in Ramblings, Tech

The Kindle Fire is no iPad

I’ve seen a lot of comparisons being drawn between the Kindle Fire and the iPad. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.

While the iPad catches a lot of flack for being a consumption-only device, I’ve never found that to be the case. I find tablets of the iPad’s size to be sometimes awkward for content creation, but also sometimes wonderful. It’s the Kindle Fire that I think will be a true consumption-only device, and so the two can’t really be compared. The Kindle Fire exists solely to accomplish one central function: consume Amazon-branded content. Video, music, and books. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. I’m not trying to be a Fire killer or iPad fanboy, but both the Kindle Fire and the iPad were created to fill very different niches. I honestly expect that each will perform their duties admirably.

If the Fire must be compared to something, it should be the Nook Color. That’s a more or less equivalent product, and one that I’ve never seen or heard of anybody creating content on.

I’m highly interested to see what using a Fire is like. I just hope people don’t buy a Kindle and expect an iPad.

Write a Comment


  1. I agree.

    Since our library offers OverDrive with Kindle support, I have become a Kindle devotee. My whole family (and my dad) are Android users, so it doesn’t make sense (to me) for us to buy an iPad. We need an Android based tablet. I have experienced a Nook Color and a Kindle and I was not happy with either device. I want something with a lot more potential than the Color and the Fire might be it.

    Great points@