One of the best features of our little website is the ability to quickly mix and match products to your heart's content. Here's a sample showing the newly announced Nook Tablet, the already available Nook Color, and Amazon's upcoming Kindle Fire, compared against one another and set against the very popular iPad 2 for good measure.
Both the Nook Tablet and Kindle Fire are Android tablets with 7-inch IPS LCDs pushing 1,024 x 600 pixel resolutions and 1GHz dual-core processors. The Nook Tablet is just a tad chunkier (yet weighs less) but the big difference is the price: The Nook Tablet is $50 more than the Kindle Fire.
Where Nook Tablet comes out ahead is with longer battery life, according to B&N. And although both show a 7-inch IPS panel in the spec sheet, B&N claims to have the edge thanks to its "fully laminated" display offering the lowest reflection and glare with unprecedented viewing angles. But is the Nook Tablet worth the extra $50? For that you'll have to wait for our reviews.
Hit the comparison page to forage on the details, or feel free to swap in your own.



.jpg?1317223622)


Comments
This site’s features are just crazy.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 10:51 AM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
They reference battery life in the article, but I don’t see the battery life referenced anywhere in the comparator screen captures. I pulled up the comparison myself & it turns out that the battery life for the Kindle Fire isn’t even listed.
The comparator is cool, but the pictures of the products take up a LOT of space. It looks like the site creators are taking white space lessons from Google Reader. I can reduce the size of everything in Chrome, but then the text is smaller than I prefer.
I agree that the features on this site are great, but the toothpick still has a bit of cake on it.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 10:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why compare it to an Ipad2, for the price it not in the same league? I just don’t get it
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 10:53 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Because these new tablets are looking at taking a chunk out of the iPad’s market share. Though they’re not comparable products physically, they do compete with the iPad..
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
They don’t even have the same features. These are more glorified e-readers than Tablets.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:05 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
you’re right, they don’t have the same features, they can also do flash. (or at least the kindle fire)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hello, 2008 called and want your argument back.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why does everyone act like flash isn’t around? I’ve used flash on my phone and my asus transformer numerous times. Embedded video on blogs/websites, watching tv shows on Hulu or on a company’s direct show page, and looking up restaurants menus when they have fancy websites as just some examples. I can concretely say I enjoy having flash on my android products
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:28 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That’s funny, since I don’t even like having Flash on my PC.
The sooner it dies a horrible flaming death and is replaced by ANYTHING else, the better. :/
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:06 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I love using Flash on my Acer A500 tablet. Then I plug it in because the battery got crushed at my A500 rebooted itself. lol Gotta love Flash. maybe it should be renamed to Slug to better describe it.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:15 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Flash should die in a fire.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 8:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s all about the flashblock baby! I don’t like the iOS rigidity, but Flash is not a consideration in my tablet purchase.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 10:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m finding that the majority of sites that I visit are detecting my iPad and substituting HTML5 for Flash video. Very few are coming up blank. YMMV, but I don’t feel I’m missing much.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:18 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Same here, in fact I very rarely remember that the iPad doesn’t have Flash…
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because it’s a non-factor for iPhone users. Just about anything you’d want to do on your phone that would require flash is better done on a desktop or a laptop. Also, flash sucks.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
correction, just about Anything you do on your phone is better on a desktop or laptop. The whole point of doing it on your phone or tablet is because it’s mobile.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The King of Video (Google/Youtube) moved to HTML5 and the Half Blood Prince of Video (Vimeo) is doing the same. Flash is yester-year but will still power games for kids and what not.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I love the apple brainwashing where people take it as a feature to not have the option that other devices give you. Personally I’ve used flash for a number of restaurant menu’s. A couple weeks ago I was out and not able to watch the UFC steamed prelims on my computer, but was able to on my phone. And I love watching the escapist zero punctuation column in flash to kill time when I’m out.
Oh, and probably the largest source of flash on the internet (though not for me) is porn. Lots and lots of porn.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I guess I value the “feature” of better battery life and a more stable OS higher than the feature of loading outdated websites and watching porn…but hey I’ve probably been brain-washed so I don’t even know what I’m thinking anymore.. ;-)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Fair enough, but I value the “feature” of being able to view flash content if I want to. Maybe I need that outdated website because it is the only one available. As I said, I’ve watched TV episodes from show’s websites as well as streams of sporting events when I’m traveling.
