Amazon Kindle Preview: Paperwhite, Fire (2012), and Fire HD 7" & 8.9"
by James Pikover on September 6, 2012 7:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Kindle
- iPad
- IPS
- Android
- ereaders
- Amazon
- Kindle Fire
- Kindle Touch
Kindle Fire (2012)
Like cars and, now, the iPad, Amazon is naming their latest Kindle Fire exactly that (just Kindle Fire), though this is definitely a second generation tablet. The differences are slim but noticeable; a slightly faster 1.2GHz clock speed, up from 1GHz, and double the RAM at 1GB. Users also get significantly less storage space, down to 5.5GB from 6.5GB, with no option to expand memory. The majority of changes made to the Fire aren't hardware-based though; it's in the software.
That said, current Fire owners - myself included - can expect some of the software upgrades to be implemented on last year's model, but Amazon is not revealing what updates will come to the 1st generation units. We'll have to wait until next week, when the new Fire releases, to see what changes are implemented to the original Fire, if they even release simultaneously.
I spent some time with the Fire, which was almost forgotten in lieu of the newer HD models. It's quite speedy, even considering the lower-end OMAP 4430 powering the device. While both the Fire HD units stuttered occasionally in demos, the Fire did not. It consistently ran smoothly, whether I started playing video, opened a magazine or app, or played in the web browser.
The sense I got from the newer Fire is that it's both meant to replace last year's model while simultaneously acting as a bridge for users skeptical about a tablet from Amazon. Or, for users who just want to watch Prime videos anywhere in their own home and don't need the upgraded display, additional horsepower, or thinner size. As the only Fire tablet not displaying video at HD quality, this model would best serve older people who want to watch, well, older videos available on Prime that don't have HD versions. The thicker build is certainly easier to grip two-handed, and it feels more stable than either of the HD models.
Yet because of the speed of the device, likely thanks to no HD visuals, anyone who won't nitpick about not having video and pictures HD-crisp may have a better experience with the lower-end and less expensive Kindle Fire than the Kindle Fire HD models. Even though they are more powerful devices, it's unclear if they have the increased bandwidth to offer the same speed and fluidity in everyday use that I experienced in ten minutes playing with the standard Fire.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
jahara21 - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
I just pre-ordered the 3G Kindle Paperwhite and it gave me the option to get it without the special offers for an additional $20 (bringing it up to $199).marvdmartian - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
Don't know how the new Fire tablets will be, in this regard. But I picked up the lowest end Kindle reader a few months ago (Walmart had it for $79, with a $30 gift card....making it, effectively $49), and it's ad-supported.The ONLY time I see any ads is if it goes into standby (after a few minutes of no use, which gives you a full page ad), and if I go to the main menu, which gives you a little strip ad at the bottom of the screen.
Since I'm not actively using the Kindle when it's in standby, that ad is completely non-instrusive. It's like having a commercial on, in the middle of your TV show, while you're going to the bathroom. The little strip ad is simply ignored. And while it's not really much of an option on an internet tablet, with my reader, I turn off the WiFi (to help battery life), and after a week, the ads are replaced by some fancy pattern, with small text asking you to please turn on WiFi, in order to download new ads.
Yeah.......I'll get right on that one, Amazon! ;-)
Hemi345 - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
My thoughts exactly. B&N's Nook Color/Tablet might not have the eco system Amazon's Kindle Fires do, but the hardware is solid and well designed, expandability is there, and the user experience is right on.joshv - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
So I take it that you don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV?tecknurd - Saturday, September 8, 2012 - link
The ads on Amazon Kindles made me go with a Barnes & Noble Nook Simple Touch. I selected the Glowlight version. Ads on a product that you paid for is pathetic. Marketing is playing tricks. Amazon should be sued for doing such tactic. It is like Paid Day loans because you are paying like 60% in interest which is against the law.doubledeej - Thursday, September 6, 2012 - link
Why does every tablet maker (aside from BlackBerry) put the speakers on the back, facing backward? Its almost like they want everybody in the room to hear your tablet but you. Come on, guys! Move the speakers to the front where they belong!Samus - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
Tell me about it. My $2000 Samsung 3D LED TV has worse sound than my 30-year old Toshiba 25" clunker because the speakers face the brick wall behind it.When I buy a $2000 TV, I don't expect to have to buy an additional $500 soundbar to correct its shortcomings...and it's not just Samsung, it's EVERYONE. Not a single LCD TV I looked at put speakers on the front. Why? For asthetics? Does everyone all the sudden think they're Apple now? Form over function...right.
Impulses - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
My four or five year old Vizio TV has front firing speakers, they still sound like crap. Why would you need to spend $500 on a sound bar regardless? You can get a small amp and some bookshelf speakers for like half that much and they'll probably blow away most sound bars.kmmatney - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
I second this. I also have a Vizio 50" plasma in the basement, with front speakers that suck. I just bought a $35 (on sale) set of logitech speakers + subwoofer - something like this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
and it sounds great. I have a fancy surround systembuilt into my family room upstairs, which cost a lot more money, but this cheaper solution really isn't bad - as good or better than a sound bar.
However a sound bar might be needed if you don't have a convenient place to put speakers.
bigboxes - Friday, September 7, 2012 - link
You spend $2,000 on a TV and don't have a dedicated A/V system. Fail.