothing that matches the Kindle for reading books. A sub-$100 price point is huge, but like Apple with the iPad they more have to maintain their position through hardware upgrades and minor tweaks than re-invent the wheel.

[dcdrew10]

Amazon has an interesting challenge on their hands with the Amazon Fire. It only has 8GB of memory while all of their competitors have 16/32. Amazon seems to be saying that a great deal of your content will live in the cloud so the lower memory shouldn't pose a problem. The problem will come when spec sheets like the following start showing up leading consumers to believe that they can only store 50% of what they could with another device.

I missed the 8gb, that is pretty low. I have an 8GB 1st gen iPod Touch and it really doesn't cut it. The processor is a dual core, but it is reportedly an older Texas Instruments model.

[Yaz4Ever]

These prices are far lower than I expected to see. I had heard one rumor that the Fire would be $250 only to hear later that there were grumblings about it being $299. $199 is incredible, imho. There's also supposed to be a new Fire model coming out in January. Perhaps this one will have 3G?

[Jimy Hendrix]

Also, as a web developer/nerd, I am intrigued by the Silk browser. It's not a new idea (Opera/Opera Mini and Skyfire have been doing stuff like that with caching/delivering web content for a while now), but this is clearly both the largest deployment of it towards consumers who will actually use it and also with EC2 the most backend power being thrown at that side of things.

Is it Webkit based, I haven't seen anything specific there yet.

[Jimy Hendrix]

I missed the 8gb, that is pretty low. I have an 8GB 1st gen iPod Touch and it really doesn't cut it. The processor is a dual core, but it is reportedly an older Texas Instruments model.

They seem to be banking on a few things.

1. It is still primarily a book reader in terms of what will need to stay on the device. 8GB is plenty for that.

2. You're mostly gonna be streaming movies/tv rather than storing them

3. The stuff you buy will live in their cloud apps, so you don't need to always have everything loaded up to bear.

[jayhoz]

Amazon has an interesting challenge on their hands with the Amazon Fire. It only has 8GB of memory while all of their competitors have 16/32. Amazon seems to be saying that a great deal of your content will live in the cloud so the lower memory shouldn't pose a problem. The problem will come when spec sheets like the following start showing up leading consumers to believe that they can only store 50% of what they could with another device.

Here is how they are handling this on their website.

Free Cloud Storage

Forget about memory - Kindle Fire gives you free storage for all your Amazon digital content in the Amazon Cloud. Your books, movies, music and apps are available instantly to stream or download for free, at a touch of your finger.

On-device Storage: 8GB internal. That's enough for 80 apps, plus either 10 movies or 800 songs or 6,000 books.
Cloud Storage: Free cloud storage for all Amazon content

[behindthepen]

2. You're mostly gonna be streaming movies/tv rather than storing them

I don't think it's streaming, is it? I use Amazon on Demand through Tivo, and Amazon keeps record of all your purchases and you can download them anytime, so the limited storage really isn't an issue.

[priestvalon]

I was impressed with the Kindle Fire until I read that it has no microphone, no camera (not as big of a deal as the microphone), and no 3G option. I think being able to Skype or video chat would make the Fire a huge hit with the college and high school crowds. I would also be interested in the availability of PDF readers/annotators and the annotation in the Kindle book app. The form factor is good for movies, less desirable for reading documents. It still has a lot of potential and makes the tablet market more accessible and any competition to iPad is good (I say this as an iPad owner).

The new Kindle e-readers are nice too, there is really nothing that matches the Kindle for reading books. A sub-$100 price point is huge, but like Apple with the iPad they more have to maintain their position through hardware upgrades and minor tweaks than re-invent the wheel.

This device is more about what Amazon wants in its content pushing device, than what a user would want, at a price joe user will not quibble about. Having third party apps and a browser on there is throwing the user a bone. A 3g model if they can do it for $250 might be interesting

[behindthepen]

no volume button though? THAT seems weird.

[Fishercat]

Can the more tech-friendly people explain what a user could potentially do with the Kindle Fire with no built in 3G? Would you have to run it off of Wi-Fi, or is there another option? (I've never dealt with tablet computing)

I am really loving where this tablet is going, but if it's a device with no internet capabilities outside of Wi-Fi, that really limits it for me

[dcdrew10]

They seem to be banking on a few things.

1. It is still primarily a book reader in terms of what will need to stay on the device. 8GB is plenty for that.

2. You're mostly gonna be streaming movies/tv rather than storing them

3. The stuff you buy will live in their cloud apps, so you don't need to always have everything loaded up to bear.

I agree with your second and third points that they seem to be banking on cloud and streaming, but they did not include 3g, which is pretty vital for the cloud and streaming to work. I have a first gen iTouch, a WiFi iPad and an Android phone with 8GB, 16GB, and 8GB of storage respectively. I use the phone more than the other two because I like watching movies and listening to music on the train and bus and I have an unlimited data plan. I am 100% in the iOS camp in the iOS vs. Android, but my carrier doesn't have the iPhone and Android is clearly better than the other options for mobile OS. Having the 3G/4G option makes the small capacity of my phone work; I could easily buy a bigger microSD card, but it's not necessary with an unlimited data plan. WiFi only and 8GB will make the streaming and cloud apps less viable for the Fire.

[dcdrew10]

Can the more tech-friendly people explain what a user could potentially do with the Kindle Fire with no built in 3G? Would you have to run it off of Wi-Fi, or is there another option? (I've never dealt with tablet computing)

I am really loving where this tablet is going, but if it's a device with no internet capabilities outside of Wi-Fi, that really limits it for me

WiFi is your only option. You can sync movies and music from your computer with an app and program combo like doubleTwist, but those are your options. The lack of 3G is a big downer with only 8GB of storage. Your average high quality DVD rip is 1.5-2GB.