I don’t mind everything going to HTML5, but until it does, having the choice to view Flash content is one I like :)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I can picture in your room, looking at your phone, going “OMG, my battery life is so long, and the OS is so stable!”… while basically doing nothing. ;)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, I don’t watch porn, either. Never. Absolutely not. I only know of its existence because I saw a WoW video. Watching porn on the internet is totally unthinkable to me.
Oh, wait. You mean people fuxxing? Yeah, I watch that all the time.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Brainwashing! Even the company that owns the platform!
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/9/2549178/adobe-officially-kills-flash-player-for-mobile-says-html5-is-the-best
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They all larger than phones and are designed for portable media consumption (although the Ipad has obviously better media creation abilities and other features). If someone walked in a store and said “I want something I can watch videos on, read books, and browse the web, that is also portable and not a laptop” you would have to show them all three right? 6 months ago you would just show someone an Ipad.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
and what would you call the iPad?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I disagree – not once during Barnes & Noble’s event did they mention the iPad. They knew their existing competition was Amazon. People buying the Kindle Fire or Nook Tablet weren’t going to buy the iPad anyway because of price and/or size.
Customers purchasing either of these devices are doing so because the iPad doesn’t suit their needs or fit their budgets. These tablets define the “media tablet” category, where the iPad covers a range of functions.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Agreed. What these two new tablets do first and foremost is expand the market as a whole.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:54 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
….and as Tim Cook apparently noted, they also further fragment the “Android Tablet market” by being based on Android but not certified by Google, which may actually benefit Apple (vs. a situation where there were two really strong tablet contenders using a stock version of Android)…
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If either or both are strong enough contenders, it would only matter to Google and Google’s business model. Amazon and B&N’s model is entirely different from Google’s, Apple’s, or any of the other manufacturers. They’re using tablets as a selling platform, and not just for digital content. I suspect Amazon hopes to make shopping as frictionless as possible.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Just because they avoid mention does not mean they are not in competition.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Look at it this way (OK this might be a stretch, but I think generally it’s a valid point): Neither B&N or Amazon mentioned netbooks, but ever since the introduction of the tablet form using a mobile OS, the netbook market has been decimated. In fact, who even talks about netbooks anymore? There is almost no demand whatsoever.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Or they’re in the market for both. But your point remains the same. This is a “tablet,” but it doesn’t actually compete directly with the iPad, and doesn’t try to.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What’s interesting is that, so far, the only way to compete with Apple is 1) lower price point, combined with 2) not competing directly. Number 2 has as much, if not more, to do with Amazon’s and B&N’s business models as it does with the feature sets of their devices.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Totally agree. B&N and Amazon are trying to deliver digital books, first and foremost. It only makes sense that, if they’re going to create a tablet, they make it as lightweight, hardware-wise, as possible. It’s a bonus to be able to play games on it, but that’s not the market they’re after.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not a business guy, but would the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet actually be considered in the numbers with the iPad 2, since they’re not really tablets. I mean they, are…but you get what I’m saying. Basically, what I’m asking is, because they’re a totally different segment of the market, would they even be considered in the number for Tablets, or would they still be eReaders. For example, Smartphones and Feature-phones. I know that “all-phones” sales charts are still looked at, but most people just look at it as ‘Smartphone’ and ‘Feature-phone.’ Is that going to be the same for these “tablets”? Food for thought.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why does everyone act like the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet aren’t “real” tablets? They’re touchscreen devices that have web browsers, capable of playing music and movies, they’re pretty good book/graphic novel readers, and they’ll have apps. Besides the camera’s and accelerometer, what makes the ipad a tablet and the kindle fire/nook not count?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What xenetic said, except that the Nook does have an accelerometer and the Kindle Fire (I imagine) has one too.
They are both tablets. Backlit multi-touch devices that can wirelessly browse the web; run apps like email clients; download media content such as books, periodicals music, video; have an app catalog to expand its functionality. These are TABLETS. They are not any sort of ‘enhanced ereader’, they are tablets.
NewGenNewRev, I think it might be a branding issue that is tripping you up on what these things actually do.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sorry, this is literally the first time I got to look at my profile and I noticed I had a few replies.
