counterpoint
http://techpinions.com/why-kindle-fire-reviews-are-all-over-the-place/4100
Anyone who picked up a Fire expecting it to be an almost-iPad was bound to be severely disappointed. Apple explicitly designed the iPad as an alternative to a traditional personal computer for many purposes. Steve Jobs famously compared the PC to trucks and the iPad to cars and said that while some people needed trucks, a car was more than adequate from most. With that goal in mind Apple set out to build the best tablet it could, then figured out how to price it.
Amazon had entirely different goals. It was looking for a way to build on the success of the Kindle, to offer a more capable device whose capabilities would mostly focus on enabling the purchase of stuff, especially digital content, from Amazon. It wanted a device it could sell for $200 without losing its shirt, and it designed the Kindle with the compromises necessary to make that price point. Complaining that the Fire is less thrilling or compelling than an iPad is a bit like grumbling that a Honda Civic is less fun and exciting than an Audi A6. Both do what they are intended to do very well (though their intended functions are a lot more alike than the Fire and the iPad.)
counter counterpoint
http://www.marco.org/2011/11/18/why-kindle-fire-reviews-are-all-over-the-place
Steve Wildstrom criticizes many Fire reviews, claiming that the reason we’re disappointed is that we’re comparing it to the iPad and expecting a $200 tablet to perform as well as the $500 tablet.
That’s not my argument at all, and I thought I was very careful not to say or imply that the Kindle Fire is a poor product because it’s not like the iPad. Rather, my point was that the Kindle Fire is not a good product because it’s not a good implementation of what it’s supposed to be: a multimedia Kindle.








