Kindle Fire vs. iPad - Video on Airplane

Took my Fire on a trip last weekend. I happened to be seated next to an iPad owner. We pulled out our devices and propped them on the tray tables. He had to keep adjusting the iPad since it's a lot bigger while mine stayed in place. The actual screen size of the movie itself was not much smaller on the Fire than the iPad. Also, the screen quality of my Fire seemed nicer, but that may be due to the fact that I was watching a historical drama with gorgeous scenery and he was watching a comedy filmed mostly indoors. I was very satisfied with my purchase after seeing the two devices side-by-side.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

The Fire will fill a niche need, but it in no way can be confused with an iPad. It's not even close. The iPad can do so much more and much better too. Like I said...the Fire will fill the need at that price point, but in the end you get what you pay for....

My post was not about what the iPad can do vs. the Kindle Fire. I think that has been discussed on here and elsewhere ad nauseum. Yes, for $300-$500 more I would EXPECT the iPad to do a lot more. I personally don't need it...so include me in the niche. However, my post was about the quality of the video experience during my flight and I found the Fire to be superior due to the comfortable size of the device, the quality of the video and the fact that the actual viewing area on the iPad was not terribly bigger than the Fire (that was a surprise).

Who needs a camera on a tablet? I have a cell phone with two cameras and a digital camera so I can do without , also, if I want to do actual work on a plane, I would take my laptop with me. As an entertainment device, the Fire is far superior to the iPad, not only in price.

What you say is true of widescreen content, but older material fills the entire iPad screen. I was watching the Beatles in A Hard Day's Night on Netflix the other day, and realized that the screen on my iPad is almost as big as the actual TV I owned at the time that movie came out!

You're right, though - the Fire's 7" screen is nice for books and video, in general. If you don't need a tablet for productivity, the smaller screen is a better choice for many people.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

@Aisha This is absurd. The Fire is a great buy for $200, but you must be the only one on the planet who think the Fire is, price notwithstanding, superior to the iPad as an entertainment device. You've obviously never used an iPad 2. The iPad is much faster, has way more apps, bigger screen, greater screen resolution, and can be mirrored up to a TV, and also goes longer on a battery.

"Who needs a camera on a tablet?" People like me who refuse to pay $600+ a year for a smartphone, for starters.

You have a smartphone and a small tablet, and that fits your needs. I have a dumb phone ($100/year) and a large tablet ($0 a year, unless I opt in for a month of 3G for $20 when I'm traveling), which fit my needs. I use the camera on my iPad to keep in touch with work and family with Skype and Facetime, and to do the same sort of take-a-pic-and-email-it that phone users do.

I was able to afford a top-of-the-line iPad in part because of all the money I don't spend on a voice/data plan, because I don't need one.

@R. Clark & Aisha: I think this goes back to the point that people have different needs. I have a iPhone that is glued to my hip 24/7 and I NEED it. I have no laptop or iPad so the Kindle Fire fits my entertainment needs perfectly. The iPhone handles my phone, camera and Facetime needs adequately so having an iPad would be redundant (for me). Plus I take the Fire everywhere in my purse and can hold it comfortably in one hand. I could not do that with an iPad. There are no winners and losers in this "debate" as long as the devices do what they advertise and fit your own personal needs.

Aisha Jaafar's post:
As an entertainment device, the Fire is far superior to the iPad, not only in price.

SK: As declared by someone who obviously does not have an iPad. Silly statement. iPad is a fantastic entertainment device.

Nothing wrong with iPad and it has great functionality (I have both an iPad and a Fire). But there's also nothing wrong with an opinion that says certain aspects of the Fire are superior - that doesn't mean either device is better in all ways. There's no need for that. Both have pros and cons.

"Who needs a camera on a tablet?"

For videoconferencing, facetime, skype etc.

The statement that the Fire is "far superior" to the iPad as an entertainment device is silly, IMO. It was presented as an absolute. Perhaps it is superior in a few things, like being able to watch Amazon Prime videos (although I can't think of any other ways it would be). But to make a blanket declaration that it is "far superior" to the iPad is simply nonsense.

The Fire has higher pixels per inch and much lower weight for about the same size widescreen picture (less wasted space at top and bottom). I don't know about "far superior", but those are two areas where I would prefer the Fire.