@xenetics what I mean that it’s not a “tablet,” is the sense that it’s not an “iPad tablet,” which I should have specified. Yes, it is a slab with a touchscreen. However, the term Tablet has kind-of become in concert with iPads and Androids. What that means, at least to me, is that a Tablet is a Media Consumption+Media Creation device. The Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet, are not those. I do not disagree that they are Touchscreen slabs, but I feel that they are their own categories. Clearly.
That was kind of the whole point of my rant. I wasn’t dissing it as a product, but I don’t get the whole comparison between the Kindle Fire and an iPad and how one will affect the other. They really won’t. The only thing that each of them affect one another is their ecosystem. If you consume your media through Amazon and that is all you care about, then the iPad shouldn’t even be on your radar. If one is looking for a 90% of what my computer does, which includes media consumption, in a more intuitive fashion, then you get an iPad.
Sorry for this rant too btw.
Thanks for comments. I really appreciate it.
Posted on Nov 15, 2011 | 4:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that was my initial thought, but when comparing fire to ipad2, even at $300 less the specs are nearly identical. Spending $300 on naff cameras and a larger screen looks a bit stupid when you lay it out like that
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:06 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If by “nearly identical” you mean substantially different, then yeah.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I find the physical statistics in the comparisons interesting. How will the weight of an iPad compare with a Fire/Nook when reading?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Good question. I love my iPad 2, but reading is not always optimal, to be honest. It’s not bad, just not great.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t know about you, but I find the iPad’s backlight to be very straining on the eyes. I actually use a regular Nook (Gen 1) for reading books. The “printed page” look is better-suited for long form reading IMHO.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I do as well when reading for more than an hour. However, the backlighting is an advantage when I read in bed with the lights out before falling asleep.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They may not be in the same league as the iPad technologically, and in terms of capabilities/purpose, but they do serve as a substitute to the consumer, and in that they are in competition.
Nilay once compared to the ipad to a car and said that the Fire was a motorcycle. It’s like that, there are some people who, without the option of a motorcycle, would buy a car/ipad, even though it’s more than they think they need. But now that there is the (more legitimate) option of a motorcycle/Fire/Nook Tab, that’s what they’ll buy.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:30 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I agree, but keep in mind that those people wanting the cheaper motorcycle probably weren’t that willing to pay $500 in the first place. Not saying some sells won’t divert from the iPad. Just saying it’ll be interesting to see how things play out.
Either way, the coming year will be interesting with the iPad, Fire, and Nook tablet in the market The two newcomers have just shown everyone else how to build a successful tablet in a world where the iPad exists.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:57 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Definitely. Throw Windows 8 into the mix with the upcoming flurry of those tablets and the space just got very interesting!
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because people like me are looking for a tablet that can do e-reading, web browsing and mail… I am considering all three of these tablets. A few hundred dollars isn’t a factor in my decision. Since I’d rather have lighter than heavier and don’t need the larger screen, I just want a good experience on the rest of the device.
The reason I don’t already have another iPad is weight and size. If the android tablets are pleasant enough to use; I won’t buy another iPad. They are absolutely comparable products. Anyone thinking they are not are over thinking the end users. The Nook Color is too slow for to every day use for me; even rooted and stripped down. I’m hoping the Fire or Tablet are fast enough to not be irritating and if the color roots just as easily and run the updated OS, I’m probably in there.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
“Anyone thinking they are not are over thinking the end users.”
You’ve just taken most of the commenters out of the equation. They usually understand tech very well, but understand business poorly.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Quite simply, because the iPad is the dominant product in the tablet market. It’s become the point of reference when discussing tablets.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:51 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Exactly. Even if the Amazon and B&N offerings don’t directly compete with the iPad in a head-to-head sense, they are new entrants to “Tablet Space”. And certainly they will take some sales from Apple (for some people, the iPad is too full featured, BIOD), although the way the market is growing I doubt Apple will feel much pain.
