It is not quite a tablet, but it is not quite an e-reader either. Or is that "it is not just a tablet, but it is not just an e-reader", instead?
Bit hard to say, but if I had to make a baseless assumption, that was probably the point.
A lot of tablet makers have been making the mistake of trying to replace laptops, or even desktops, with their cute little devices, when, in reality, people want something that can idly browse the net, watch movies, play music, show them books, and play games on. This does not require copious power, or massive screens, or complicated front ends, but it does mean the machine has to be smooth, seamless, and responsive, because nothing screws up relaxing on the couch faster than a herky-jerky computer doing anything but what you want it to.
Apparently the Kindle Fire (Really, it should have just been "Fire", but those are semantics for another post.) can do all of that… at all of $200. To be sure, this thing is no iPad-killer, at least not when you compare the raw specs, but the behind-the-surface integration Amazon is promising… well, I do not think we have ever seen anything like that on this scale before, at least not on a mobile platform. That said, I think the decision to not provide any 3G support at all will come back to bite them in the ass for non-city users, given the heavy dependence the system seems to be having on "cloud storage" and the lack of pervasive wifi hotspots outside of metropolitan areas.
I kinda want one. But only kinda. Having an Android phone an dealing with Amazon’s Appstore has engendered a… shall-we-say "wary"… outlook on what Amazon does with my mobile devices, and the software that goes on them, and since I doubt this Fire will be able to access the generic Google Market, one’s options are limited.
If this thing were more "Android" and less "Amazon", I would be all over it, but even as it is, more options are always good things.