44 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Awful. Not much else to say, September 2, 2008
This review is from: Fortune (Kindle Edition)
I give paper fortune a 3-4 out of five stars. The Kindle edition is horrible, a complete waste of time. You get a few of the main articles, but most of the rest of what shows up turns out to be tiny little bits of junk: Text boxes and pullout-garbage (I used to work in the magazine world) that is essentially page filler in the printed editions. I thought this was so cheap it would have to be worthwhile, but unless they include more meat, this is a total waste of money. Better to get the WSJ or Financial Times.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
What a big difference lack of pictures make, May 7, 2009
This review is from: Fortune (Kindle Edition)
Reading the Fortune magazine on my Kindle 2.0 has made me realize both the pros and cons of reading a printed magazine. If you want the most efficient Fortune magazine reading experience, then get the Kindle version. If you want the best overall magazine reading experience, the printed version may still have the edge as of today.
The Kindle version has no pictures (as of 5/7/09) and no advertisements. There are only articles and opinions. I was shocked how skimpy Fortune magazine was in content as I was able to read EVERY article in less than 15 minutes, which is less than it takes me to read the daily Wall Street Journal (Kindle version). I usually take good 30 minutes to read the printed Fortune magazine.
Reading Fortune from Kindle 2.0 is a different experience than reading from a printed version. The printed Fortune has glossy advertisements and pictures. The tactfile feeling of turning each page somehow makes reading the printed Fortune magazine a slightly more rewarding experience. The analogy is similar to getting news from television versus the radio. You may get the same exact news but the television news has visuals which speak a 1000 words that the radio can never duplicate.
The speed of which I was able to finish the entire Fortune magazine in Kindle has made me realize exactly how much time I spend viewing a magazine's advertisements and pictures. Also, the ability to quickly peruse an entire magazine using your thumb still can't be duplicated by Kindle.
But the Kindle has some inherent advantages over the printed version. Kindle version has a search feature based on keywords. Kindle will allow you to read just about everything much faster, including the Fortune magainze. Using the Table of Contents is far more efficient. A magazine subscription is delivered to you wirelessly usually 2-4 days before the magazine hits the print market. Finally, I can't imagine anything beating the Kindle's content delivery system using 3G wireless. The magazine downloads in less than a minute.
Overall, I recommend the Kindle version of Fortune magazine. For better or worse, just don't expect it to be the same experience as reading the printed version.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
missing key content from print edition - poor quality, October 1, 2009
This review is from: Fortune (Kindle Edition)
The Oct 12 Kindle edition shows an actual picture of the print Fortune cover, which shows a feature article about Charlie Rose. Yet this article is nowhere in the Kindle edition. I read it in the print edition and it was excellent. I contacted Amazon and received a lame answer that its controlled by the publisher. So beware that any Kindle magazine can be missing key content of the print edition totally at the publisher's discretion. All Kindle magazines are suspect as being inferior and you cannot assume you're getting the same content as the print edition.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No