One important thing I find in both their favor is that they demonstrate you can have a cool looking Android tablet without cloning the iPad. In that sense, they are competing – on their own merits. If the UI is polished, I would recommend one of these to my Father.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
B&N has been poaching countless potential iPad customers for a year now and Amazon wants in on the action.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Most everyone has seen and handled an iPad, but not so much the case with those other tablets, so it can be used as a point of reference for size and weight.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:08 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Because iPad had 70% market share in tablets, and while not in the same class consumers do compare. Most people I know evaluated the iPad alongside the Kindel, Kobo, etc, because the decision point is, should I just get a reader, or should I get a tablet? It is perfectly reasonable to include the tablet that has 70% market share in this comparison.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What makes it not in the same league?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think that the Fire and the Nook Tablet are going to be great for consuming media like the iPad was originally intended to be, but—perhaps this is the power-user in me talking—I feel like the iPad can replace a light-weight laptop for simpler computing tasks compared to the other two devices. Of course the Nook is mainly for reading, but the Fire is intended to be the iPad 2-kliller, right?
All-in-all, I’m not sure that the iPad 2 will be able to compete against Amazon and everything that it offers for the price that the Fire is going for… but I’m not convinced I could go without carrying a laptop with the Fire purchase as opposed to the iPad 2 and what it offers.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 10:53 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It can compete. At the end of the day, the Fire and Nook Tablet are limited, as you said. You can only use Amazon’s content on the Fire, and you can only use Hulu and Netflix on the Nook Tablet (and I don’t see that many new content providers coming onto that particular platform).
Where as on the iPad, you have iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, your cable company, your Hollywood based studio, etc.
The iPad will continue to be the best option overall. And people will still be willing to buy it for $500. I do think they will lower the price somehow, with either the iPad 2 dropping in price after the iPad 3 gets here, or a new cheaper version with the same basic hardware (though maybe a smaller screen…) altogether.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You’re forgetting one very important thing on the Nook: Sideloading or downloading your own content and having enough room for it. There are also a few other apps on nook color already for things like the Showtime channel that allow streaming.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 9:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There are notable new content providers such as Rhapsody, Grooveshark and MOG. Pandora and Napster have been there the whole time. There’s also USTREAM, Viaway, etc.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s clear that the Nook Tablet, Nook Color and Kindle Fire are same-class devices: 7-inch screens, low prices and obviously built for consuming, rather than creating content. So, why are they being compared to the iPad 2 when the iPad 2 (and any large-form tablet, really) is in a different size and price class?
It’s like comparing the Droid RAZR to a MacBook Air. They’re both thin, but they shouldn’t be judged against one another.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Because these are all tablets, which will compete with each other for market share. Even though they aren’t in the same league, people are going to choose between them. If someone buys an iPad, they are highly unlikely to buy one of the other tablets and vice versa, which indicates that they’re still in the same market.
Your example however, isn’t exclusive. People who buy a phone (RAZR) can also buy a thin-and-light (macbook), because they cater different needs, even though they’re both small.
So, while their specs aren’t in the same league, the products are still in the same market, and will thus compete for marketshare with eachother.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m not so sure – people who aren’t buying an iPad in favor of any of these, for the sake of keeping things simple, “eReader tablets”, weren’t going to buy an iPad in the first place. The iPad’s competition lies with the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Motorola Xoom and other large-form tablets with higher costs.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:10 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Nope, price isn’t a factor, their similarity lies in the needs they cater. Someone buys a tablet to browse the web, play games, read email, kill time, etc etc. All four devices are catering that need, despite them being in different price ranges.
If you already own a device that does whatever you expect from it, it’s very unlikely that you buy a device that will do the same things, be it in a different package. That’s why they will compete for market share.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Price absolutely is a factor. People who want a tablet to read and surf the Web on, but don’t want to drop $499+ on one aren’t looking at the iPad. They want a Fire or Nook Tablet. The iPad isn’t even in the equation.
And not everyone buys a tablet to simply consume on – many (including myself) bought an iPad with which to accomplish a variety of creation-based tasks, including blogging/writing, photo editing and for use in meetings at work.
If you go back and look at the Fire’s launch event and the Nook Tablet’s launch event, productivity was not mentioned or focused on at all. Yes, you’ll be able to email on them and use office-based apps, but that’s not the focus here. These are consumption devices, plain and simple – completely out of league with the iPad.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:33 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Keep in mind though that the iPad is not intended as a creative device, it was intended and still is a consumption device just like the Nook and Fire are.
I assure you that creative type apps if they do not already exists in the Android world will soon be there, in fact, due to the open nature of the Android World, you’ll likely find more creative type apps for Android than for the iPad(due to Apple’s tight grip).