Pros and cons on ea h device. For me though, I enjoy the Fire more. I have a camera on my phone that takes great Pics. I honestly would feel weird taking pics with a huge slab like an iPad. Heck even with the fire.

For the money the Kindle is hard to beat.

I watched the same video on my ipad2 and my Fire. Looked better on the Fire.

The OP had nothing to do with the ipad being able to do more - of course it can. And for hundreds of dollars more, it should.

+1. And I have the Fire and Ipad2. For portability, I love the Fire. If I was visiting a client I'd bring the Ipad, in case I want to get on line to show them something.

If I was going to be doing long emails when out, the Ipad, but if I really needed computing ease, it would be my laptop. My emails sync on my Windows 7.5 smartphone, PC, laptop, ipad2 and now Fire, via Rackspace.com (cloud, terrific CS).

Oh, and for just reading? Kindle 3, please, no contest, above and beyond all others - despite the low price tag. Best isn't always determined by price tag. And having a K3 Plus Fire in my tote works better than K3 than Ipad. So it's just what I want to do when.

Thanks for sharing this story. I think it's interesting to compare devices going head-to-head delivering the same service, in this case, video, rather than features one device has and the other doesn't, like cameras. I think the Fire does have higher resolution than the current iPad, though the next iPad is expected to get the "retina display." Interesting to hear about the differences in device size versus actual image size.

I had read that the image size isn't that different in one of the reviews, though it sounds like it depends on what you're watching. I didn't expect the Fire quality to be so crisp - a nice surprise, and for magazines too. I'm spending more time looking at color ads than reading articles... ; )

herfyjo,
The quality of the video on the KFire surprised me too. It even LOOKS like HD, with the same number of pixels the IPad has (1024x600) but closer together and therefore denser on the smaller 7". The color accuracy is amazing and so is the contrast.

Several reviewers pointed out what you did - that with widescreen videos (most recent ones are wide), the size of the video is surprisingly close to what is shown on the 4:3 iPad which then uses letterboxing style, essentially.

While the iPad has tons more apps and smoother features, the video feature of the KFire is really its greatest plus, and for me it was unexpected.

- Andrys
http://kindleworld.blogspot.com

R. Clark,

That is EXACTLY what I wanted to do, but I succumbed to my family pressure and got a smartphone. I do like the convenience of snapping a photo, though which I could have done with a dumb phone, but couldn't have emailed it immediately.

It's not really about the money as much as I wanted a larger screen than a smartphone will provide. But I'm a dummy.

I see this as just another "i need to justify my $200 purchase post..." - and yes I agree the Fire is a great little streaming video device for $200 but the only advantage the Fire has over the ipad is it's lower cost. Everything else the Fire does, it does more poorly than the iPad and more slowly.

I let my daughters try out my Kindle Fire and once they saw the very paltry assortment of apps available, they both said they preferred an ipod touch for the versatility and the extra storage. They found the Fire's interface completely confusing and way to clumsy to use on a regular basic. Just showing them how weird the Carousel is and how you have to jump thru hoops to open and quit an app...

So, it really works out whether the Fire suits your needs or not. I am glad it suits yours and I am sure many people will love it as well. I ordered 4 Fires and am returning three of them. Only my 19 year old son liked it and that was just for the netflix and amazon streaming video.

My grandson played with my Fire today. He had used his friend's Ipad several times recently. He told me that the Fire was just as nice as the Ipad. My Grandkids had a great time today playing games on my Fire. I think the Fire is definitely worth the $200 that I paid for it. I can do so much with it.
Carolyn

If that's the most important thing to you, fine. But as far as entertainment, the iPad runs rings around a smaller screen in many respects. One of the biggest complaints I've seen, for example, is that the Fire doesn't handle magazines that well. I can tell you for a fact that magazines look fantastic on the iPad. And I watch videos all the time on my iPad and have a difficult time envisioning how the Fire at 7 inches has a larger viewing area than the larger iPad. And let's not forget that the iPad has more memory tan the Fire. Besides, all the functionality tests I've read fr the Fire comment on how much slower and more jerky the browser is.

I'm not trying th slam the Fire or argue that it's not worth it's price tag, but you do get what you pay for. And to say otherwise is just silly.