More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
3-year cost comparison iPad and the Kindle
February 10, 2010 | 7:10 am
|
By Paul Biba
The Kindle Nation has done a three-year cost comparison of the two units. I agree with the way the comparison was based, which is stated here:
I will grant that it was a pretty good initial PR coup for Apple to announce that the iPad starts at $499, but let’s get real here. Given the fact that the iPad will be all about mobility and will provide a very cool environment for downloading and viewing, reading, or listening to various kinds of high-bandwidth media content (including ebooks), it simply does not make sense to analyze the iPad’s price without unlimited 3G wireless or without at least 32 GB of storage. To equip the iPad with less than the 3G and 32 GB options seems rather like buying a Maserati with a speed governor and using it to delivery the mail in your town, or in this case, the email. And we are talking about a Maserati here.
|
Related Posts:
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
I do not agree totally. Honestly already the base version with 16Gb and WiFi only is more than sufficient for my needs (more than 16Gb are only needed for a large music database, can’t see already 16GB of books!), for example. 3G connection in Europe is an overkill, difficult to justify, and therefore the prices to take under consideration are different. I agree that iPAD buyers will buy it for a score of different reasons and not only for reading purposes, so the comparison is really not a good one, as there are other options which simply do not compare.
What I do expect, though is that the iPAD will seriously undermine devices like the Kindle 2DX, which has the same screen size. In that area, I do not believe the DX will survive long. And other devices having the same size too.
The only thing this article is really saying is that comparing the iPad to the Kindle is like comparing a Maserati to a mail truck. And that’s exactly why such a comparison is pointless in the extreme.
The iPad is NOT designed to compete against the Kindle. Face it, Amazon: iPad is in another league entirely. Comparing the Kindle, or for that matter any dedicated e-book reader, to the iPad only makes them look foolish… like mail trucks against a Maserati. Let’s move on, already!
I quite disagree with their instance that you can’t live with WiFi to get your books on to your iPad. There are plenty of us Sony Reader users out there who live just fine with using only USB to transfer our stuff.
Even more disturbing is their discussion of ways that the iPad could be “helpful to the kindle.” They say that “if [the iPad] gains a foothold as the primary ereading alternative to the Kindle, it could discourage investment in other ereader devices and platforms.” Helpful to the Kindle perhaps, but at the expense of a DRM-free ecosystem.
Having at least three devices each with reasonably large amounts of market share, all with incompatible DRM, is likely to discourage the use of DRM because it becomes more costly or limits the vendors’ markets.
The reasoning for the comparison doesn’t seem very reality based IMHO. Especially given that it is comparing 3 years of use (iPad) of a general purpose customizable (in the “There’s an app for that” sense) device vs. a dedicated e-reader (Kindle).
And why is 3G a must? It’s not as portable as a phone so how often will you be out of range of wifi? I can see business uses for an iPad that might require 3G (and the included GPS) but that’s taking it way beyond the use case for a Kindle and the comparison implodes. (And the kind of 3G usage that would justify an unlimited “plan” (the iPad is supposed to be contract-free) — media streaming — still works better over wifi.
Keep in mind that one of Apple’s target audiences with the iPad are people who’re buying junky, underpowered netbooks because they don’t like computers and thus don’t want to spend much money on them. They want something that will let them email their kids, look at pictures of their grandkids, and perhaps browse a few websites. They are the very opposite of power users, and no one has considered their needs up until now.
From their perspective, the iPad is marvelous. It costs only a little more than a netbook and is much easier to use, especially for those intimidated by technology. And for such people, the $14.95 3G data plan is a bargain. They get all the Internet they need at home or on the go for less than half the price of DSL or a third the price of cable broadband that only works at home.
The fact that an iPad will also be an ebook reader, including one that can display large type or read audio books on the go, is merely icing on the cake.
The problem is they still need a computer in order to download any software updates that Apple releases for the iPad or to register with an iTunes account.
I think the cost comparison raises an important point. With Kindle, the wireless connectivity (whispernet) is built into the price. With the iPad, it isn’t. If you don’t value the wireless connectivity, or if you already have a Wi-Fi network available everywhere you go, or you don’t require mobility, this may not be a big deal to you. Considering that Whispernet is probably (in my opinion) the key to thrusting the Kindle ahead of the pack, I don’t think it’s smart to underestimate the value. On the other hand, Apple has shown great skill in persuading people to spend zillions on data plans with the iPhone so they may well be able to do so with the iPad as well.
Both products are on my wish-list.
Rob Preece
Publisher
Ridiculous comparison, this, and I’m surprised anybody agrees with it. They might just as well have compared the 20-year costs in order to stack the deck even more in their (the Kindle’s) favor.
With the Kindle, how much web surfing is one likely to do? If we confine our Kindle usage to merely downloading samples and books, is it fair to say this this sort of usage on the iPad *requires* unlimited 3G connections? Seriously, who is going to be buying more that 250 MB of books per month?
I wonder also at the ‘requirement’ for 32 GB of storage. I heard several people at the iPad announcement who have iPhones state that in their opinion, 16 GB wouldn’t be enough. But these are iPhone users who load up with apps. If we simply consider the iPad used as a Kindle would be used, 16 GB seems more than ample. But this of course will have to be discovered by the early adopters.
I plan on getting an iPad, and the 3G does tempt me, but I’ll probably go wifi only. Any apps or books I buy, I’ll purchase them on my home network.
And my main use for the iPad will be to run one of the VNC apps to use as a portable controller for my Mac or my PC around the house; I’m looking forward to running Scrivener on the couch, looking up movies online while watching DVDs, etc.
@ Divini – it does appear that the ipad will be a kind of satellite device orbiting around a laptop or desktop, while a kindle is, in theory, standalone once you have managed to buy one using a … computer. But it appears to me that an ipad is also a standalone device if you are willing to pay for the G3 connection.
And that’s where @ Rob has it right – if all you are going to do is read books, why pay the extra $15 a month?
So it is true to say that someone who would be looking to buy a kindle will not switch to an ipad if the ipad requires 3G in order to compete with whispernet.
But a person like myself, who has a home wifi network, will go for the ipad over the dx, because once the whispernet advantage is nullified, the ipad provides a much broader universe of reading than a kindle. The ipad owner has a choice of bookstores, and instant access to all the free reading, books & otherwise, on the internet.
Personally, I would think that wider universe on the ipad is worth the $180 per year for G3 if I didn’t have a wireless network. But I expect I’m in the minority.