Basically, pretty much anything you can do on an iPad, can be done on just about any Android Tablet, or, if not currently, will soon be able to.
The iPad selling point is the strength and endurance of Apple itself as a company. You buy iPad because you know next year Apple will still be there, still supporting or updating it’s products and software. Apple is less likely to put out a product, then next year discontinue it leaving customers in the cold.
Android Tablets on the other are hand are much like the old wild west of the U.S., you just don’t know who will still be around next year and you may find yourself with an extinct tablet with no support.
So, it’s like this;
iPad: Safe bet but you pay for that safety(more expensive).
Android Tablets: Risky bet and you pay for that as well(less expensive).
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I predict Android tablets won’t have something comparable to GarageBand until about 2016, if ever. I’d guess that’s likely for the iWork suite as well.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have Polaris Office on my Transformer and its great. Google Docs is decent too. The Supernote app from Asus is amazing for a student taking notes, I type with the keyboard dock and then can reach to the screen and doodle a note, diagram, equation, or picture with my finger when needed.
I haven’t used iWork, but I can’t imagine it being anything better than Polaris office, let alone being a justification for a “there will never be an android equivalent” statement.
Although you’re probably right about GarageBand. I know plenty of people who don’t make music though…
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:38 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
iWork is a mixed bag, especially when trying to sync it with the OS X iWork.
The app itself is great to use, but the overall integration, which is supposed to be a selling point, still kinda sucks.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Windows 8 comes out in 2012. by 2016 Android will have market share similar to the *nix’s of today. In fact Windows 9 will be out (They said every three years) so, id say no. Office 2012 and im sure at least one Music making program will be ported to arm for windows in the first year.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They need a real-time audio processing API first.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Not intended as a creative device”? You must have missed the bit where apps like GarageBand were top sellers.
Of course it’s a creative device. I get almost as many words written on my iPad as my Mac these days. Or doesn’t that count as “creative”?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:38 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You seem to be missing the point.. iPad was intended as a consumption device and not a creative device and that is still it’s intent. It is of course like any other Tablet and capable of becoming a creative device, as evident by the apps that eventually came out for it, just as creative apps for Android Tablets have come out.
Microsoft’s now dead “Courier” project would have been a true creative device, but could have also served as a consumption device had it come to market.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If Apple had intended it to be simply a consumption device, it wouldn’t have released iWork for iOS.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Wow, ok, you win, just because Apple release some creative apps for the iPad years after it was release, it makes the iPad a creative device.. Ok in the same manner, smart phones and Android tablets are also creative devices which mutes this entire debate.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
iWork was available at launch.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:57 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Fine, but then all tablets are creative devices which still mutes the entire debate.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m not so sure because I do wonder how useful a Fire or a Nook will be for creative purposes due to the smaller screen – not that I’m saying (obviously) that these are definitely NOT content creation devices but that, far more so than the iPad they seem to be marketed as consumption devices….. Maybe in part because their owners are going to make their money on the content and not on the hardware…??
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You’re changing your argument. Your original contention was that Apple only considers the iPad to be a consumption device. Clearly B&N and Amazon don’t intend their devices to be a platform for productivity or creation.
And the word is “moot”, not mute. HTH.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Mute as in the topic at hand has been lowered to the point of nothing. Please do not try to change my words.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Perhaps you’re not a native English speaker. “Mute point” is idiomatically incorrect. Moot point is what you are meaning to say. Trust me on this one. It doesn’t invalidate your argument. I’m just trying to help you grammatically. Honest.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I appreciate your intent, but I used mute as I intended.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As was Brushes… :-p
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, it’s how people are actually using it that MAKES it a creative device. Please note that the iPad (and even the iPhone) have been used to create magazine covers of major name brand publications.
