Foot Entering Mouth with Superlative Vigour ⇥

So Josh Topolsky was all…

Still, there’s no question that the Fire is a really terrific tablet for its price. The amount of content you have access to — and the ease of getting to that content — is notable to say the least. The device is decently designed, and the software — while lacking some polish — is still excellent compared to pretty much anything in this range (and that includes the Nook Color).

And I was all…

Sounds a little buggy, but totally awesome and inexpensive. The amount of content that Amazon has to offer coupled with the low price make this a great iPad alternative for those looking for something better than an eReader but less capable than an iPad.

And then Mossberg came crashing down hard on that party:

To be clear, the Kindle Fire is much less capable and versatile than the entry-level $499 iPad 2. It has a fraction of the apps, a smaller screen, much weaker battery life, a slower Web browser, half the internal storage and no cameras or microphone. It also has a rigid and somewhat frustrating user interface far less fluid than Apple’s.

Strangely, he concludes with this paragraph:

At $199, and with Amazon’s content ecosystem behind it, the Fire is an attractive alternative for many people who might otherwise have bought an iPad or another Android device, especially if their principal interest is content consumption.

Translation: it sucks pretty badly, but it’s only $200.