[Jimy Hendrix]

This device is more about what Amazon wants in its content pushing device, than what a user would want, at a price joe user will not quibble about. Having third party apps and a browser on there is throwing the user a bone. A 3g model if they can do it for $250 might be interesting

It's interesting given Amazon's 3G business model with the Kindle to date. Right now when all other tablet makers, even Apple (although they threw their weight around to make it pay-as-you-go), are using 3G as a carrot to lock you into shit contracts with wireless companies, if Amazon were to give it to you for free it would be extremely compelling.

However, I doubt their free 3G model could support web use/content streaming the same way that it does just pushing books around and occasional half-assed web browsing. It'd still be interesting if it was something through them rather than through a carrier and was less shitty than carrier plans. Who knows?

[Fishercat]

WiFi is your only option. You can sync movies and music from your computer with an app and program combo like doubleTwist, but those are your options. The lack of 3G is a big downer with only 8GB of storage. Your average high quality DVD rip is 1.5-2GB.

Ouch. Maybe it is for a lot of people, but that's just not an option for me as a portable device. Our house has spotty wi-fi (we just run it wired through a wireless router), most of the places I'd use the device don't have Wi-Fi.

I'll hold out for a 3G model. I actually really like where Amazon is going with the device and I trust their company to a fault, so I'd buy their tablet over most other companies on that basis, but it needs 3G (even if it's...shudder....contracted.)

[Monbo Jumbo]

I don't think it's streaming, is it? ...

"Amazon Prime members enjoy unlimited, instant streaming of over 10,000 popular movies and TV shows"

The new tablet comes with one month of Amazon Prime free.

[priestvalon]

It's interesting given Amazon's 3G business model with the Kindle to date. Right now when all other tablet makers, even Apple (although they threw their weight around to make it pay-as-you-go), are using 3G as a carrot to lock you into shit contracts with wireless companies, if Amazon were to give it to you for free it would be extremely compelling.

However, I doubt their free 3G model could support web use/content streaming the same way that it does just pushing books around and occasional half-assed web browsing. It'd still be interesting if it was something through them rather than through a carrier and was less shitty than carrier plans. Who knows?

Free 3g with Prime membership? That could work.

[dcdrew10]

It's interesting given Amazon's 3G business model with the Kindle to date. Right now when all other tablet makers, even Apple (although they threw their weight around to make it pay-as-you-go), are using 3G as a carrot to lock you into shit contracts with wireless companies, if Amazon were to give it to you for free it would be extremely compelling.

However, I doubt their free 3G model could support web use/content streaming the same way that it does just pushing books around and occasional half-assed web browsing. It'd still be interesting if it was something through them rather than through a carrier and was less shitty than carrier plans. Who knows?

Amazon would have to have an amazing bandwidth to support free 3G streaming for video and music content. The Kindle e-book downloads are relatively small in comparison and don't take hours like watching movies or listening to streaming music). It would only be a matter of time, maybe even days before someone made the Fire tetherable 3g internet connection. I am sure it doesn't have the hardware capabilities to be a WiFi hotspot, but free 3G internet would be temptation enough for people to made it a go around. 3G could work if Amazon made it unlocked (more $ for the different antennas) or made one model for each carrier (seems like it would be overkill).

[Jimy Hendrix]

Also, while nerd and the tech press spend most of their time dithering over the tablet, let us not forget that Amazon is just gonna sell like 8 metric fucktons of < $100 Kindles. The tablet might matter more longterm, but hitting and even vaulting past that $99 price point is probably the more important piece of news for their bottom line for the near future.

[jayhoz]

I'm going to quote a very astute, and handsome poster.

Which one? The 7" is due out soon. My guess is the e-Reader crowd will be quite pleased with it, but the tablet crowd will be left wanting.

The 10" (Q2?) might be a different story.

[johnmd20]

Streaming 3G is brutal for anything, it's almost not worth it. You can barely eke out a 3 minute Youtube video in less than 5 minutes streaming 3G, which is probably why Amazon isn't offering 3G on their tablet. I guess they are expecting people to have WiFi, which is a fair, but not perfect, assumption. 4G, on the other hand, streams quite well. The difference is stunning.

That said, I ordered the 3G Kindle touch, looks cool and I definitely want to check it out. eInk is still colossal for me.

[dcdrew10]

There has been a lot of chatter on the internets that the hardware on the Fire is the same as the Black Berry Playbook, but with some sacrifices. Engadget's initial hands on says the Fire definitely seems to be part of the Play Book family hardware wise, but that the:

Software performance seems quite smart at this point, switching tasks and switching between apps in rapid fire during the demo we were given. We were only given a brief glimpse of the new Silk browser, but we must say the thing appears to deliver on its promises.

[derekson]

Streaming 3G is brutal for anything, it's almost not worth it. You can barely eke out a 3 minute Youtube video in less than 5 minutes streaming 3G, which is probably why Amazon isn't offering 3G on their tablet. I guess they are expecting people to have WiFi, which is a fair, but not perfect, assumption. 4G, on the other hand, streams quite well. The difference is stunning.

That said, I ordered the 3G Kindle touch, looks cool and I definitely want to check it out. eInk is still colossal for me.

I stream games on MLB.tv over 3G on my iPhone all the time. As long as I'm in an area with a good signal, it works fine and looks great. Netflix also seems to work fine over 3G, though I use it less often.

[priestvalon]

Wanting 4g and 10" screens and so and on and so forth, is just missing the point. The closer this thing gets to $500, the more its going to be an ipad competitor. At $200 its a completely different market segment. If it "just works" even if thats only just well enough, it will sell a boatload (and hopefully for Amazon, a boatload of music and video content.)