As for the Apple’s intentions, we may deduce that from the Apps that they have developed and released for it.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly – and based on what and how people developed for the iPhone, it was pretty safe to say we’d see the same (and more involved) creative apps from developers.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Does anyone remember the original Ipad reveal? I never watched it, but I’m sure someone can go back and see what Apple focused on presenting.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Reading, surfing the Web, email (and other productivity stuff) and creating content – they covered the bases of just about everything you can do on the device.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Did they demonstrate Garageband, iMovie, and other things like that? Or did it focus more on browsing, typing out a quick email, your photo gallery, watching movies, and listening to music. I’m not trying to be snarky, I genuinely don’t know
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
GB and iMovie were demoed with the iPad 2. For the iPad 1, they wanted to show off all (or as many) of the capabilities of the device as they could in the time frame. They covered a whole lot, so focus was kind of all over the place.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’d like to know how YOU know what Apple’s intention’s were in creating the iPad…. :-)
But regardless of that, Adobe for one, certainly sees the iPad as a creative device as their suite of apps that collaborate with CS5.5 attests to. I think it’s pretty shortsighted to claim that it is for consumption only – there are many examples that prove otherwise.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I know because I keep up with articles, interviews on these matters. Hell, go ask Apple yourself, they’ll tell you.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really?! Would that be when they were demoing the Brushes app when the iPad was released, or when they demoed iMove and Garageband?? I think we’re talking about two different products here…
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Boom ;)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:55 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I don’t recall seeing those apps demoed when the first iPad came out, but maybe I missed that.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Brushes was demoed with the first iPad, iMove and Garageband with the 2nd one (because they needed the extra CPU grunt)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Did they need the extra CPU grunt at first? Or did the Ipad show them the possibilities and then they executed them in the second iteration with more powerful internals?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No idea…I would imagine that either iMovie and Garageband didn’t run as smoothly as they would have liked on the iPad 1 or they simply hadn’t had the time to develop them yet… just guessing though
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
GB doesn’t run too well on the iPad 1, though it does run. iMovie requires a camera, so it doesn’t even load on the iPad 1. My guess is CPU had a lot to do with GB and the cameras were the deciding factor for iMovie.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Whether or not they were demoed wouldn’t prove or disprove Apple’s intention that the iPad be used creatively. These creative applications don’t get developed overnight.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I just used those as an example because they come right from Apple.
My only point was if you showed someone the original iPad keynote, would they leave it thinking “This is great for browsing, watching videos, reading books, and sending out an occasional email” or “This is great, I can use this to work on my music and edit my video work”.
Of course if they think both, then maybe we’re all wrong for labeling one or the other (it is realistically both).
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That could very well be.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 1:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, there’s so much wrong in here, I don’t even know where to begin.
The iPad is a creation device. Period. Numerous individuals have created music videos, written articles and books and edited short films using the iPad. The people who claim “the iPad is just for consumption” are the same people who haven’t read anything published after April 2010.
Secondly, the iPad’s selling point – on top of the support – is the ecosystem built for it. Thousands of apps, iCloud, iTunes, peripherals, iMessage – these are all things people love about the iPad. They’re not buying it because “Apple will be here next year.” they’re buying it because it’s the best option right now.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yes there is much wrong here, especially with people whom seem to think the iPad was and is intended as a creation device when it is not and was not. If you’d simple do the research, you’d know that it was and is a consumption device.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Perhaps if you (like I) had used the device for nearly two years and created many things with it, you’d think differently…just a thought.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:55 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I disagree with your opinion of it’s the best option.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Based on your other comments, you seem to be leaning towards the PlayBook. I think that speaks for itself.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Don’t assume you know my position, as I do not assume that you are an Apple fan.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the device you have with you is often the best device…I can produce better illustrations on my 27" iMac with a Wacom Cintiq, but I don’t carry that around… :-)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
He’s referring to my statement that out of all the tablets available, the iPad is currently the best option.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
OK, sorry
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed, but a lot of people will weigh those comparisons when purchasing. If one is ona limited budget and content consumption is the main focus, Apple offers iPod Touch or iPad. If one is going to make a 500 dollar or more leap I think comparing the pros and cons are important. You will save no less than 200 bucks based on your scope of use.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:09 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Please add the possibility to use “real units”, in addition to only using your stupid “freedom units” ;-)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hah, we / William and I get this a lot. We will have both “freedom units” and “real units” in a later update to the Verge and our database tools. Promise!
When we launched, we had to pick one singular unit for comparison purposes — as opposed to making people try to figure out the mm-to-inch conversion themselves. Stay tuned!
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok, great! Although, in some cases, as you probably know, “freedom units” are universal, as in using inches for screen sizes. It is only the Germans, I think, who uses cm for screen size; ignore them :)
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 4:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Its still very hard to scope the success because, if I am not mistaken, no one has vetted the Kindle Fire yet. Has this been properly reviewed?? I have not seen anything and I am pretty anxious to see the results. The Nook is a proven product with a clear boost of improvements on a forked version of Android that has been considered by the users nice to use.
Amazon has essentailly been declared the winner only on hype alone. The Kindle is proven but the Android device has not so Ia am still remaining doubtful until I see real results. The whole release of that product of not letting the bloggers and journalists not touch the device still gives me serious pause.
But non-power users may be sold nonetheless and Amazon might win on marketing alone. Their commercials are fantastic and I haven’t seen marketing for the Nook quite as compelling.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:06 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
“Amazon has essentailly been declared the winner only on hype alone”
So true, and its because of a silicon valley/cali myopia I’ve noticed even among those that are usually the fairest in giving coverage. “Gang of Four” bias has polluted the judgment of more than a few honest pundits.
You’d be right in saying that Amazon does better marketing on mass media platforms. William Lynch should invest in this beyond just the sporadic full page ad in the NYT and relying on booksellers to hand-sell and demonstrate the device to customers. However, the latter is a killer, lucrative advantage and if someone disagrees with that they have lost their grip on the reality of a physical presence and face to face conversation. It is such an easy way for B&N to grab customers that it isn’t even funny.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let’s not forget the marketing prowess of Apple. Even if Amazon makes a large and successful marketing campaign for the Kindle Fire, if it begins to cut into Apples market, Apple come back fighting and with a vengeance to regain it’s market.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 1:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is kinda surprising the small tablets are not all that lighter than iPad (given its huge glass front panel about twice the size of the others). Also it is interesting, that these are about the only tablets on the market with primary portrait orientation.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:11 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
One third of a pound actually feels a lot heavier when holding it for very long. You can do a backyard experiment with rocks to get an idea. That said, the position you’re holding it in does make a difference.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would choose the new Nook Tablet over a Kindle fire. The great Nook hacking community alone makes it worthwhile.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I completely forgot about that dude, thanks for the reminder, I think I will get a Nook. They rooted the new color recently I believe unless its Hacker fiction I saw on Hack a Day.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
With the cost the Fire is going out at, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a huge community grow out of that as well.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It doesn’t boot off the SD card like the Nook does. It doesn’t have an SD card slot. The Fire is going to be in the position that most android phones are: waiting weeks for an exploit to be found, initially only able to be done over ADB which will be hit or miss. Maybe they’ll find an exploit in the browser, or a gingerbread weakness.
I’m not sure what you know about the hacking community (xda and rootzwiki). All that matters in rooting is the hardware. Software is replaceable. The Kindle Fire has sorry hardware compared to the Nook Tablet. I have no doubt that someone will crack the Fire but thinking that the development community is going to rally behind a recycled playbook design, without an sd card slot, with half the RAM and onboard storage, is facepalm worthy.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 12:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish one of them would release a tablet with a switchable IPS LCD/E Ink display
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
still sticking to Kindle Fire ; outside of the US i don’t see anybody thinking of the Nook
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because it’s only available in the US. I had to import mine.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 8:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No camera and mic comparison? No word on apps, iPad has tons. These devices aren’t really even in same category as iPad.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Even if Nook did not directly target iPad, Kindle Fire did. And Nook is competing with Fire, and thus competes with Fire’s competitors as well.
The reality is, the Fire is trying to be a “good enough” alternative to the iPad. It may encroach on a subset of the iPad market and “steal” sales, even if it is not feature by feature identical to the iPad.
When all Kindle had was an eInk screen, it did not compete, but now its trying to be a “do enough of both” hybrid of an eInk dedicated reader and an iPad. Pretty smart move on Amazon’s part.
And now it is being copied by B&N
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not to bash the “compare” feature on this web site…but..umm…the usefulness of the comparisons presented is pretty trivial.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 12:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Think of The Verge as an app: it’ll keep improving with new features over time. Not a complete overhaul every few years.
But I think the comparison tool is still very useful in its 1.0 state. Definitely beats opening up spec pages for each product and then trying to compare data, formatted for different layouts, across multiple browser windows resized to fit next to each other. Come on, admit it, you used to do that just like we did.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 1:03 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Weird question, but does the Nook Tablet not have speakers?

The other devices in the comparison all have either stereo or mono speakers, and the Nook Tablet’s entry is conspicuously missing.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 1:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Doesn’t mean it’s lacking speakers — we made a very conscious decisions to say “no” only if we knew for sure — it’s just a line not filled out. And that’s be corrected as I type into an adjoining window.
(It’s mono, if you were curious.)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey on comparison page iPad 2 is still listed to be on iOS 4.3 as latest version ,please fix that.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 8:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have a 1st generation iPad and I briefly owned a Nook Color (I returned it at the end of my 2 week return period). While my overall vote goes to the iPad in terms of the ecosystem and the variety and quality of the apps, I do have to admit that at first I wasn’t going to return the Nook Color. I loved it. I loved that I could hack a full version of Android onto it and I love the size and form factor. Even though I can get the Nook and Kindle apps (and ComiXology) on my iPad, I just don’t find myself using the iPad for reading. It’s too large, heavy, and unwieldy. I am strongly considering buying either the Kindle Fire or the Nook Tablet as a reader supplement to the iPad.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You obviously do not suffer from Technophobia! Does each room in your place have a dedicated gadget? ;-)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Going by the logic of 7 inch tablets, I think the next step is for Apple to release a mini-iPad http://www.maindevice.com/2011/11/03/next-nook-color-threat-for-kindle-fire-and-serious-reason-for-ipad-mini/
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I thought Apple was already working on that?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Possibly. It’s rumor, and you know how those work out wrt Apple. Still, I recall Jobs saying that Apple wouldn’t make a 7" tablet, so they probably will eventually, when it suits their purposes.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ahhh… That’s what it was, they said they didn’t intend on making one… I remember now, thanks. :-)
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s like when music players started gaining the ability to do video, Jobs said the iPod would never have that ability. Fast forward a year or two . . . . the iPod plays videos.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whilst I agree with you to a certain extent, I still can’t quite see how Apple would make a 7" tablet work. Either it would have to be a separate category in the App Store (like the iPad), or it would have to run scaled up iPhone apps (as the iPad can do), or scaled down iPad apps…Neither seems like a good solution…?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Depends on the resolution of the screen, really. Anyway, I think it’s a good bet that Apple will offer a 7" tablet AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, i.e., not never. Am I hedging? Hell yeah!
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s true, but a current iPad app shrunk down to 7" isn’t going to be easy to navigate (unless you shrink your fingers too), regardless of the resolution – still I’m sure Apple can solve that it they want to, I wouldn’t bet against it either…
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If anyone could port or create a new app eco-system, it would be Apple, so I believe they could easily bring a 7" to market along with a new app eco-system along with it. Due to iPad’s popularity I’m sure developers would jump right on this as well.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But then there would be Fragmentation! :p
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Which Apple manages quite well between iPhone and iPad right now, so no change really.
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 1:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can you include pixel density for any device with a screen?
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks for the comparison charts. I’m still undecided as to which tablet to get, so I’ll wait till next year to see what other tablets will come to the market.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 2:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you’re not totally creaming your pants for a tablet NOW, wait for the after-Xmas sales.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I find this whole 1080p video on a tablet thing funny. What’s the point of 1080p video playback on the device when the screen resolution can’t even display 720p much less 1080p. It makes sense on the iPad cause it can do full mirroring at 1080p, but that’s only useful if your going to be watching a movie that way. If your just watching it on the device, just stick with 720p.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have a Nook Color and an Acer Iconia Honeycomb Tablet, and my wife has an original ipad. The Nook Color is definitely used for different purposes than the bigger tablets. Light web browsing and reading are great on the Nook Color while gaming and watching video is much better on the bigger screen. They do belong on the same chart since they do many of the same things even if they have different strengths and weaknesses. I consider to the Nook Color and the Kindle Fire gateways to introduce people to what a tablet can do without breaking the bank to see if it’s for them or not.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The graphics (comparison tables) on this web page made my eyes water.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:27 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
There ought to be an upper limit on the scale factor for images, such that the browser does not render them any larger than the base size of the image.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 4:28 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
It is unfortunate that they just left the nook color look alone and didn’t aim for a more polished premium feel for the tablet.
This is more like it:
.
Posted on Nov 07, 2011 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So what will I be able to do with a Nook Tablet that I can’t with a Nook Color?
Posted on Nov 08, 2011 | 11:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed